This is a video that I published  over 7 years ago. I find it be quite prescient.

This is an extended appearance that I made on CNBC on the same topic. Remember, this was 7 years ago (click graphic below)... 

Fast forward to today, we have built functional product which utilizes the invention, and more importantly, a patent has been granted and registered - with reach into nearly half of the G20. Now, we move forward to implementing what I believe to be one of the most powerful technological inventions of modern time (then again, please realize that I am biased). Let's walk through what it is that I invented, and how it fits into today's world.

 First, a few definitions....

• “Zero Trust” is a situation where there is no or very little trust needed between parties in order for them to safely transact
• "Value transfer" is a process of transferring rights (e.g., ownership, control, etc.) of objects of economic value among parties (e.g., gold, goods, services, responsibilities, securities, commodities, real assets). 
• “Cryptocurrency”, for the purposes of this discussion, is a cryptographically secured account of value that works in conjunction with a blockchain. Examples are Bitcoin, Ethereum, Chinese Digital yuan and Binance BNB

Overview of the Reggie Middleton ZeroTrust Concept

Market efficiency tends to increase—and therefore transaction costs tend to decrease—in proportion to the degree that transacting parties trust each other. However, rent extraction tends to increase—and therefore trust decreases—in proportion to market size1. Economic rent is any payment to an owner or producer in excess of the costs needed to bring what is being purchased into production.Efficient and productive participation in larger markets therefore requires mitigating trust issues, but that comes at a cost. That cost can often be reduced by economies of scale, but even today, there is substantial overhead from buffering against risks introduced by counterparties, intermediaries, post-delivery payment failures, guarantor failures, escrow, etc. 1 Rose, David C. The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.

Since the mid 1990s, there has been an explosion of commercial activity where parties previously unknown to each other agree to transact using the internet as the fundamental communication medium, sometimes even across international borders. Establishing and maintaining trust between those parties has played a central role, and various crude solutions based on traditional, but inefficient and high friction methods have been attempted (e.g., electronic exchanges with expensive fees that step in as the counterparty, “online” escrow and dispute resolution using third parties, various reputation systems, third party guarantors, etc.).

Among those markets where unknown and untrusted individuals interact are those which trade financial instruments (e.g., stocks, bonds, options, futures, swaps, currency exposure, etc.). With the advent of financial engineering, individuals and businesses have been able to leverage computing in financial trading, including automating the process of entering and exiting trades based on programmable conditions or algorithms. However, even with the explosion of the use of technology in this space, such technology is overwhelmingly layered on top of legacy centralized markets. Nearly all impose relatively large costs to conduct trades with untrusted counterparties. Some very high-volume exchanges sell the ability for “high value” (i.e., high-paying) customers to cut in line ahead of less savvy or less well equipped investors. Some have questioned the fairness of this practice.

Further, the cost of contract enforcement in international trade can be prohibitive, and success might be very difficult to predict. In addition, a seller may wish to receive one currency, and a buyer may wish to send another. The value of one currency denominated in another can be volatile. Historically, one way that remote parties have mitigated risk is to engage the assistance of trusted intermediaries. One such mechanism is a letter of credit (L/C). L/Cs are appropriate where a seller does not know whether to trust a buyer wishing to place a large order, but does trust a bank where the buyer has established a line of credit. The buyer and bank agree that the bank will release funds from that line of credit to the seller when the seller meets certain conditions (most often transmitting evidence of shipment to the bank before a certain date). The bank provides the promise (L/C) to the seller, and the seller and buyer agree on the remaining terms of the transaction. However, payment often happens at a later date than the agreement, and exchange rates could vary between the time that the agreement was struck and the time payment is received. Only the largest of institutions have the resources necessary to properly hedge against exchange rate volatility. Additionally, the fees charged by banks for L/Cs and currency exchanges are substantial. Perversely, a high degree of trust must also be placed in the intermediary institution(s), who effectively acts as self-interested document examiners who may or may not independently verify the veracity of said documents before releasing the funds, perhaps leaving much of the risk of mistake, forgery, or fraud on the shoulders of the seller. As such, L/Cs are typically not well-suited for consumer transactions, or where transactions involve currencies whose values may vary wildly in relation to each other.

Decentralized digital currencies (or so-called “cryptocurrencies”)—technologies that promise tightly-controlled asset creation coupled with the ability to transfer control or ownership of those assets computationally when rigorously-defined criteria are met, with little-or-no dependency on third party intermediaries, and with very low transaction costs compared to traditional mechanisms—are relatively new creatures. The Bitcoin protocol and progeny (Ethereum, Litecoin, etc.) are one such class of technologies that have recently enjoyed meteoric rises in popularity (and valuation).

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention pertains to systems and methods enabling parties with little trust or no trust in each other to enter into and enforce agreements conditioned on input from or participation of a third party, over arbitrary distances, without special technical knowledge of the underlying transfer mechanism(s), optionally affording participation of third-party mediators, substitution of transferors and transferees, term substitution, revision, or reformation, etc. Such exchanges can occur reliably without involving costly third-party intermediaries who traditionally may otherwise be required, and without traditional exposure to counterparty risk.

This patented invention description explores example embodiments enabling two forms of value transfer: arbitrary swaps and L/Cs. Arbitrary swaps and L/Cs are useful as illustrative examples because traditionally the two are very different animals. However, the invention allows for their expression and enforcement in remarkably similar terms. As one skilled in the art will appreciate, the invention can be applied to many other forms of value transfer as well.

• In one example, Party A believes that bitcoins (BTC) will rise in notional terms when valued in New Zealand dollars (NZD) over the next few weeks. Party B believes the opposite is true, that BTC will fall when valued in NZD over a similar timeframe. Neither parties are aware of each other, but each wants to place a small bet in accordance with their respective beliefs. One embodiment of the invention allows those parties to discover each other, collaborate with each other to agree on concrete terms, propose transactions reflecting their agreement, and finally enforce that agreement without traditional, costly measures.
• In another example, Party A is a merchant who wishes to allow her customers to trade their BTC for her services. However, she would rather receive US dollars (USD) because she is concerned about the volatility of BTC. Party A is not concerned about whether BTC will rise or fall when valued in USD. Periodically (e.g., once per day, hour, etc., or even once per transaction where she receives BTC), she can offer to sell exposure to BTC valued in USD in proportion to the BTC she receives from her customers. In other words, she swaps her exposure to BTC in exchange for exposure to USD. Party B has fewer BTC and more USD than he wants, and desires increased exposure to BTC valued in USD. One embodiment of the invention allows Party B to find and exchange—or “swap”—exposures with Party A, allowing Party A to accept BTC in exchange for her goods or services knowing that she will be compensated by Party B if her BTC lose value against USD, in exchange for Party B being able to keep any upside if BTC gains in value against USD. Another embodiment seeks out these swaps automatically upon detection of Party A's ownership of additional BTC.
• Combinations are possible. For example, Party A accepts Australian dollars (AUD), but prefers USD, and wants to hedge against volatility of AUD in USD. One embodiment of the invention allows Party A to swap exposure to USD in BTC with Party B, and simultaneously swap exposure to BTC in AUD with Party C over a similar time period, thereby synthesizing a hedge against AUD in USD. The invention is not limited such that Party B and Party C are distinct parties (they could be the same), nor is it limited such that such that Party A must conduct two separate trades. In addition, various embodiments of the invention allow the parties to perform these types of transactions without maintaining currency deposits or making currency purchases or exchanges.
• In yet another example, Party A wishes to purchase goods from Party B. The parties do not know each other well. Party B wants assurances of availability of funds from Party A, but Party A does not want to release those funds to Party B (or an assignee) until Party B has demonstrated proof of shipment (or met some other condition).
• In one embodiment comprising a swap, a first device called a “client” and a second client participate in a series of transactions where assets from a first party and assets from a second party are committed until a combination of two (of a total of three) of the first party, the second party, and an facilitator release them in accordance with a calculation by the facilitator based on observation of external state, such as the relative value of certain financial, commodity or real property instruments, at a specific time.
  • This is basically a swap without a middleman or credit risk/counterparty risk exposure since the participants (clients) hold the assets in their possession at all times unless committed to the blockchain where the blockchain itself then becomes the counterparty. Until the blockchain has been hacked or in some fashion critically malfunctions, the credit/counterparty risk has been drastically reduced and approaches that of zero, hence the need for due diligence and vetting of your counterparty approaches zero as well as the need to vet and trust the authoritative third party who may hold and escrow funds, i.e. exchanges, brokers, banks. Thus, we now have Zero Trust Contracts and agreements. Swaps can take many forms and themselves can become many things.
• In another embodiment comprising a L/C, a first client and a second client participate in a series of transactions where assets from a first party are committed until either the first client or a facilitator releases them based on observation of external state, such as verification of delivery to a shipper or an address. The L/C as implemented by the invention, remedies multiple maladies in the traditional application of the L/C.
• In a further embodiment, the assets may be refunded if no such observation can be made by an expiration timestamp.
• In yet another embodiment, the commitment of assets may be extended pending a settlement facilitated by a mediator.

A quick Google search for letters of credit and swaps yields…

Note: The net economic exposure of swaps is roughly 1/10th or less of this figure, but for the purposes of this invention’s discussion, fees would be charged on notional amounts, not netted amounts.

$6.6 trillion daily times a 360 day year is approximately $2,376,000,000,000,000, to view this as an annualized number.

These are but two of what is possibly hundreds of permutations to be achieved by those skilled in the art, who can take the invention and use it to replicate nearly any transaction of value in a fashion that eliminates counterparty and credit risk, to wit (as per simple Google searches):

With the advent of faster block and settlement times and more efficient consensus systems, the speed and usability of this invention combined with the simplicity of user-friendly interfaces that allow those unskilled and unfamiliar in the art can transform finance, commerce and any transaction of value to an extent that far exceeds the transformation witnessed by the popularization of the Internet pre-ecommerce days.

This invention seeks to claim that transformation as its addressable space, and this space is monumental and set to grow exponentially larger, to wit:

Op-ed: A new global arms race in digital finance is heating up

www.cnbc.com › 2021/01/21 › op-ed-a-new-global-arms...

4 days ago — Much like the space race, development of central bank digital currencies will influence ... Specifically, this latest phase of progress has its sights set on a massive ...

What Are the Main Goals for Central Banks in 2021?

internationalbanker.com › Banking

Jan 4, 2021 — It has been an unusually eventful year for central banks all over the world in ... see the introduction of the first major central bank digital currency (CBDC) in 2021. ... pushing collectively for the development of the international monetary system

2021 the year for central bank issued digital currencies ...

www.cityam.com › 2021-the-year-for-central-bank-issu...

Jan 4, 2021 — 2021 the year for central bank issued digital currencies? ... China is well ahead in this journey, having planned for a Central Bank Digital Currency (“CBDC”) ... to a blockchain that is controlled by the rules built into the algorithm that powers it.

Turkish central bank announces surprise digital currency pilot ...

coingeek.com › turkish-central-bank-announces-surpris...

Jan 2, 2021 — ... new digital currency in 2021, after the country's central bank announced it had ... Turkey is now at a more advanced stage of development than other countries ...

Bank of France settles $2.4M fund in central bank digital ...

cointelegraph.com › news › bank-of-france-settles-2-4...

6 days ago — The Bank of France has successfully wrapped up a $2.4 million CBDC pilot, which saw ... The Bank of France successfully piloted a central bank digital currency — or ... “From a technological point of view, the experiment required the development ... underway at the Bank of France, with some expected to run until mid-2021.

China's CBDC 'Dress Rehearsal' Sets Stage for Other Central ...

www.pymnts.com › B2B

Jan 4, 2021 — Notably, the digital currency offered by China's central bank does not carry ... Fed and seven central banks have put forth a framework for CBDC development ... the central banks' approaches may differ, but 2021 may show marked progress ...

Swedish Bankers Face Identity Crisis Over Digital Currency ...

www.usnews.com › News › Technology News

Jan 5, 2021 — For a graphic on Central bank digital currencies across the world: ... advisor for the Swedish Bankers Association is concerned that the Riksbank has not made it ...

Venezuela to have 100% digital monetary system - FXStreet

www.fxstreet.com › analysis › venezuela-to-have-100-...

Jan 4, 2021 — To facilitate the entry of the digital currency, the country began demanding Petro in the form of payment in the country's oil-related transactions, which turned ...

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts a typical embodiment for practicing the invention, especially for use with or comprising a transfer mechanism such as a decentralized digital currency, where the clients, transfer mechanism, facilitator, and data source are distinct participants connected by a computer network.

President Obama implemented the Fiduciary Rule, which was supposed to go in effect next month. In short, it says financial advisors and salesmen had to put the interests of their clients ahead of thier own interests. In other words, it outlawed blatantly ripping off your clients. Trump came in and halted this, basically ensuring that it will still be legal to put your bonus pool's interest ahead of you client's interest. Cue in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. They have pulled off the heist of the decade, essentially selling 200 million digital tokens (they're calling them stocks) with no voting rights at a trailing P/S multiple of 60x and forward multiple of 20x for a startup losing half a billion per year, with said losses increasing over $200M Y-o-Y. This is almost the ultimate in reward free risk

Apple has been a money printing press for the last decade. At the behest of the late Steve Jobs, they have had one key, core ability that no other company has been able to match. No, it definitely wasn't innovation or engineering. It was... the RDF. The Reality Distortion Field! For some reason, when normal people look at Apple hardware or financials, they don't see reality, they see Reality Distooooorrrrtion! But before we get to that, let’s see what all of the smart people in the financial world had to say...

We have looked into insurance companies' performance last month in regards to our bearish real estate thesis. A small comederie of companies are suffering losses and/or declining profits as we've exected. This is due primarily to increases in their expense and reduction in revenue.

Yesterday, I did a radio interview with Benzinga. In it I busted myths about Apple, Bitcoin and Coins in general (ABCs). Listen to the interview below and the info sheets afterwards and let me know if you knew this stuff was possible with today's tech - and Apple! 

As for Apple...

And more on http://Ultra-Coin.com...

Why am I so bullish on Bitcoin? Note: this is not an offer to buy or solicitation for securities and is presented for illustrative purposes only.

As we roll out Veritaseum's UltraCoin ZeroTrust Smart Contracts, I'll be posting much more on "the new way of doing business".

Media Exposure

1. Reggie Middleton Intro
2. How Reggie Middleton's Start-up Patented The Future of Global Finance!
3. Reggie Middleton on Wikipedia
4. Who is Reggie Middleton?
5. Bitcoin is not just digital currency. It's Napster for finance.
6. Reggie Middleton's UltraCoin @ NYC CryptoCurrency Convention
7. Reggie Middleton Wins CNBC Stock Draft for the 2nd time in a row - with the same stock

Bloomberg ran a story earlier this week illustrating the human capital flight out of the Wall Street machine and into tech:

At elite universities, fewer MBA and finance candidates are willing to even consider a life of missed weddings, busted romances and deep-into-the-night deal negotiations. The percentage of Harvard Business School graduates entering investment banking, sales or trading dropped to 5 percent last year from 12 percent in 2006, while those entering technology almost tripled to 18 percent during that period.

At the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, the percentage of MBAs entering investment banking dropped to 13.3 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, while those entering tech more than doubled to 11.1 percent.

 Those of you who have been following finance from the Wall Street/Bay Street/Canary Wharf perspective realize that this is a cyclical occurence. Basically, Wall Street falls out of favor with MBA whiz kids every ten years of so. But!!!! This time is different. This time around, Wall Street, et. al. is about to succumb to the destructive forces of technology that transformed, revolutionized, disintermediated, gutted and absolutely reinvigorated the media, news and retail industries. 

That's right! The Internet Paradigm Shift has finally hit Global Finance... and it's going to hurt, and hurt a lot!

As many know, the I've poured my time and resources into a start-up by the name of UltraCoin. Many have been clamoring for white papers and details, and I have been purposely secretive about such. The reason? I needed to entrency protection from my competition - the money center banks. How did I do this? Well...

I patented the future of Global Finance!

This video illustrates my presentation to both the mainstream and alternative media as I start my capital raising rounds from venture capitalists and strategic investos alike. Check it out!

 It started in 2012 wiith the article "Deadbeat Carrier Creative Destruction In The Ongoing Mobile Computing Wars". That's when I warned that margins in the carrier space will collapse - just as they did in the cellular handset space, as new business models and the effect if Android start to ripple and reverbrate. My latest article in the series, "The Smallest & Liveliest Of The DeadBeat Carriers Successfully Launched Wireless WMDs" detailed how T-Mobile will throw the gauntlet down and turn the wireless industry on its head - at great risk not just to margins but entire business models. To wit:

There are 4 major national carriers in the US, basically two big ones two smaller ones. The smallest of the 4, T-Mobile, consistently get beat up - losing out on the right to subsidize the iPhone at a loss (like AT&T used to and Sprint still does) and basically losing subscribers. Then they decided to do something about it. They said, "Hey, let's stop being deadbeats!". By changing their pricing plans and eliminating subsidies and instead selling pure access to their virtual pipes (like a carrier is supposed to) combined with actual "real" financing of the hardware (at competitive rates, nonetheless) they essentially committed DeadBeat Carrier Blashphemy. The only issue was, it worked, to the chagrin of the competition - reference:

• • The Death Of The Deadbeat Carriers, Part 2 - Apple Avoideth, Google Destroyeth
  • Death Of The Deadbeat Carrier, part 3 - Home Internet Access Unplugged!

 Reggie Middleotns Carrier Cost Comparison

Reggie Middleotns Carrier Subsidy Cost Comparison

  As a matter of fact, in Deadbeat Carriers Compete, aka #MarginCompression!!! (exactly ONE year ago), I prognosticated that T-Mobile will kick off a pricing war that will bring about the greatest savings to the wireless consumer it has seen since the birth of the industry. I even went so far as to include and online interactive spreadsheet for readers to analyze their own savings - or potential therefore.

Well, fast forward to today and we get to see if Reggie's thesis is still holding water. From the Street.com in How the Consumer Wins In the Wireless Wars:

Carriers are engaging in a price war in order to win market share, with T-Mobile's "uncarrier" plans really shaking things up. T-Mobile has been aggressively trying to grab market shares by eliminating consumer "pain points," specifically the issue of locking customers into two-year contracts. T-Mobile has been rolling out programs to entice customers to switch their carrier, with the latest three offerings announced in April, where the company under the "Simple Starter," "Tablet Freedom" and "Overage Freedom" - eliminated all domestic overage charges for consumers, even those on legacy plans. T-Mobile had announced in March 2013 its "Simple Choice" plan that offered no annual service contract and low out-of-pocket costs on smartphones.

The company must be doing something right, given its impressive first-quarter subscriber growth of 2.4 million total net customer additions for the three months, making it the "fastest growing wireless company in America," it said in its earnings release last week.

Both Verizon and AT&T are combating T-Mobile by touting payment agreements for customersthat require little to no down payment, more data, and fewer service charges when it comes to multiple phones or being able to pay for the device itself in installments as appealing features to switch over. (Check with your carrier to see the latest offers available.)

That said, it's easy for consumers to get confused by the growing array of options, but it's clear that for once, the consumer is winning since costs associated with smartphones are becoming more transparent and understandable. "This trend, combined with a wider selection of fully functional mid-range and low-end devices, should help win over the undecided consumers but also will shift the growth away from the high end," Kantar stated.

Between the first quarter of 2013 and the first quarter of this year, spending on smartphones on contracts dropped to $93 from $119, while pre-pay spending dropped to $148 from $187, Kantar said.

Now, the mainstream media and sell side analytical community is just a year (or two) late in realizing this, but better late then never, eh? Also from the Street.com we have Why T-Mobile Is Beating AT&T and Verizon:

 T-Mobile US shares were surging 8.1% to $31.67 following news that larger rival Sprint was prepping plans to propose a buyout of the carrier as its impressive subscriber growth for the first-quarter shows that consumers are digging its offerings.

T-Mobile, known for its "Un-carrier" initiatives, has been aggressively trying to grab market share by eliminating consumer "pain points," specifically the issue of locking customers into two-year contracts like Verizon , Sprint and AT&T . T-Mobile has been rolling out programs to entice customers to switch their carrier, with the latest three offerings announced in April, where the company under the "Simple Starter," "Tablet Freedom" and "Overage Freedom" - eliminated all domestic overage charges for consumers, even those on legacy plans. T-Mobile had announced in March 2013 its "Simple Choice" plan that offered no annual service contract and low out-of-pocket costs on smartphones.

The company must be doing something right, given its impressive first-quarter subscriber growth.

T-Mobile reported first-quarter earnings results earlier this morning in which it boasted 2.4 million total net customer additions for the three months, which included more than 1.8 million branded net customer additions, making it the "fastest growing wireless company in America," it said in its earnings release. T-Mobile ended the quarter with 49.1 million customers, it said. On the other hand, the company experienced "record low" churn of 1.5%, down 20 basis points from the fourth quarter and down 40 basis points from the year-earlier period.

...  T-Mobile actually posted a net loss of $151 million, or 19 cents a share, for the three months ending March 31, compared to a profit of $106 million, or 20 cents a share in the year-earlier quarter, according to its quarterly filing. However, revenue at the Bellevue, Wash.-based company rose 47% to $6.87 billion year over year. 

... Adjusted EBITDA came in at $1.1 billion, down 12.2% sequentially, which it attributed to increased equipment sales due to the "significant acceleration in customer growth and the success of its Un-carrier 4.0 - Contract Freedom offer." Adjusted EBITDA margin was 20% compared to 24% in the fourth quarter of 2013.<story_page_break>

... T-Mobile expects branded postpaid net additions between 2.8 million and 3.3 million for the full year and adjusted EBITDA to be in the range of $5.6 to $5.8 billion, it said.

Althouth T-Mobile may be hard pressed to replicate that pop in revenues and subscribers, I expect the trend to continue until and unless the other carriers match it in both pricing model and marketing efforts. I doubt they will do this until it is too late. They should, but they won't. That is unfortunate for thier investors for, as T-Mobile is the smallest of the top 4 national carriers, this is Verizon/ATT/Sprint's (in that order) fight to lose!

In addition, as revenue and subscriber rate increases subside, EBITDA may level off as the switching incentive costs amortize. This is not even considering what may happen if an entrepenurial and disruptive force (ex. Google Loon offshoots) appears on the scene.

For those who didn't get the memo, I've been toiling away in my lab creating the world's first "investment bank, securities brokerage, asset manager, money transfer agent" in-a-box that allows users to perform all of theses functions themselves on a ZeroTrust (meaning you don't need to trust or even know the other side of the transaction), peer to peer basis.

Well, it appears as quite a few of the big boys and heavy weights have a similar idea and are in the market to make acquisitions. Wouldn't it be ironic if UltraCoin (my iconic venture) was acquired before it gets its seed round???!!!  

The Financial Times reports:

[Facebook] The social network is only weeks away from obtaining regulatory approval in Ireland for a service that would allow its users to store money on Facebook and use it to pay and exchange money with others, according to several people involved in the process. 

The authorisation from Ireland’s central bank to become an “e-money” institution would allow Facebook to issue units of stored monetary value that represent a claim against the company. This e-money would be valid throughout Europe via a process known as “passporting”.

Facebook has also discussed potential partnerships with at least three London start-ups that offer international money transfer services online and via smartphones: TransferWise, Moni Technologies and Azimo, according to three people involved in the discussions.

In the case of Azimo, Facebook offered to pay the company $10m to recruit one of its co-founders as a director of business development, according to people familiar with the situation.

 Yes, this space is heating up. It makes me feel good! You see, the Visas, Mastercards, Western Unions and Paypals of the world make a lot of money selling a relatively cheap services for a relatively large amount. BUT!!!! The Goldmans and JP Morgans of the world make much more money by selling very deep margined products and services for a lot more while paying a lot less to create them. It is here where UltraCoin has staked its ground. As the competition amongst the big boys starts to heat up, they will want to crawl up the food chain and I already have the ladder built! 

“Facebook wants to become a utility in the developing world, and remittances are a gateway drug to financial inclusion,” said a person familiar with the company’s strategy. Facebook recently passed 100m users in India, which is its largest national market outside the United States.

My last post on this topic illustrated how UltraCoin will operate in developing markets by allowing currency, stock and financial asset exposure trades of anywhere from $5 dollars to $5 million, as well as sending money to others for just a little more than nothing, as excerpted from "Hardware IS Dead" Thesis Has Now Torn Through All Handset Providers & Now Everyone Can Act On It:

I've created an infrastructure that significantly expands these investment markets by allowing anyone, anywhere with an Internet connection (of almost any speed) to participate in almost any of the world's public financial markets. Taking the subject matter of this article into consideration, we can short Samsung on its own home exchange of Korea for nearly any amount, from $10 million US down to $8 ...

These same young investors can even hedge thier currency translation risk with a Korean Won US dollar forex pair, for 55 basis points!

Armed with the information from simply reading my blog posts, your brothers from Haiti or Botstwana can now take short positions in these (margin)doomed hardware manufacturers - taking the other side of the trade from these big name financial institutions that don't seem to read my writings.

These are young brothers from Haiti who sat through an UltraCoin lesson...

 Back to the FT article:

It also comes as other internet groups – in particular, China’s Tencent and Alibaba – race to turn their sites into mobile payment platforms.

Google has reiterated its commitment to expanding its mobile payments and wallet products, which have yet to be widely adopted by consumers. It is registered in the UK to issue electronic money, in a process similar to the authorisation which Facebook is seeking in Ireland.

In 2013, the company  [Facebook] facilitated $2.1bn worth of transactions, almost exclusively from games, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Vodafone has acquired an e-money licence for the phone company to operate financial services in Europe.

“It’s great news that non-banks are challenging the traditional banking monopoly,” said Simon Deane-Johns, a UK-based lawyer and European payments expert at law firm Keystone Law.

 It will be interesting to see how the potential bidding contest will form as these companies compete to build the next generation financial infrastructure. I believe that I am very well positioned, as excerpted from yesterday's missive:

These are interesting times indeed. For those who are not aware of how far I've come in transforming the way value is traded across geo-political and socio-economic lines, I urge you to view the following video and/or peruse the embedded presentation below it.

Related BoomBustBlog research

Sep 6, 2013 - Smartphone Hardware Manufacturers Are DeadNov 29, 2012 - Two and a ... BoomBustBlog Mar 7, 2013 - applecutsabreandriod3d Two and a ...

• Hardware is Dead & Samsung Agrees - BoomBustBlog

Sep 27, 2013 - Here I go again – Hardware is Dead & Samsung Agrees Featured ... raw fundamentals and margins, let's look at the newest crop of hardware.

• What Sell Side Wall Street Doesn't Understand About Apple ...

• Smartphone Hardware Manufacturers Are Dead, Long Live ...

Nov 29, 2012 - Two and a half years ago I declared in my mobile computing wars series that Google would commoditized the mobile computing space, thereby ...

• Computer Hardware Vendors Are Dead, Part Deux!

Dec 10, 2012 - Last week I told the world that hardwarevendors are DEAD! At least the fat margin business modelhardware vendors (like those whose name rhymes with Snapple). ... Related BoomBustBlog Subscription-only Research:.