JPMorgan raises CEO Jamie Dimon's pay to $31.5 million ...
JPMorgan raises CEO Jamie Dimon's pay to $31.5 million ...
Jamie Dimon Net Worth
Jamie Dimon Net Worth: JPMorgan CEO Earned $31.5 Million ...
How is a corrupt criminal like Jamie Dimon, not in prison ...
What’s Jamie Dimon’s salary got to do with income ...
have some faith and HODL
I live in a country where US Dollar is almost 5 times as our currency. So, it is harder for us to invest in Bitcoin than most of the other countries. Even if I have saved up let's say 1 month salary that I am willing to invest, I will have to divide into 5, which hurts :). Also, the bitcoin market here is not as big as other countries, so the cost of 1 Bitcoin does not fluctuate as in other exchange offices. For example, it is still +$250 more expensive here to buy than rest of the world. Aside from all these negative things, I am still willing to invest. (I am def not suggesting you should invest in Bitcoin, it is my honest opinion.) Why do I invest? a) I truely believe this is going to be one of the biggest part of history, and I want to be a part of it. b) it is very unlikely that the amount we (as in anybody) decide to invest will make us super rich or super poor in todays world. so at least, i want to try. Bill Gates vs Jamie Dimon. I look at the people who commented on Bitcoin or any other coins for that matter. I look at Bill Gates, then I look at Jamie Dimon. And it gives me confidence. Note: I know that this post is my first post, and it will seem shady for some others. But you will see me more in the future.
Don't mind me I'm just a regular guy babbling who doesn't even know all the jargons and proper use of shillings. I love bitcoin. It is art, it is music, it is inevitable. It has the power to change a person's perspective of life and shake some of his fundamental believes. You see we as humans we have always resisted change. We burnt scientists on stakes, we built towers of heads if any dared to bring change. Change is like entropy though it always increases, change has repeatedly come in the faces of men who opposed change men who heavily benefited from keeping things as they are. No matter how much the men in power tried to stop it but things changed so much that the rulers now have to call themselves servant of the people. No matter in reality they rule not serve but they cannot wear it with pride, they are not as powerful as men of past. No man can now kill a thousand men and a make a tower or their heads. If change f&%ed them up then who are you some president of some company working on a salary. People like Jamie Dimon think they influence everyone. Every investor would hold their word as the word of bible. They think kids dont have money and cant make money. Kids have been making money for quite a while now. They turn their eyes blind to facts like these http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/https://www.forbes.com/sites/spencerbogart/2017/11/08/7-stats-that-highlight-a-millennial-propensity-for-bitcoin/#710afcb032c4 Financial institutions once took power significantly from the people who would slit throats in the broad daylight. Now it is happening to them. How many times do the wise have to repeat "History repeats itself". And boy do we love change in 2017. We are hungry for it because creating and adapting to change as humans is our natural behavior. Forgive me for saying that it almost reflects evolution. In a certain religion there are many signs for the world's end. One of them is the emergence of a mountain of Gold. Now imagine a mountain of gold constructed with the network of bitcoin somehow made to look in a form of a mountain and sparkle gold and you could actually see the simulation of gold being mined and mountain getting smaller as the 21 million approaches. This landmark of the future stands in front of a building slightly higher than 118.87 meters named Cryptocurrency exchange. The building lies somewhere on the blockchain road. In the cryptocurrency exchange in a small corner office which is rather dark sits bitcoin. It doesn't want the light forever. Creation reflects creator. Bitcoin doesn't want to be the brightest star but it wants to build a galaxy and be one of the stars in it. Satoshi is an introvert. He doesn't want us stupid people asking him questions like how much is bitcoin gonna be worth this much or than much. He is a genius who changed the world from behind closed doors in a dark room just like in the movies. He made a mountain of gold and placed them in front of us all and said go mine it. He played the human instinct in which we like to keep things in our control. I believed previously that nothing could change money. Money could change was too out of the box thought for me it never occurred until I was blinded by the sheer returns of the damn thing. It has become my opening line "If you had put $1 in bitcoin in 2010 you are just shy of a million now". It's like a line from wolf of wall street without going through all the bullshit. It is too good to be true but it is over $200 billion market cap true - the overall crypto cap. Things like bitcoin paint a good more humane picture of the future. They give value to words like "of the people, by the people, for the people". Well if you look closely its not even as big a change its just giving a way for a concept - Democracy to be consistent in action and theory. Geniuses are often recognized late but they are recognized none the less if they present their work to the people. You believe in gallelio today not the king of his time. I am glad that the huge crypto community at least honors its genius and we make him smile in his dark room. This huge mountain has already taken blows from leaders of the biggest economies in the world. Men of note in the financial world. A civil war. Anything that can go wrong is going wrong and still the net result is growing like change like entropy like a fukcnig law of nature. Cash and Core I love you both. This is a man in a moment in which he would not lie. I love bitcoin.
This is the resistance new owners face in the real world
The below first paragraph is a copy of my friend responding to an email I sent him asking if he kept his BTC and some sort of fund that follows BTC during these past weeks. My response is a paste of my email back. This resistance from the established world will continue so be ready for it. Knock holes in my explanation if you would like to exercise your method to be a Crypto Missionary. My friend: Had a conversation with a Merrill Lynch broker on Monday. He can not trade BC due to SEC reg’s, but he is firmly of the opinion that BC is a sham and has zero value. We had a lively discussion, and I walked away scratching my head on how either I am dead wrong (and you as well) or he is stuck in a paradigm of traditional investing and fiat money. Here is my take... He has made his nut with the skills learned when tech was still forming, and has not continued to evolve his skills to adapt to trending or evolving platforms. As I see it, technology has created a platform for people to escape the financial restrictions created by governments to control the economy. Money is slowly moving over to a freely traded platform that minimizes the risk of government manipulation. My response: Your last statement is the Libertarian view and the reason why they think crypto is starting. Nirvana at it's novice finest in my opinion. (sorry Libertarians, I'm doing this for effect!) The real reason crypto is becoming a thing is because of timing. Isn't that how things happen, when the timing is right and all things are in place, someone starts something? The timing is in my opinion includes - 1.The maturing of the platform of the internet, there is connectivity and it is stable. High uses of personal computers (meaning handheld phones capable have a penetration of 35% of the worlds population.) You can do peer to peer transactions with efficacy here. 2. Excessive fees for transference of money - For normal people, wire transfer is not an option. How do you get money owed to your parents in Italy? Either you send it by Western Union which costs 15 to 20% or you take a risk with another means. So the banks, with the lines, and the fees, and the Jamie Dimons, have created and environment rich for change. 3. Blockchain came first, then the first Bitcoin came second - The creation of blockchain was revolutionary and finally made possible a method to validate transactions and make them immutable and highly efficient without someone physically validating it. It also provides what is so far with todays technology, impossible to hack or "change" the ledger. Once it is transacted, it is completed on thousands of separate but identical files across thousands of independent servers. 4. In one of my friends investments, he required that the company undergo a certified audit by a known accounting firm of which he paid for. $10,000 for this eventual positive audit, with a signature at the bottom. What did he pay for? What did I get for $10K? A PDF FILE WITH SOME ACCOUNTANTS SIGNATURE! NOTHING MORE! NOT EVEN A KOZY CUP! What did I pay for? Something virtual? he paid for validation that the ledgers in that company are true, and that no one else lays claim, and that if he buys that company, the books are right. With Crypto that have been validated by miners, I lay claim and own a virtual ledger, an IOU of sorts that is guaranteed to hold the # of coins. No one can dispute that. It is exactly what value I put into a non-physical audit. Anyone that tells me how can a crypto hold value, I tell them that they do it everyday with current systems in software, audits, purchase of data, etc. 5. The best thing that can happen and the biggest challenge of crypto now is to make it mainstream. How? To have government regulations on it. I would welcome the US to say that they will regulate it. This will be the friction for the next couple of years in ADOPTION rate. 6. Mr. Wells Fargo, sorry Merrill Lynch tomorrow would sell you a fund if he had it if his company provided it. He would be marched into a meeting, be introduced to it on a powerpoint, and would be given orders to sell x amount over the next Y days. They would spend a half day on how to sell it and how to 'splain it to the Todd and Mark's of the world. They would say in their sales speel - " this should have a place in your portfolio to counter both inflation as well as put it in the far end of high risk/high rewards" Then he would call you. 7. Jamie Dimon recently said that crypto was crazy. No shit? He is the guy that is THE MAN with the status quo. This is a technology game changer. He has $28 million dollar salary reasons why he likes it the way it is. It is you and I that has to put up with the transfer costs, lack of them to desire to loan money because the US government has their downside. That is an easy job. My take? 5 years from now, crypto will be regulated (I separate this from ICO coins) and used in the current big big big money transferring systems of the world like swift. Swift will use BTC after they take the money on the "on ramp" and easily buy btc....transfer the money to the other side of the proverbial pond.....sell it to the fiat currency of that place and it takes seconds and not days to do the ledgers. The cost is 1/50th and the consumer in the end will see some savings and improved service, and the banks will make more money in margin! Phew..... Your broker is well intentioned but I promise you he knows less that you do. He is just a salesman.
So... The insurer whose "solvency" is most dependent on maintaining the fiction that the riskiest assets in Exter's Inverted Pyramid (derivatives) are actually worth something - is now paying the devs who write the code for the solidest asset in that pyramid (Bitcoin). What could possibly go wrong?
Exter's Pyramid Exter is known for creating Exter's Pyramid (also known as Exter's Golden Pyramid and Exter's Inverted Pyramid) for visualizing the organization of asset classes in terms of risk and size. In Exter's scheme, gold [and now Bitcoin?] forms the small base of most reliable value, and asset classes on progressively higher levels are more risky. The larger size of asset classes at higher levels is representative of the higher total worldwide notional value of those assets. While Exter's original pyramid placed Third World debt at the top, today derivatives hold this dubious honor.
I like to think that the graph in the link below provides a nice, updated version of "Exter's Pyramid", although the layout isn't exactly triangular (but the sizes of each asset class are actually more accurate): http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12 Note that Bitcoin is the safest asset in the system - and derivatives are the riskiest. And there is very, very little Bitcoin - versus a shitload of derivatives. But if you hold Bitcoin (ie, you hold your private keys), then you have absolutely no counterparty risk. Versus if hold a derivative, it could be totally worthless - depending on whether the counterparty behind it is "solvent" or not. And I would think that the battle between "people who hold Bitcoin" versus "people who hold derivatives" will shape up to be a million times more massive than the battle between savers and borrowers that we've already seen in the world. In other words, an insurance company like AXA, which is more dependent on derivatives than any other insurer, is probably freaked out that they'd lose over a trillion dollars if Bitcoin were to succeed. So... Can people start to see why I'm so freaked out about AXA funding Bitcoin development via their "investment" in Blockstream?
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/ http://www.actuaries.org.hk/upload/File/ET210513.pdf (see where AXA is on the graph on page 5) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=axa+blockstream&ia=web It's really poignant to see some clueless people wondering what AXA's "business model" might be for investing in Bitcoin. Those clueless people need to wake the fuck up and face the reality of how bankers continue to print trillions of dollars to enslave the world. AXA has absolutely zero interest in becoming some kind of two-bit Red Hat earning chump change in "support fees" or even "transaction fees" from being the maintainers / developers of some kind of open-source cryptocurrency sidechain code. I can pretty much guarantee you: that is not their "busines model" for wanting to control Bitcoin development via investing in Blockstream. As of 2007, AXA already had 1.123 trillion Euros in AUM (Assets under Management). http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/AXA_%28AXA%29/Assets_Management That's over a million million Euros. And as of 2014, one half of AXA (just their "AXA IM" part) had AUD 891 billion of Assets under Management. http://www.professionalplanner.com.au/cut-and-paste/2015/03/06/axa-im-reaches-record-assets-under-management-34877/ So, for a giant insurer like AXA, "investing" $55 million in Blockstream is like dropping a fraction of a penny on the ground. And any paltry few million dollars - or even billions of dollars - which AXA might make or lose from Blockstream / Lightning or whatever, would still be pretty insignificant bordering on immaterial when compared with the half a trillion or so dollars of derivatives which are on AXA's balance sheet - and which they must desperately try to continue to prop up, by continuing to keep people believing in the whole charade of the worldwide derivatives casino. That's what is at stake here. The very definition of the worldwide accounting ledger itself - not a few entries in it. And as we know, Bitcoin provides an entirely new - and transparent, and unforgeable - ledger. That's why companies like AXA want to control Bitcoin development. Not to make millions or even billions of dollars on fees. But to to continue to prop up the so-called legitimacy of their legacy accounting ledger containing hundreds of trillions of dollars. (Remember, the derivatives market is a ledger with entries currently totally $1.2 quadrillion dollars - ie, 1200 trillion dollars - and that ledger itself is what Bitcoin's very existence is threatening to "uber".) AXA does not give a fuck what happens to the $55 million that got invested in Blockstream in that second funding round they participated in back in February 2016. The only purpose of that money is to sprinkle a few hundred thou around per dev per year to control useful idiots like Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back and outright lunatics like Luke-Jr - to let those economically ignorant coders keep on toiling away on their idealistic pie-in-the-sky mathematical cypherpunk daydreams, while the Bitcoin network goes into paralysis due to artificially small blocksize due to doctrainaire dolts like the current crop of "Core" devs. AXA does not give a fuck if Blockstream or SegWit or Lightning succeeds. The only reason AXA is interested in Bitcoin is because Bitcoin is real money, and AXA's balance sheet uses a legacy ledger based on the fiction of fantasy fiat money - and Bitcoin threatens to destroy all that. AXA knows that it must destroy Bitcoin - or else Bitcoin will destroy AXA. And before some brainwashed amateurish sophomoric loser wanna-be astroturfing troll from r\bitcoin wanders over here again and tries to spout some meaningless nonsense disruptive bullshit to sidetrack this serious topic (responses in the previous thread linked above included gibberish like "get a job!" or "MtGox!" or "but scammers!") - I would appreciate it if someone around here could divert about a half hour of their precious multitasking time and brainpower towards addressing the 800-pound gorilla of a question in the room, namely: Do you think it's a good idea for the insurance company with the biggest exposure to the "legacy ledger" of derivatives in both $ and % terms (AXA - with $464 billion in notional derivatives exposure, over 50% of their balance sheet in this 2013 report - see graph on page 5) to be paying the devs who are in charge of "upgrading" our Bitcoin code - or do you think there might be the tiiiniest chance of some kind of conflict of interest there??? This could be the biggest issue in Bitcoin right now. But it doesn't seem to get addressed head-on very much. You don't hear the name "AXA" or the word "derivatives" used very much - although these might be the most important aspects of the issue here. This isn't about earning or losing a million dollars here or a billion dollars there. This is about redefining the very heart and soul of the world's ledger - which Bitcoin has a chance to do. This is about that tiny speck called "Bitcoin" at the top of the chart in the link below: http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12 organically growing and blossoming and eventually destroying that grotesque metastazising mass called "derivatives" at the bottom of that chart. That is why AXA is interested in Bitcoin. It's about the ledger itself - not the payment rails - not even the tokens - and certainly not the fees. Trust me, no company with 1 trillion dollars of Assets under Management is going to pay any attention to some miniscule little runt like Bitcoin with a mere $7 billion in market cap - unless they think that miniscule little runt actually might contain the code which might possibly replace their whole precarious phoney fiat fantasy accounting ledger which pays their billion dollar bonuses and buys their mansions and yachts. That is why AXA is "investing" in Bitcoin. To control it - not to earn some pathetic tiny fees from it. And it's time we started addressing this issue seriously. The main question is: Do you want a massive, derivatives-dependent, legacy fiat insurance company like AXA controlling Bitcoin development?? Upvotes on these kinds of posts are certainly nice (and drive-by troll-snark is of course tedious and annoying). But what I would really like to know is whether there is anyone on these forums who wants to spend some time seriously discussing things like:
the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives casino,
that other notorious insurance group (AIG) which engaged in massive and fraudulent derivatives shenanigans that almost took down the world's economy in 2008,
the massive and glaring conflict of interest in letting a company whose very façade of solvency depends on maintaining the fantasy legacy ledger which Bitcoin threatens to replace
etc etc etc
Do we want a corrupt derivatives monster like AXA (which is probably only steps away from becoming the next AIG) to be in charge of paying Bitcoin devs? I don't have all the answers. I'm just some shmuck who spent a few years writing code for some major financial institutions, and I heard and saw a few things, and I watched how those scumbags almost brought down the world's economy in 2008, and I am fully convinced that they do not want something like Bitcoin to "uber" their legacy ledger. So I am simply raising the question, and I really would like to know if anyone else has anything substantive to say about this: Should the insurance company with the biggest exposure to derivatives (the riskiest asset in the world), which is totally dependent on maintaining the charade of the world's legacy fantasy fiat accounting ledger, be in charge of paying the devs writing the code for the solidest asset in the world (Bitcoin), which threatens to "uber" that very ledger? Could there be a conflict of interest in this kind of situation? Am I the only person around here who finds this absolutely outrageous? Or does everyone just think it's fine and dandy - and maybe we could even just put someone like Blythe Masters or Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein in charge of paying Bitcoin devs? Henri de Castries might not be a household villain name like some of those above. He's probably a more behind-the-scenes guy. But he is the chairman of the Bilderberg group, and he is the CEO of AXA, and he is going to move to HSBC this fall - and now he is paying Greg Maxwell's and Adam Back's and Luke Jr's salary. And then we sit here and keep wondering why "our" devs keep ignoring us when we've been begging them for over a year to pretty-please give us bigger blocks so the Bitcoin network won't die. Well, maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye here. Maybe it's time for us to start to recognize the magnitude of who we might actually be up against here, and how they might have used social engineering to infiltrate and neutralize the Bitcoin development process, and how desperate they might be to maintain the so-called legitimacy of their make-believe legacy accounting ledger which Bitcoin is poised to replace. Maybe it's time to stop bringing a pocket-knife to fight a SWAT team. Like I say, I don't know what the answer will turn out to be. (Maybe a spin-off, but who really knows at this point.) But I do think it's time for all of us to sober up and start asking some serious questions about this bullshit we've been getting from Blockstream. We need to be realistic about who and what we're up against - and how many trillions of dollars they know are at stake - and how dirty and sneaky they're willing to fight. And we need to liberate Bitcoin development from the people who stand to lose the most from Bitcoin - and put it back in the hands of people who stand to win the most from Bitcoin.
JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon Slams Bitcoin As “Fraud” September 13, 2017. 651. Share. Facebook. Twitter. ReddIt. Telegram. Pinterest. WhatsApp. Advertisment. Speaking at an investor conference in New York on Tuesday, JPMorgan Chase Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon blasted Bitcoin in a series on damning statements. Calling the cryptocurrency a “fraud” that’s “worse than tulip ... Jamie Dimon was the highest paid banker in 2018 and 2019. Last year, he received $31.5 million as compensation for being JPMorgan's CEO and chairman. JPMorgan Chase raised CEO Jamie Dimon's pay package to $31.5 million after the company's most profitable year in history.; The compensation package includes $25 million in stock units, $1.5 ... Jamie Dimon is the famed CEO of JPMorgan whose net worth is $1.1 Billion and previously underwent chemotherapy for throat cancer. In a memo to his employees, he announced he was getting ready to undergo eight weeks of intense chemo for cancer that was thankfully caught early and reportedly curable according to Dimon’s doctors. Jamie Dimon didn’t need to jump on the 1,000% bitcoin rally last year to make a decent buck. JPMorgan compensated its CEO $29.5 million in 2017 , a 5% increase on the previous year.
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, had some harsh words on Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency, essentially calling it a fraud. But should you even care that the CEO of a $320 Billion Bank has ... 💛 50% OFF Ledger: https://www.ledger.com?r=f988 💛 BITCOIN TODAY: Jamie Dimon and Jp Morgan has announced that they will provide banking services to Coinbase ... Haha, this is a good one guys. Jamie Dimon who pays himself more than $31 million in salary gets grilled by congresswoman Katie Porter. Channel Sponser Data... Jamie Dimon shares his thoughts on Bitcoin Wall Street JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon calls Bitcoin a fraud and discusses Bitcoin, Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, Bubbles, Bitcoin Bubble, The Fed, Monetary Policy, Cryptomania, Tulip Bubble, and more.