Tuesday, November 24, 2020

LabCorp Hidden Liabilities With Faulty Paternity Tests

From Zero Hedge:

Crediblock.com Second Sight Markets Analysis 11/24/2020

Summary

  • LabCorp provides genetic tests which always name the father who is named in the legal document, not based on science.
  • This creates a massive liability for LabCorp, as the results are used in legal cases and for other means.
  • This liability alone is enough to significantly impact their future growth.
  • New competitors in the field are providing legitimate science based tests.

We have done deep forensic research into LabCorp (LH) specifically on their paternity tests.  The conclusion is shocking; any mother who fills out a form naming John Doe as the father will be substantiated by a 'test' which is evidence in court.  The bottom line, these tests are providing women the opportunity to name any male the genetic father of their child, which locks the 'dad' into paying child support.  Failure to pay child support is the only known financial obligation that can land you in jail, in the United States.  All of this, based on a test that doesn't name the dad genetically, in a statistically significant way.  

The faulty tests

First of all, the tests provided are 'motherless' tests which means without the DNA sample of the mother.  Without understanding anything about genetic science, it's logical to understand why you would need all 3 samples of DNA to provide a statistically significant result (mother, alleged father, and child).

So what are some documented examples where the tests have been proven in court to be faulty? This is perhaps the most interesting case refuting the LabCorp tests, of another doctor that actually fathered 75 children with artificial insemination:

But defense attorney David Axelson asked Stuhlmiller whether some genetic markers he did not test for might have excluded Jacobson, and whether if Jacobson had a twin it would have been impossible to distinguish between the two. Stuhlmiller acknowledged those two scenarios might be correct. And he agreed with Axelson that if one of Jacobson’s genetic markers were incorrectly analyzed it could create a problem.

Then there are the many cases where someone takes 9 different tests and gets 7 different results - how is that possible with solid science?

Another is the significant case of Andre Chreky, who had to sue and fight his way to prove himself not the father, and in the process discredit the LabCorp tests.

The Andre Chreky Case

Celebrity hairstylist Andre Chreky was sued by a woman claiming that he was the father of her child, and thus was liable to pay child support.  Chreky knew he was right, because he was never with the woman, so he sued.  After years  and $800,000 spent, he finally won.  The reason?  Shoddy work:

In the case of Chreky, the judge ruled that LabCorp, one of the largest paternity labs in the country, had performed "shoddy" work. An employee testified that during his 10-hour shift, he issued an average of one paternity report every four minutes. Mislabeling, misinterpretation, and switched samples are not factored into the probabilities.

There are hundreds of other cases, most of which will never see a courtroom, as the demographic of the typical victim doesn't have the resources to stage a complex defense.  In the courtroom, LabCorp results are seen as irrefutable evidence, unless challenged.  Most would not dare challenge a piece of paper with the signature of a scientist on it.  Our assumption is that they know best.  But the facts state otherwise.

Other famous cases include Hollywood celebritiesa Missouri case which was overturned during a reality show "Paternity Court", and a 2018 case Powell v. Lab Corp, stating:

Specifically, plaintiff seeks the following relief and alleges the following claims against the specific defendants: (1) LabCorp: twenty-five million dollars for "paternity fraud, illegal random testing, and conspiracy"; (2) NYSUCS: ten million dollars for "paternity fraud, false arrest, conspiracy, omitting evidence from transcript, denial of justice, defamation of character, unsigned and unstamped dismissal for a DNA test for my son, and speedy trial";

Relationship Reports

To illustrate how obvious this is, LabCorp doesn't call these paternity tests, they call them 'relationship reports' - that's because whoever is named as the father in the document mothers fill out, is going to be 99.99% the father, according to the test.  See this example:

relationshipreportAsk yourself, if this is a real DNA identification test, why is it called a 'relationship report' and not 'DNA test' - the answer is in the liability and insurance.

Insurance Policies

As you can imagine, LabCorp carries large insurance policies for liability on these tests.  The premiums paid are in the millions but the potential liabilities are in the billions and/or are incalculable.  Every case which was based on a LabCorp test would need to be revisited.  Here is an example policy from a contract with Alameda County, CA:

18

AGENDA _____ June 14, 2016

Click to enlarge

You can download a copy with this link. 

There are a number of policies, with a $1,000,000 limit for each occurrence.  

From LabCorp's own site, they claim to have performed more than 2 Million DNA tests for paternity.  Simple math multiplication shows $2 Trillion in potential liability.  Obviously that's a huge number, but it does show the gravity of the liability problem LabCorp faces.  And they have charged as low as $25 per test (now they are charging individuals $210 per DNA test).

And that's not all.

When you get a LabCorp DNA test they keep your DNA in a database, to be used for potential third party uses down the road.  Competitors like Ancestry.com and 23andMe have been sued and investigated by the FTC for this privacy violation practice.   Many consumers don’t realize that their personal info may be shared with third-party companies (or used internally) and there have been complaints raised that the companies’ terms of service are not always clear about their unique policies in these matters. 

Reports of inaccurate tests from unrelated sources

Based on our research, LabCorp is not the only provider of the faulty tests, there are even websites and user forums dedicated to this topic.  Articles such as "Problems with Home DNA Testing" explain some of the issues we have mentioned in this article.  We do not have evidence that LabCorp is maliciously providing fake tests as part of a criminal conspiracy - it may be human error, stupidity, or lack of testing standards.  Perhaps LabCorp just didn't evolve with the changing times.  For example, Abbott Labs (ABT) was able to deliver a cheap and fast COVID-19 test, beating LabCorp in a market where they traditionally dominate.  Reports on local news such as this ABC10 talk about 'heartbreaking' results of faulty tests:

The family is suing the two companies involved in the original 2001 DNA test, Bio-Synthesis, Inc. and DNA Testing Centre.  In court filings, the family alleges the two companies that took their DNA samples and analyzed them were "negligent in obtaining, labeling, handling, testing, and reporting tests results."

So this clearly is a pattern in the DNA testing industry.  Perhaps this science is just too new to be trusted?  But even if that is the case, what is the liability for companies like LabCorp that may need to revisit thousands of tests done for court cases in the past?

The law and regulation

What is the law surrounding this issue?  The short answer is there is none.

Scientific Testing is regulated by the AABB, a private organization that charges members $270 per year.  But who regulates the regulators?  Like on Wall St. that is a problem.  And genetics is far outside the scope of the scientific domain of AABB, an acronym that stands for American Association of Blood Banks.  Collecting blood and testing for white blood cells is far different than genetic testing, a new science that was really only started circa 2000.

The Grandparent element

In most cases, grandparent tests are performed to determine paternity—whether or not the biological son of a tested individual is the biological father of a child—in situations where the possible father is deceased, incarcerated, unwilling or otherwise unavailable to participate in a paternity test.  The issue is that this weak genetic link is being abused by would be scammers.  Here is the testimony of one case worker we interviewed about this petty scam:

"Mothers bring in an obituary from the news paper claiming the alleged father was deceased. We would often figure out the conception time period and find it was impossible for the person named to be the father."

https://socialwork.utah.edu/research/reports/posts/learning-from-the-front-lines.pdf

Another version.. 

Bait elderly recently lost their son into a defective test which will place the parents into an awkward and dangerous position

(1) Denial calling the female a fraudster

(2) After the test -  This dynamic flips as the parents are “falsely told" that they cannot be excluded as Grandparents” and that the only way of seeing their “so called “grandchild “ is through this mother they just accused of fraud.

(3) Get Money

Why would anyone do this?

Reap the financial rewards both short and long term, such as:

  • Social Security from fake father (including disability, or other due benefits)
  • Estate from fake grandparents
  • Everything in between

SCIENCE: The simulated grandparentage test indicates that commercially available test batteries containing the 13 CODIS STR loci are typically sufficient to achieve acceptable levels of exclusionary power in grandparentage analyses when the mother of the child in question is tested. In contrast, an almost untenable number of genetic markers is required to achieve similar levels of confidence when the mother is not tested.

Conclusion: Only a test that involves the mother, father, and child is statistically significant to a sigma level as to determine with 99.999% probability parentage.

Orchid Cellmark

Then there is the unusual case of Orchid Cellmark.  This was a DNA testing company that was acquired by LabCorp in 2011.

In 2004 they fired a scientist for falsifying results:

Many of the cases were performed for the Los Angeles Police Department. The alleged tampering has prompted the Los Angeles County public defender's office to begin reviewing all pending cases involving Cellmark.

"What [the employee] did was commit fraud," said Jennifer Friedman, a forensic science coordinator for the Los Angeles County public defender's office. "We now need to figure out ways ... that we and our experts can help to detect these types of problems that we never imagined would exist."   Some of the 20 tests were performed for the FBI. Special Agent Ann Todd, a spokeswoman for the FBI lab at Quantico, Va., would not comment on the matter, and it could not be determined where those cases originated. 

Why would LabCorp acquire a company with such a history?  What's interesting in the SEC report, Orchid Cellmark says that claims of testing fraud do not have a material impact on their bottom line:

We may be held liable for any inaccuracies associated with our services, which may require us to defend ourselves in costly litigation.

We provide forensic, family relationship and agricultural testing services. Claims may be brought against us for incorrect identification of family relationships or other inaccuracies. Litigation of these claims in most cases is covered by our existing insurance policies. However, we could expend significant funds during any litigation proceeding brought against us and litigation can be a distraction to management. If a court were to require us to pay damages that are not covered by our existing insurance policies, the amount of such damages could significantly harm our financial condition, and even if covered, damages could exceed our insurance policy coverage limits. We currently maintain professional liability insurance with a maximum coverage limitation of $10 million. We have been named a defendant in a number of minor suits relating to our DNA testing services, including claims of incorrect results. None of the outcomes of these suits have had a material adverse effect on our business to date.

The point here is that this isn't just connecting the dots - when you begin to research this topic there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.  And remember also that unless circumstances warrant it, most false fathers would not have the knowledge, resources, or understanding to take such a case to court (they may believe the test, that they are the father, or not understand how a test can be faked - people believe in Science and what they see on TV over facts).  But as science advances, and more accurate DNA tests become widely used, the faulty LabCorp tests will have more chance of being exposed.  Once lawsuits and complaints reach a critical mass, that's when the stock is going to drop.

LabCorp stock and ownership

The LabCorp stock chart last few months


Chart
Data by YCharts

LabCorp chart last few years

Chart
Data by YCharts

Institutional ownership of LabCorp is high, here is the breakdown according to NASDAQ.com:

According to retail broker-dealer https://www.levelx.com, the average trading volume is about 800,000 shares a day.  The stock has moved up recently as a COVID-19 positive play, but we don't see that at all.  Other Seeking Alpha authors agree - this is a head fake.  

Paternity tests are not LabCorp's core business, they are a testing provider from things ranging from common blood work, to pregnancy related testing, and hundreds of other things (literally).  But if the paternity tests were seen to be invalid in even a percentage of cases (such as 1% or 3%) that would mean thousands of lawsuits, case re-openings, and other factors which would create a ripple effect for their liability.  This would have the psychological impact on the company and it's brand - if the paternity tests are inaccurate - what else is inaccurate?

Conclusion

LabCorp is a short.  The only thing that is driving the test issues being exposed is awareness, and that doesn't happen overnight.  In fact, it can take a long time.  We aren't saying this is going to happen tomorrow or next week.  But the liability is there waiting for one case to take it over the top.  Once awareness of the issue reaches a critical mass, ultimately, it will be exposed.  That may be a celebrity case such as the Hunter Biden paternity case, or another contested paternity situation.  

We can't say how low it might go as it's impossible to accurately forecast how such liability might impact the company and/or how they may deal with it.  Revlon (REV) looks like it's on it's way to zero.  It is possible for a once blue chip company to fall from grace.  Perhaps it's simply that firms like LabCorp failed to evolve to meet a new challenging environment.  In any case, with LabCorp reaching highs recently, this is a great opportunity to short.

Additional Research

Assessing exclusionary power of a paternity test involving a pair of alleged grandparents

Marco A. Scarpetta Rick W. Staub David D. Einum

First published: 22 January 2007 Assessing exclusionary power of a paternity test involving a pair of alleged grandparentsCitations: 2

David D. Einum, Sorenson Genomics, 2495 So. West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84115; e‐mail: deinum@sorensongenomics.com or davideinum@hotmail.com

[This work was funded entirely by Orchid Cellmark, Inc.]

For more articles like this, checkout Global Intel Hub and see Crediblock Second Sight Market Analysis

Monday, November 23, 2020

WHISTLEBLOWERS: Biden Implicated In Dominion Voting Scam Connected To Serbia

 From National File

High-level whistleblowers exclusively tell NATIONAL FILE that Dominion Voting Systems has been a “national security threat” for years and its machines, programmed in Serbia, are known for vote-flipping like the kind that Dominion was caught engaging in during the 2020 presidential election in Michigan. According to whistleblowers, Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden personally visited Serbia to take part in a scheme that gave Democrats control of America’s Dominion voting machines in coordination with Eric Holder’s Justice Department. The plot is also linked to the Chinese, the Clinton Foundation, and George Soros. This article will take you through the entire globalist plot, step by step.

Dana Jill Simpson and her husband Jim are election integrity and technology experts who have worked for Tides Foundation insiders (the Tides Canada Foundation shares office space in Toronto with Dominion Voting Systems’ headquarters). They are both anti-war progressives in the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party. Dana Jill Simpson has been investigating Dominion for years, and she brought her concerns about voter fraud to the FBI in 2016 — including information about Dominion — but the FBI ignored her pleas for help. Simpson said the scanners for Dominion are made by a company called Flextronics in Plano, Texas, whose CEO does business with the Chinese company Huaewei.

The Obama-Biden administration literally gave Dominion its market share through a 2010 forced divestiture.

March 8, 2010 press release from Eric Holder’s Department of Justice entitled “Justice Department Requires Key Divestiture in Election Systems & Software/Premier Election Solutions Merger” announced that DOJ was forcing a divestiture of election technology from a top company. Dominion ended up getting that technology and thus nearly a third of the electronic voting systems market in America.

“Jim and I as an election team working for Harvard lawyer Cliff Arnebeck located all the DOJ Documents to prove how Dominion Voting owes it 30% Market share to an Obama-Biden DOJ Antitrust division sale done by Eric Holder. No party running for office should have any ties to a company but Biden while in office with Obama let Eric Holder handle this sale to their pet company Dominion . That my friends is as corrupt as it gets,” Dana Jill Simpson said.

The Science Defies Politics blog reported: “It is not clear what products or services the company has developed. It found almost no buyers, until Obama was elected in 2008. In 2009, New York ordered a few dozens of systems from it. In 2010, Obama’s DOJ (Holder – Mueller) took the EVS unit, purchased from Diebold, away from the market leader ES&S, and gave it to Dominion. This gift included the installed base of about 30% of the US electronic voting systems (EVS) market. Within two weeks, Dominion also acquired Sequoia, which was formally spun from Smartmatic, but ties between these two companies remained. Smartmatic is a UK based EVS vendor, whose software was used by Chavez to “win” the Venezuelan referendum in 2004. Smartmatic’s unit Sequoia faced troubles in the US. Those troubles quickly ended when its assets were purchased by Dominion.”

THE DOMINION VOTING TECHNOLOGY IS PROGRAMMED IN SERBIA

BIDEN IN BELGRADE

“I got a tip that Biden took a Trip on May 20th 2009 and that is when he cut a deal to help Serbian Hackers in Belgrade where he was visiting to get control of info about ES and S Machines so he and Obama would have a better chance in 2012. Well, not only did they get a better chance but Biden had Holder force ES and S in a divesture suit in the Antitrust department in the US DOJ to give over half of ES and S to Serbian programmers for Dominion Voting Systems. Such a disgusting situation,” Dana Jill Simpson said. The date for Biden’s May 2009 Serbia trip checks out.
Biden is good friends with the Serbian Crown Prince, who has prematurely congratulated Biden for supposedly getting elected president. They have visited each other at their respective houses.
Here is Biden in Belgrade in 2016

SERBIA

Dominion programmers in Serbia have been scrambling to hide their LinkedIn accounts.

Infowars reported: Screenshots show over 100 employees of the controversial voting machine company Dominion have deleted their LinkedIn profiles. On November 6th, the LinkedIn page for Dominion showed 243 employees on the site and by November 16th, only 140 remained…Why are Serbian software engineers in charge of a product being used in American elections?”

“I have one goal in this election and it is to destroy Dominion Voting,” Dana Jill Simpson said.

“Anyone who stands up for this machinery is nuts and they are misleading the public about where the equipment is made. I know I have been to the Denver office and all it does is sell foreign programmed machines to US voters like they were made in Denver when they are not . The New York Times and Washington Post are misleading the public with lies. I double dare those papers and any papers in the world or other Media to visit the Denver office and then say machines and programs are made there. It is a bald face lie. The Machines are made by Flex in China for the most part and the programming is done in Serbia and Canada and the International Corporation is Barbados. They have direct ties to Clinton Foundation in Delian Project,” Dana Jill Simpson said.

“This machinery not only stole the election from Trump but also Bernie . This bunch in Serbia and Canada of Dominion Computer Programmers hackers works with Hillary and with the UN on overthrowing Foreign Countries with the Delian Project,” Simpson said.
HERE IS THE OFFICE WHERE DOMINION MACHINES ARE PROGRAMMED IN SERBIA

CLINTON FOUNDATION

A Clinton Foundation website item states:

In 2014, Dominion Voting committed to providing emerging and post-conflict democracies with access to voting technology through its philanthropic support to the DELIAN Project, as many emerging democracies suffer from post-electoral violence due to the delay in the publishing of election results. Over the next three years, Dominion Voting will support election technology pilots with donated Automated Voting Machines (AVM), providing an improved electoral process, and therefore safer elections. As a large number of election staff are women, there will be an emphasis on training women, who will be the first to benefit from the skills transfer training and use of AVMs. It is estimated that 100 women will directly benefit from election technology skills training per pilot election.

Dominion Voting Systems shares an office floor with the George Soros-funded left-wing Tides Foundation in Toronto, NATIONAL FILE has learned. Our tipster makes clear that “Soros people” are very close with Dominion, which has partnered with a voting technology company chaired by one of left-wing billionaire George Soros’ best friends and associates. Dominion was caught flipping votes from President Donald Trump to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, and Trump has cited data to accuse Dominion of widespread vote-flipping and vote-losing in key states. Dominion is headquartered in Toronto and has a U.S. office in Denver.

The Robertson Building’s Directory of Tenants shows that Dominion Voting is listed at both Suite 200 (the suite Dominion lists publicly) and also Suite 370, which places it in neighborly range of the Tides Canada Foundation in suite 360. Tides Foundation in America, based in San Francisco, created and financially supports Tides Canada Foundation. The Tides Foundation has reportedly received more than $20 million in donations from George Soros’ groups, and Tides shares Soros’ vision for a radical left-wing makeover of Western civilization and the world. Tides has given out money to numerous left-wing groups including ACORN and Project Vote and recently created the Black Lives Matter Support Fund.

More evidence is here:

This is just one link between Dominion Voting Systems and George Soros. Access Wire reported that “Dominion entered into a 2009 contract with Smartmatic and provided Smartmatic with the PCOS machines (optical scanners) that were used in the 2010 Philippine election, the biggest automated election run by a private company.”

Smartmatic is chaired by Mark Malloch-Brown, who is good friends with George Soros and even called Soros his landlord at a five-bedroom house in Westchester County, New York. Malloch-Brown has worked with Soros on various projects including as vice chairman of the Open Society Institute and also Soros Fund Management. Mark Malloch-Brown is listed as a Global Board Member of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. Here is Malloch-Brown photographed with his friend George Soros:

Nancy Pelosi-linked Dominion Voting Systems is under harsh condemnation from President Donald Trump and his supporters after reported vote-counting malfunctions in many of the key states.

President Trump cited data reported by OANN’s Chanel Rion to state that Dominion flipped votes from Trump to Biden or lost Trump votes in massive margins in states including Pennsylvania and Georgia, where the flipped/lost vote total is higher than Joe Biden’s supposed “leads.” Dominion raised flags when officials were forced to admit that the system flipped 6,000 votes in Michigan from Trump over to his Democrat counterpart Biden. But data shows the problem to be much worse and more widespread. NOQ Report has a deep dive into the Dominion data cited by President Trump.

Bloomberg reported that Dominion “hired … a high-powered firm that includes a longtime aide to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. … Dominion’s first-ever lobbying firm is Brownstein Farber Hyatt and Schreck. Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi’s former chief of staff, is one of the lobbyists on the account.”

Dominion Voting Systems also hired the notorious Democrat political organizing operation Act Blue.

Even Democrats harshly investigated Dominion Voting Systems for its well-documented lack of security and for using Chinese parts.

An Elizabeth Warren press release dated December 10, 2019 documents that Warren and fellow Democrat senators Amy Klobuchar and Ron Wyden investigated and exposed Dominion Voting Systems among two other election software systems owned by private equity.

“The three vendors — Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic — collectively distribute voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the United States. Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these vendors, which “have long skimped on security in favor of convenience,” leaving voting systems across the country “prone to security problems,'” the press release stated, citing election security experts.

Even NBC News reported: “The source of the nation’s voting machines has become an urgent issue because of real fears that hackers, whether foreign or domestic, might tamper with the mechanics of the voting system. That has led to calls for ES&S and its competitors, Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems and Austin, Texas-based Hart Intercivic, to reveal details about their ownership and the origins of the parts, some of which come from China, that make up their machines.”

House Democrats then went after Dominion Voting Systems in a 2020 hearing, with Rep. Zoe Lofgren blowing the lid off the Chinese parts used by Dominion.

Soros-Connected Company Has Provided Voting Technology In 16 States

 From Daily Caller

Smartmatic, a U.K.-based voting technology company with deep ties to George Soros, has provided voting technology in 16 states including battleground zones like Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Other jurisdictions affected are California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.

Its website includes a flow-chart that describes how the company has contributed to elections in the U.S. from 2006-2015 with “57,000 voting and counting machines deployed” and “35 million voters assisted.”

After this report’s publication, Smartmatic updated its website to remove the flow chart and declare that “Smartmatic will not be deploying its technology in any U.S. county for the upcoming 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.”

In 2005, Smartmatic bought-out California-based Sequoia Voting Systems and entered the world of U.S. elections.

According to Smartmatic’s website, “In less than one year Smartmatic tripled Sequoia’s market share” and “has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States.”

In 2007, Smartmatic announced the sale of Sequoia “given the difficult climate in the United States marketplace, tainted by a non-stop debate against foreign investment, especially in the election technology area.”

Among the “case studies” that Smartmatic lists on its website as examples of its work are Venezuela, where it has been facilitating elections since 2004 when it “won a bid to provide Venezuela with a reliable voting system.”

 It also lists Cook County, Illinois as another success story, when in “in 2006, Smartmatic signed what at the moment was the largest election automation contract in US history.” Cook County includes Chicago and its suburbs, a geographic zone that has historically and lately been subject to criticism for voter fraud.

The chairman of Smartmatic is Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, who sits in the British House of Lords and on the board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. He was formerly the vice-chairman of Soros’s Investment Funds and even the deputy secretary-general of the United Nations when he worked as chief of staff to Kofi Annan.

Malloch-Brown’s resume includes stints as vice-president of the UN World Bank and in British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet.

In addition to a close relationship with Soros, Malloch-Brown has worked with consulting firms that are well-connected to Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was an international partner with the Sawyer-Miller consulting firm and was a senior adviser to FTI Consulting.

One of Sawyer-Miller’s alumni is Mandy Grunwald, who ran the firm’s communication contract for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run. She was also the head of communications for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.

Jackson Dunn, who is a senior managing director with FTI Consulting, spent 15 years in Washington where he worked as an aide to President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hilllary Clinton.

Smartmatic has already encountered controversy in the ongoing presidential contest. It ran the online balloting for the Utah Republican caucus last March, when many critics said it was impossible to secure personal electronic devices that are used to register and vote.

This report has been updated to include statements by Smartmatic after publication.

Sunday, November 22, 2020

Shrem: Bretton Woods 2.0 Is Knocking At The Door, And It's Not Here To Help

 Authored by Charlie Shrem via CoinTelegraph.com,

A second Bretton Woods era will be even more centralized and even further from a true democracy...

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

Barely 100 years ago at the start of the 20th century, people were able to exchange dollars for gold at their local bank. While gold was too hard to trade between people, banking institutions held gold and gave people cash for it. This was during what was known as the gold standard. Each sovereign currency’s value was determined relative to a fixed amount of gold. However, in the decades ahead, that standard quickly changed.

Toward the end of World War II, dozens of powerful people organized a meeting to discuss a new monetary agreement designed to minimize the economic damage done by the war. This meeting was named after the location where it took place: Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the United States.

It was a long-term plan with several parts that spanned over decades. And the Bretton Woods delegates decided that multiple fiat currencies would now be backed by the U.S. dollar as opposed to gold itself. At first, the dollar proved to be stable enough to support the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 — until it wasn’t in the decades ahead. During the Vietnam War, President Richard Nixon called for more money. There wasn’t any more money in circulation. So, he started printing.

In 1971, President Nixon ended the dollar’s convertibility to gold, which effectively ended the Bretton Woods agreement after nearly 30 years.

The removal of the gold standard turned each country’s fiat currency into a floating exchange rate that was no longer fixed. Money was not measured by the dollar anymore; now, each currency was measured in relation to every other currency, with prices that constantly changed, creating foreign exchange market volatility.

Bitcoin as an opposition

Today, one asset that fiat currencies are measured against is Bitcoin (BTC). As I mentioned in 2019, I think Bitcoin is the best investment when it comes to currencies in the sense of sound money.

In certain countries — such as Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, to name a few — Bitcoin’s price is currently at an all-time high compared with their national fiat. Relatively speaking, that’d be equivalent to Bitcoin price already being around $20,000.

The problem is that Bitcoin is not ready to be a monetary system in and of itself. Most people who have Bitcoin are just holding it — they’re not selling it or using it as currency due to its potential to rapidly appreciate, despite the downside risks.

Bretton Woods 2.0

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund is now calling for a second Bretton Woods era to be announced in 2020. This would establish the Special Drawing Right, or SDR, as the new reserve currency as opposed to the U.S. dollar. The SDR serves as the most stable investment option for the IMF. Its value consists of the top five global fiat currencies as a protection against volatile movements in forex markets. The problem with the SDR approach is that it could make the economic situation even worse than it is today.

History has shown that when people have an inflated amount of power with regard to money, they will use it. Just look at President Nixon during the Vietnam War and the original Bretton Woods agreement in the mid-20th century. Even worse is that now, nearly all central banks are printing more money, which in turn leads to inflation as fiat currencies lose their purchasing power.

We can’t have a single powerful entity with the power to print itself out of temporary trouble, especially while it would be putting us in future debt that would be impossible to manage. This is the opposite of democracy, where only a few people control big monetary decisions that affect everyone. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin aim to solve this dilemma, thanks to their limited supply, among other favorable qualities inherent in blockchain technology.

Blockchain tech has a solution

Blockchain has raised our standards to expect decentralization in the institutions that are meant to serve us. True decentralization is reached when the hierarchy is broken. Everything becomes transparent, and incentives are offered to push the system forward in the right direction.

Sogur, for example, is a startup tackling the ambitious challenge of creating a new monetary system based on its cryptocurrency SGR that models the SDR while leveraging blockchain and an intelligent economic design advised by world-renowned economists.

I like the idea of currency baskets that serve as a much more reliable, stable means of exchange. I don’t like that the IMF gets endless decision-making power over our global monetary system. Blockchain-based solutions are different — they have a foundation that’s governed by an assembly and, for example, can give SGR holders veto power over every decision at any given time.

Blockchain technology can combine the elements of decentralized governance into a classical corporate structure, in order to comply with international laws and Anti-Money Laundering requirements, while using a smart-contract-based bonding curve to tame inflation and volatility, which remain two of the biggest problems with traditional fiat currencies that can be solved.