Wednesday, December 30, 2020

All Major Western Media Outlets Take "Private Dinners", "Sponsored Trips" From Chinese Communist Propaganda Front

 By Natalie Winters of The National Pulse

A host of corporate media outlets including CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and MSNBC have participated in private dinners and sponsored trips with the China-United States Exchange Foundation, a Chinese Communist Party-funded group seeking to garner “favorable coverage” and “disseminate positive messages” regarding China, The National Pulse can reveal.

Other outlets involved in the propaganda operation include Forbes, the Financial Times, Newsweek, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC News, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, AFP, TIME magazine, LA Times, The Hill, BBC, and The Atlantic.

The relationship is revealed in the Department of Justice’s Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings, which reveal a relationship spanning over a decade between establishment media outlets and the China–United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF).

‘Neutralize Opposition.’

CUSEF is a Chinese Communist Party-funded initiative founded by Tung Chee Hwa. The group also targets American universities with offers to fund policy research, high-level dialogues, and exchange programs.

Tung also serves as Vice-Chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), identified by the U.S.-China Security and Economic Review Commission as a key component of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Work Front.

The effort, according to the U.S. government report, aims to “to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party.”

“The United Front strategy uses a range of methods to influence overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies,” it continues.

This strategy appears to have been deployed in conjunction with outlets such as CNN, New York Times, and the Washington Post.

Targeting Reporters, Journalism Students.

A 2011 FARA filing highlighted by Axios detailed CUSEF’s agreement with American lobbying firm BLJ. It outlines how CUSEF set out to “effectively disseminate positive messages to the media, key influencers and opinion leaders, and the general public” regarding China.

To do so, CUSEF targeted working journalists and journalist students:

In order to develop favorable coverage in key national media, BLJ will continue to organize and staff “familiarization trips” to China. This includes recruiting top journalists to travel to China, selected for effectiveness and opportunities for favorable coverage.

In 2009 alone, CUSEF generated 28 media placements as a result of its four journalist visits and BLJ secured “the publication of 26 opinion articles and quotes within 103 separate articles” on behalf of CUSEF.

Outlets included Newsweek, the National Journal, the Nation, Congressional Quarterly, U.S. News, World Report, The Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Note.

“BLJ directly contributed to or influenced” an average of three articles “per week.”

Guilty.

While universities, including the University of Texas at Austin, have divested from CUSEF in light of its Chinese Communist Party ties, the same cannot be said for dozens of Western media outlets.

FARA filings from CUSEF’s American lobbying firm BLJ reveal American media organization participating in “private dinners at BLJ’s CEO’s home on behalf of CUSEF,” trips to China, and meetings with CUSEF officials.

A filing dated January 1st, 2012, show outlets including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, CNN, and more participating in “private dinners” at the home of CUSEF’s American lobbying firm’s CEO.

The same filing reveals that outlets including National Public Radio (NPR), The Atlantic, MSNBC, and Reuters had journalists visit China to meet with CUSEF officials.

Since then, filings continue to reveal a host of Western outlets attending private dinners and visiting China. Most outlets are included more than once.

In 2013, The Washington Post joined a China-bound journalism delegation, in 2014 Harvard Business Review also joined a delegation, and in 2015, the Los Angeles Times and The Huffington Post also visited the communist country.

A 2014 filing reveals that lobbying firm BLJ “arranged private dinners in New York and Washington DC on behalf of CUSEF” with over 20 attendees including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, and more:

Images in CUSEF brochures shed light on the entities visited by journalists.

Between 2011 and 2013 images reveal journalist touring Huawei – a telecommunications firm labeled a “national security threat” and military collaborator by the U.S. government – along with Chinese military bases:

Results.

Following the ongoing pressure campaigns, CUSEF has escaped significant criticism in the corporate press. There have only been a few mentions in broader pieces concerning Chinese Communist Party influence operations on American college campuses.

Such behavior from news outlets implies a conflict of interest, or worse: that the ostensible news outlets have been bought off.

Even when CUSEF is criticized, such as in The Washington Post article “China’s reach into U.S. campuses,” CUSEF’s Executive Director Alan Wong was offered a rebuttal: something that even Americans on the political right fail to obtain from outlets such as the Post.

Vox, another outlet participating in CUSEF’s journalism trips, prefaced an article on President Trump and North Korea by noting author Yochi Dreazen “wrote it while on a trip to China sponsored by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF)”:

The author of this article wrote it while on a trip to China sponsored by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), a privately funded nonprofit organization based in Hong Kong that is dedicated to “facilitating open and constructive exchange among policy-makers, business leaders, academics, think-tanks, cultural figures, and educators from the United States and China.” Vox.com’s reporting, as always, is independent.

The article, which featured quotes from Chinese Communist Party officials, appeared to regurgitate the party line, noting “Beijing won big.”

As Foreign Policy magazine noted, to its credit, CUSEF is scarcely a privately funded non profit but rather is “a registered foreign agent bankrolled by a high-ranking Chinese government official with close ties to a sprawling Chinese Communist Party apparatus that handles influence operations abroad.”

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Peak Hype: Timing Cryptocurrency Tops with Social Media Data

From insights.santiment.net

Over the past few years, a growing number of Wall Street and cryptocurrency analysts have started to rely on a relatively underutilized source of information to try and beat their respective markets with: social media.


For obvious reasons, social media is seen as a potential treasure trove of market sentiment information, and the macro analysis of forum messages, twitter comments and other social data to gain an edge has quickly been embraced by veteran quants. However, the ability of this data to actually and accurately predict price trends and develop new market alpha is still hotly contested by many crypto traders.


Hopefully, our latest study might finally put an end to this debate.


Trading Crypto with Social Media Data


At Santiment, we gather a massive amount of information from social media to try and determine its impact on the crypto market. As you read this, our system is collecting all incoming messages from over 1000 crypto-specific social media channels, including hundreds of Telegram groups, crypto subreddits, vetted twitter accounts, professional trader chats not indexed by Google and more.


We’ve already developed various market indicators using this dataset, like our ‘Social Volume’ metric which shows the amount of coin-specific mentions on crypto social media over time:

The amount of ‘Bitcoin’-related mentions on crypto social media over the past year (Source: Sanbase)

Though the initial results looked promising, in the early days of building our social dataset we too weren’t really sure whether this tool will end up producing any actionable insights about the crypto market, or mostly prove to be trivial intelligence or useless noise.

We quickly found out it was going to be the former.


Timing Price Tops by ‘Peak Hype’


The first real clues about the usefulness of social media data came when we created Emerging Trends, a handy list of the top 10 words with the highest growth ih crypto-related social mentions, which automatically updates every hour.

Every hour, our Emerging Trends list calculates the top 10 words gaining the most steam on crypto social media

The initial goal of this tool was to build an easy way to discover fresh and quickly developing topics in the crypto community before they hit the ‘mainstream’, and many of our customers still primarily use it in this way.


However, we quickly discovered that this tool also had a nifty side effect. Whenever a particular coin’s name would appear in the top 3 positions on the list, it usually meant two things:


  1. 1. The coin is experiencing a strong price rally. This, of course, made sense - even in 2020, outside of Bitcoin and Ethereum most cryptocurrencies only ever attract serious attention from the general crypto community during a pump.

  2. 2. A price correction was imminent. Think of this as ‘peak hype’ - the bigger the spike in a coin’s social mentions, the more likely everyone interested in the project has ‘bought in’ already, leaving mostly sell pressure.


This second point was a big deal. If we could prove this to be true beyond anecdotal evidence, it would turn our Emerging Trends tool from a nifty ‘market overview’ tool to an entirely new leading price indicator for cryptocurrencies.


So after more than a year of data gathering - and some nicely executed trades based on this information by the Santiment team and community members - we recently put this theory to a proper test.


The Social Backtest


To stress-test the theory that a high placement on our Emerging Trends list indicated a looming correction, we used a so-called ‘event study’ which analyzes the coin price a set amount of days before and after a certain signal fires, and then averages this price information for all observed signals.


Our signal ‘trigger’ was simple - any time that a coin’s name appears in the top 3 words on our Emerging Trends list.

Recently, the price of TFUEL dropped by -35.87% in the 6 days after showing up on our Emerging Trends list

(One important caveat - the top 5 cryptocurrencies were excluded from this study. Unlike with mid and low-cap coins, the spikes in the mentions of Bitcoin or Ethereum aren’t always purely pump related. They also happen around major project announcements and often near local bottoms as well. The impact of social data on top cryptocurrencies will be the subject of a future study.)


So far, there have been 198 instances that satisfied our selected criteria - a coin’s name appearing in the top 3 positions on our Emerging Trends. So we analyzed the average coin price for these 198 signals - from the 2 weeks before to the 2 weeks after these coins claimed a top 3 position on our Emerging Trends list:

As you can see, there is a sharp increase in the price of these coins before the signal triggers. This further gives legs to our theory that price pumps are in fact the biggest reason why all of these coins suddenly get talked about a whole lot more than usual.


The 0 point on the X axis marks the average price of the analyzed coins on the day that the signal triggers. The most important part of the backtest is what happens afterwards:


Within the next 12 days after a coin claims a top 3 position on our list of Emerging Trends, its price drops by an average of 8.2 percent!


Again - this is on a sample size of almost 200 observed signals.


Now, an experienced analyst would also ask about the behavior of the market itself. Afterall, the market might have been going down anyway, which would’ve contributed to a decline in the prices of these coins.


For this reason, an event study also looks at the market itself and tries to nullify its impact by removing a calculated beta.


What does that mean? The below graph shows the results of our backtest alongside the average price behavior of Bitcoin, used here as a proxy for the crypto market:

With this information, we can now go back and calculate a ‘beta’, or a measure of how much each of our analyzed assets typically reacted to the market. Then, we can use this to remove the market’s impact on their price performance.


With the beta calculated, here are the results of our backtest after we removed the impact of the market from the analysis (in orange):

Even though the downtrend has reduced slightly after the signal triggers, the general behavior remained very much the same. With the overall market impact removed, the analyzed coins lost an average of 6% in the 12 days after appearing on our list of Emerging Trends.


Automated vs Human Signals


The initial results of our event study demonstrate the massive potential of social media information as a leading sell indicator in cryptocurrencies. That said, placing aggregated data in proper market context is key to profitable trading in the long-term. And this is something that no amount of automation can achieve.


This is also why we at Santiment don’t only provide hard data about the crypto market, but also focus on producing daily insights and analysis to contextualize this market behavior in a way that only a human analyst can. You can read our latest market reports and analysis over on insight.santiment.net:

Of course, many of our insights in the past have been inspired by different coins showing up on our list of Emerging Trends. ‘Coin go moon’ is often an interesting starting point to try and explain the fundamental factors that have enabled the rally, and to determine where the coin might go from here.


In a small portion of these insights - or whenever we identify clear trends in both the coin’s social and its on-chain data - we also give explicit SELL calls.


We recently started doing this more often, but for the purpose of this analysis, we looked at 18 insights where we explicitly called a ‘top’ based on the fact that a coin’s name appeared on our list of Emerging Trends.


Here is the price performance of the coins featured in those 18 insights, 2 weeks before and 2 weeks after we wrote about them:

Minus some ebbs and flows, the general pattern is again the same - the coins pump prior to our article(s), and begin to decline shortly afterward. This time, however, the actual size of an average downtrend is much stronger compared to automated signals: in the 12 days after we published our ‘top’ calls, the price of these coins decreased by an average of 18.1%!


The same pattern holds when we calculate the ‘beta’ to remove the impact of the market on the price of these coins:

While the sample size is considerably smaller, this further validates our belief that - in order to truly be effective - market data needs to be interpreted by experienced analysts. Information is power but only in the right hands, which is why the Santiment team and vetted community members publish unique analysis about the crypto market each and every day. Again, you can find all of our market reports and daily insights on insights.santiment.net


Conclusion


As laid out above, the results of our event study clearly showcase the potential of social media data as a leading sell indicator in cryptocurrencies. The second backtest also suggests that an enrichment of data through human interpretation typically yields the best results.


When used to predict downtrends, the appearance of a coin in the top 3 words on our Emerging Trends list suggests an average downtrend of 8.2% for automated signals and 18.1% for human-created signals.


In the future, we will attempt to extend this study to include the largest cryptocurrencies as well, and analyze the predictive power of other social metrics, like our ‘crowd sentiment’ indicators that we have recently introduced to Sanbase Pro.


In the meantime, you can check out Emerging Trends live on Sanbase and try its predictive power for yourself. The tool is still 100% free - for now *wink wink*

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

Bitcoin Rebounds Despite SEC "Attack On Crypto Industry"

 From Zero Hedge:

Cryptos broadly dived overnight as Ripple tumbled on headlines suggesting an imminent SEC lawsuit over XRP sales.

Source: Bloomberg

Since then Bitcoin has rebounded (and so has XRP modestly)...

Source: Bloomberg

CoinTelegraph's Jon Rice reports that Ripple will be sued by the United States Security and Exchange Commission for allegedly selling unlicensed securities in the form of XRP tokens, according to Fortune.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

In a move reminiscent of Coinbase's recent front-running of a New York Times expose of its alleged treatment of employees of color, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has taken the unusual step of posting to Twitter to seemingly legislate the issue in the court of public opinion.

“It’s not just Grinch-worthy, it’s shocking,” said Garlinghouse.

“It’s an attack on the entire crypto industry and American innovation.”

Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) have both escaped SEC enforcement due to their decentralized nature. However, XRP, the token associated with Ripple, has long been criticized by some members of the crypto community as highly centralized. Ripple has maintained an escrow account of around 50 billion XRP, or around half of the total supply, which the company's chief technical officer David Schwartz claims to have been "gifted" by the creators of the third-largest cryptocurrency.

Despite class-action lawsuits and acrimonious splits between the original founders, Ripple has survived to become one of the fintech industry's richest companies, with a reserve — primarily held in XRP — that could theoretically be worth almost $25 billion, even after a dramatic 13.5% drop in the price of the cryptocurrency token following the news of the potential lawsuit.

A source with connections to Ripple told Cointelegraph:

"There's no way it [XRP] is not a security."

Ripple posted a Wells submission document to its website explaining its position, claiming, "By alleging that Ripple’s distributions of XRP are investment contracts while maintaining that bitcoin and ether are not securities, the Commission is picking virtual currency winners and losers, destroying U.S.-based, consumer-friendly innovation in the process."

The company continued to allege, without evidence, that Bitcoin and Ether are "two Chinese-controlled virtual currencies that the SEC has stated are not securities," and that "innovation in the cryptocurrency industry will be fully ceded to China" should the potential lawsuit brought by the SEC be successful.

According to Fortune, both Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen, whose combined wealth is estimated at $13 billion, are expected to be named as defendants in the possible lawsuit.

Although Garlinghouse has stated that Ripple would continue to thrive even with a security designation for XRP, the company has recently claimed to be seeking new headquarters outside of the United States, claiming that a lack of regulatory clarity was forcing its hand.

Cointelegraph reached out to Ripple for comment on whether Larsen and Garlinghouse would stay in the United States in light of the potential lawsuit, and had not received a response at the time of publication.

Monday, December 21, 2020

Pork City: Here Are The Most Ridiculous Pet Projects In $900 Billion Stimulus Package

 From Zero Hedge:

As Congress prepares to pass a $900 billion COVID-19 stimulus bill rolled into a consolidated appropriations package - with funding for assistance for households and businesses, along with vaccine distribution and other pandemic-related measures, the bill also includes a ton of pork per usual.

We already know about the $600 checks for each adult and dependent. This time, however, 'mixed-status' households where eligible citizens live with illegal immigrants, will not only receive payments - they can retroactively claim benefits after being left out of the last round.

Illustration via WSJ.com

And now, on to the pork... which includes billions to foreign countries, US military weapons purchases which go above and beyond their budgets, $40 million for the Kennedy Center, and nearly $200 million so that federal HIV/AIDS workers overseas can buy cars and car insurance, among other things.

FOREIGN HANDOUTS:

minimum of $3.3 billion in grants to Israel.

Also included is $453 million to Ukraine, on top of the $400 million Trump eventually released. No word on how much of that goes to the 'big guy.'

$10 million for "gender programs" in Pakistan.

$1.3 billion to Egypt, and $700 million to Sudan.

$135 million to Burma, $85.5 million to Cambodia, $1.4 billion for an "Asia Reassurance Initiative Act," and $130 million to Nepal.

BOMBS AWAY

$4 billion for Navy weapons procurement, $2 billion for Space Force and $2 billion for Air Force missiles.

BUREAUCRATIC BONANZA AND OTHER MALARKEY

$208 million to upgrade the Census Bureau's computer systems (which couldn't have waited until the next count in 2030?).

$40 million for the Kennedy Center, and funding to discourage teenagers from drinking and hooking up.

$193 million for federal HIV/AIDS workers to buy cars and car insurance overseas, and a feminist museum.

Funding for a commission to educate consumers "about the dangers associated with using or storing portable fuel containers for flammable liquids near an open flame." (What?)

Just remember, $600 is a significant amount...