New York City Mayor Eric Adams and his Miami counterpart Francis Suarez have engaged in a friendly rivalry to see which city becomes the preeminent US cryptocurrency mecca. But state-level policies will stymie Adams’s quest.. Unless Albany officials reverse suffocating regulation and zealous prosecutions the Miami mayor will win, hands down.
Both Adams and Suarez have touted Bitcoin bona fides by promising to take increasing number of paychecks in Bitcoin. But in Florida , Suarez is aided by a deregulation-focused governor who has embraced crypto’s promise. By contrast, state-level officials hinder Adams with a suffocating regulatory regime and politicians seeking name-recognition through crypto prosecutions. Other governors and mayor seeking to join the crypto race should follow Florida’s lead.
Miami introduces its own coin, New York introduces investigations
Suarez has introduced pro-crypto policies, including so-called “MiamiCoin.” The city began “staking” its cryptocurrency in August. Staking is a mechanism to pool crypto holdings and earn yields. The revenue produced, if annualized, amounts to $21 million or a fifth of the city’s total tax revenue. The mayor states, the city will return this money to residents in the form of a Bitcoin yield.
For his part Adams states he wants the Big Apple to be a “crypto friendly city” and vowed to “look at what’s preventing the growth of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in our city.” He need not look far.
New York’s Bitlicense regulatory regime is the most onerous in the county. Introduced in 2015 and touted as nationwide model, it has failed spectacularly. Of the twenty companies that have received the license most are multibillion-dollar concerns. BitLicence holder Bitstamp relayed a four-year application process, others relate 1000-page double-sided applications, and $100,000 in fees and manhours.
New York crypto regs have caused an exodus
Some crypto-based companies like Shapeshift left immediately, its CEO stating, “We either would have to do something we’re not comfortable with or leave New York. It’s a moral and ethical stand we’re going take.” Others, like virtual marketplace Nexo, install geo-blocking technology keeps New Yorkers out.
Yet even such precaution hasn’t stopped New York’s government from banning or investigating them. New York Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Letitia James recently announced bans of Nexo and another virtual marketplace, Celsius claiming the interest and yields they provide on deposits classifies them as securities dealers and thus must meet an array of onerous compliance mandates created for a long-ago world.
Thus New York views same staking-type activity that Miami is using to reduce resident tax burdens as a prosecutable offense in the name of investor protection.
Assuming New York has jurisdiction over Nexo and Celsius it is hard to see who Ms. James is protecting. Both are well capitalized and insured. Celsius has $26.4 billion in assets and has paid out over $930 million in yields and rewards. Nexo has paid out over $50 million to its two million users worldwide and has military-grade security.
If successful, Ms. James will likely force these marketplaces out of the state with a stiff fine as it previously did with stablecoin issuer Tether. (Tether, the largest stablecoin by volume claims to have left the US altogether citing regulatory headaches.).
A New York state without Nexo, Celsius, or similar marketplaces leaves New Yorkers worse off. Virtual crypto marketplaces provide less fortunate people the ability to borrow against holdings and earn whopping interest rates on deposits, helping them climb the economic ladder.
Stablecoin interest that these marketplaces provide can potentially add huge income to New Yorkers living month-to-month. Crypto marketplaces demand interest rates approaching 9 percent APY or higher because they provide value in the crypto ecosystem that exceeds their dollar-pegged book value (including efficient trading liquidity and a safe harbor in moments of heightened crypto volatility). As such, the stablecoin market has exploded and now exceeds $130 billion. “Traditional” crypto trades smaller interest rates for a chance at massive returns. People buying bitcoin with their April 2020 $1,200 stimulus check, would have $11,000 today, and that doesn’t include a year’s worth of 4-to-5 percent APY. That’s some serious change! As crypto goes mainstream, elected officials will have to choose whether to follow the New York or Florida model. It should be an easy choice. Pledges to take one’s salary in Bitcoin mean little if local or state governments simultaneously try to thwart the industry and deprive citizens of easy passive income in the name of protecting them.
Stablecoins come of age in Ukraine-Russia conflict
Oppressed people around the globe are already familiar with stablecoins—digital assets pegged to a stable monetary value, usually the U.S. dollar. Now with the Ukrainian-Russia conflict the rest of the world can see their benefits
Stablecoins originated as way for crypto traders to avoid constant fiat conversions. As their usefulness became apparent applications grew. Now, not only are they indispensable for crypto-trading but they are integrated into Web3 applications, used for cross border payments, and are slowly being incorporated into traditional payment systems.
Stablecoins are helping impoverished people the world over
Importantly, they also allow desperate people to maintain purchasing power amidst runaway inflation, profligate central banks, and war. Crypto commentator Nic Carter has discussed how desperate Venezuelans use applications like LocalBitcoins as a backdoor way to acquire dollar-pegged stablecoins. Crypto intelligence firm Chainalysis described in August 2020 how stablecoin Tether had become more popular in East Asia, including China, than Bitcoin. According to the report, “Tether has become the de facto fiat stand-in for Chinese cryptocurrency users and primary means of on-ramping to Bitcoin and other standard cryptocurrencies.” (It is unclear if this still remains the case after the latest Chinese crackdown). But story is the same in Turkey and Nigeria where people flee mismanaged fiat currencies for stablecoins.
Now as tensions flare in Eastern Europe in the closely watched Ukraine-Russia conflict, the world can see the value of stablecoins in real time. In Ukraine, stablecoin Tether has become so valuable it trades for a premium of as much as $1.10 for an asset designed to always peg at one dollar. In an interview with CoinDesk TV, exchange founder Michael Chobanian stated:
The majority of people have nothing else to choose apart from crypto. We’re talking about millions of dollars of cash that wants to go into crypto … but we can’t find people who are willing to do the opposite, sell it.
Both sides are using stablecoins
The story is the same on the Russian side. As sanctions threaten Moscow, ordinary Russians are ditching the ruble for stablecoins. This is tantamount to a vote of no confidence by the Russian people in the actions of the regime and may hasten its demise if citizens become averse to transacting in rubles.
As dollar-pegged stablecoins provide value everywhere, the Biden administration and its allies are seemingly the only ones not celebrating. Last November, the President’s Working Group (PWG) and other financial regulators released a scathing report on stablecoins that suggested they be fully integrated into the financial system through bank charters or banned. The report warned of myriad risks and suggested financial regulators use powers granted by the Dodd-Frank law to declare them ‘systemically important’ and thus subject to unilateral regulation if Congress did not act. An executive order declaring crypto a ‘national security’ matter is also reportedly forthcoming.
Simultaneously, central banks around the world, including the Federal Reserve, are either implementing or considering their own digital money, Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). But government versions of crypto would exclude stablecoin benefits of crypto yet come with many risks from being nonpersoned via a social credit score (China) to loss of financial privacy (Europe and the US). As Nic Carter states, “It’s important to understand that the popularity of stablecoins or “crypto-dollars” is not solely due to their digital nature but because of the transactional freedom that they offer to users.”
Crypto will become the currency of choice in all future conflicts
None of this is necessary. Events have shown not only do stablecoins work without subjection to the flawed and suffocating U.S. financial regulatory apparatus, but they are the currency of choice when circumstances force people into the most desperate situations. The Ukraine-Russia conflict should settle this question. The world can see in real time how stablecoins help people and how government alternatives would only entrench monetary power with those that cause or at least contribute to these conflicts (and other dire situations) in the first place.
A version of this post originally appeared on the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute https://cei.org/blog/stablecoins-come-of-age-in-ukraine-russia-conflict/
SEC BlockFi settlement misfires for working families
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a three-part mission: protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. Chair Gary Gensler focuses on the first, “Every day, I am animated by working families and what the SEC means to them.”
Yet paradoxically, his zeal to enforce securities laws has had the opposite effect. Far from helping working families, he is quashing their wealth-creating opportunities.
The SEC’s latest foray into enforcement-policy-gone-wrong is the widely reported settlement with virtual marketplace and crypto lender BlockFi. Details reportedly include a massive $100 million dollar fine and promise to stop accepting new accounts. (At the time of settlement, 32 state securities agencies were also investigating BlockFi, collectively they will receive half the fine).
SEC BlockFi settlement didn’t end fraud it ended earning opportunities for working families
A reader unfamiliar with the Gensler-led SEC might presume the commission had just ended a major scam operation or stopped fraudsters raising capital by promising the unsuspecting lavish and unattainable returns on some pie-in-the-sky crypto venture.
Indeed, in speeches Mr. Gensler frames his enforcement push exactly this way:
Without examination against and enforcement of our rules and laws, we can’t instill the trust necessary for our markets to thrive. Stamping out fraud, manipulation, and abuse lowers risk in the system. It protects investors and reduces the cost of capital. The whole economy benefits from that. . . . It is critical that our enforcement program have tremendous breadth, be nimble, and penalize bad actors so we discourage misconduct before it happens. . . .
Some market participants may call this “regulation by enforcement.” I just call it “enforcement.”
Stamping out fraud, manipulation, and abuse, sounds great until one realizes BlockFi had done none of this. In a press release the SEC claims BlockFi failed to disclose the level of risk in its interest-bearing products. But no one was ever defrauded, as Commissioner Hester Peirce relayed in a statement, “While penalties this size are intended to deter bad conduct, here there is no allegation that BlockFi failed to pay its customers the money due them or failed to return the crypto lent to it. BlockFi’s misrepresentations about over-collateralization are serious, but the combined $100 million penalty nevertheless seems disproportionate.”
Virtual Marketplaces Provide passive income to impoverished people
What BlockFi was doing was providing working families an opportunity to generate passive income. These assets (Bitcoin and other crypto) that has seen startling market gains with the potential for much more. (One investment firm predicts Bitcoin will reach $1 million by 2030).
Working families could park their Bitcoin and other crypto holdings with BlockFi and earn between 5-10 percent APY. BlockFi relends these holdings at even higher rates and splits the interest with account holders.
Thus, working families benefited in two ways: (i.) any asset appreciation was theirs after they withdrew their holdings (of course any loss was too, but that’s a function of the supply and demand); (ii.) the interest earned in crypto was theirs as well.
These are game changing numbers for working families. Someone spending buying Bitcoin with their $1,200 stimulus check in April 2020 would have had $11,000 in October 2021. A BlockFi account would have provided an additional5-10 percent interest. The numbers are less now but history says they will rebound at some point.
SEC BlockFi settlement latest example of crypto hostility from federal government
The story has played out across the crypto world in the past four years (pre-dating Mr. Gensler). As the commission has attacked companies without a hint of fraud including Kik and Telegram and currently lawsuits against XRP/Ripple and LBRY. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are likely next.
In addressing securities professionals last November, Gensler chided them for their lack of public spiritedness. “You all have our own clients, to be sure. Working in a field such as finance that touches so many lives, though, you also have another responsibility: a responsibility to the public.”
A corollary to this exists. Bureaucrats should not harm the public by using their position to climb the ladder to more powerful positions. Cynics accuse Mr. Gensler of using crypto enforcement to do just that.
But whether he is actually animated by working families, his own ambition, or both, he only hurt working families.
Note: In a tweet thread by BlockFi’s CEO, the company announced today it will register its products with the SEC. And it may eventually accept new accounts.
Newsweek: Bitcoin Mining on Track to Consume All of the World’s Energy by 2020
Bloomberg: What if there were a safe digital currency that *didn’t* wreck the planet or disappear when you forget the password?
New York Times: In Coinbase’s Rise, a Reminder: Cryptocurrencies Use Lots of Energy. The company’s stock market arrival establishes Bitcoin and other digital currencies in the traditional financial landscape. It also elevates a technology with astonishing environmental costs.
In our supposed age of ‘disinformation’ the leading purveyors always emerge from self-anointed truth discerners in America’s elite institutions. Those that dictate culture don’t appreciate threats to their perches. As such, cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin, have become increasingly despised. Bitcoin answers to no one. It doesn’t need permission. It can’t be browbeaten to conform by bureaucrats, movie stars, or academics. Its power derives from coded rules, validators, and millions of users.
The first, although not the last, attack on Bitcoin’s cultural obduracy is energy use. This supposed sin has opened an attack vector that will only intensify.
Bitcoin uses a consensus mechanism called ‘Proof-of-Work’ (PoW) to secure the system over thousands of computers operating globally and independently. PoW secures the next block of transactions through open computational competition. The winning computer rig or ‘miner’ wins Bitcoins, the rest verify the winner and the process restarts. Energy use is the price of an open, secure, permissionless system. Current estimates place Bitcoin energy use at around 110 Terawatt hours per year. This compares to a small country like Malaysia or Sweden.
Bitcoin’s energy use, though not insubstantial, will not “wreck the planet.” Purveyors of such dreck ply propaganda, false analogies, and sloppy analysis. Here are six myths of Bitcoin energy use:
Bitcoin Myth Number One: Energy Use equals Carbon Emissions
Anti-crypto advocates often conflate energy use with carbon emissions but a large portion, anywhere from 28% to 74%, of Bitcoin’s energy comes from renewables. This number is growing since China’s mining ban last year.
While determining energy consumption is relatively straightforward, you cannot extrapolate the associated carbon emissions without knowing the precise energy mix — that is, the makeup of different energy sources used by the computers mining Bitcoin. For example, one unit of hydro energy will have much less environmental impact than the same unit of coal-powered energy.
Bitcoin’s energy consumption is relatively easy to estimate: You can just look at its hashrate (i.e., the total combined computational power used to mine Bitcoin and process transactions), and then make some educated guesses as to the energy requirements of the hardware that miners are using. But its carbon emissions are much harder to ascertain.
Hass McCook, a civil engineer, who has written extensively on this topic states:
Bitcoin is a rounding error in the global scheme of things, and from a carbon-intensity point of view, has significantly less emissions per kilowatt than finance, construction, healthcare, industry or the military, and will only improve further in time. My prediction still stands: Bitcoin’s carbon intensity will go from 280 g CO2 per kWh today, to around 100 g in 2026, and zero by 2031, and maybe, finally, we’ll be done with this debate.
Bitcoin Energy Myth Number Two: Bitcoin Miners Compete with People for Electricity on Grids
Bitcoin miners can’t use normal grid energy because mining would be unprofitable. Competition incentivizes miners to seek the cheapest energy available, often this means wasted energy like flared natural gas from oil fields or energy accessible only to miners because of rig portability. Miners are incentivizing a race to transform the world’s wasted energy into productive use.
As Drew Armstrong and AJ Scalia write in Bitcoin Magazine:
Bitcoin mining directly incentivizes new and more efficient forms of energy generation by offering a “bounty” to anyone, anywhere, at any time, who finds a cheaper way to produce energy at scale. This direct financial incentive for more efficient generation and the newfound viability of previously uneconomical sources of energy will cause a general decline in the price of energy worldwide.
Bitcoin Energy Myth Three: Bitcoin Energy Use should be Measured per Transaction
Critics often divide Bitcoin’s slow transaction throughput by its energy use and compare that with payment providers like Visa. But this is a false comparison. First, Bitcoin energy use occurs during the mining process. Like Visa, individual transactions have no energy usage, and more network transactions would not increase energy.
It’s a common misconception that energy usage scales up with the number of bitcoin transactions and that if Bitcoin ever became widely adopted for payments, then the energy usage would be enough to boil the oceans. This is incorrect. . . . [M]iner energy usage moves up or down with the amount of competition between miners, not the number of transactions being validated. Digital signature validation uses a trivial amount of computing power. . . . This competition is healthy because it means that the effort spent securing the network scales automatically with the value of the transaction data on the blockchain—not the number of transactions.
Bitcoin Energy Myth Four: Bitcoin Mining Energy Use will Keep Expanding at the Current Rate
Some assert as Bitcoin grows more popular its energy consumption will follow linearly. But this ignores structural and market constraints. First, Bitcoin’s relatively small number of transactions per second limits its ‘Layer One’ utility as a payment network. As Nic Carter states, “Bitcoin is a settlement, not a payments network.” ‘Layer Two’ applications built on top of Bitcoin like Lightning and Liquid can handle vastly more transaction but do not require more energy because they only “settle” once for unlimited tranches.
Not even a massive increase in Bitcoin price would spur energy use as investment strategist and Bitcoin commentator Lyn Alden writes:
If we say [Bitcoin] reaches an outrageously high price of one million dollars per coin, for a critically important market capitalization of $20 trillion, with billions of users, then at 0.50% annual security cost, that would be $100 billion, or about 6x as much energy usage as bitcoin was using at an annualized rate in the first half of 2021. This would represent maybe 0.6% of global energy usage, which seems appropriate for a network used by billions of people for multiple purposes, as it would need to be at that point in order to reach such a high value.
Bitcoin Energy Myth Five: Bitcoin Mining is Inherently Wasteful
Some detractors object to any energy use for mining at all, even if completely obtained through renewable sources. They point to the adequacy of legacy payment systems or other consensus mechanisms, namely ‘Proof-of-Stake’ (see Myth Six). But these arguments fail to grasp the benefits in decentralization and security PoW brings. Throughout history people have used energy expenditure as a proxy for value. It’s why gold has retained its value through the centuries. Bitcoin simply makes this relationship explicit.
This energy usage is anything but useless, it is securing data about transactions worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Unlike the energy used by a gold miner, it goes directly to providing a public good: online peer-to-peer payments infrastructure that anyone on Earth with a smartphone and internet connection can use.
Bitcoin produced a new way of securing transactions online as analyst Dan Held writes:
The Bitcoin ledger can only be immutable if and only if it is costly to produce. The fact that Proof of Work (PoW) is “costly” is a feature, not a bug. Until very recently, securing something meant building a thick physical wall around whatever is deemed valuable. The new world of cryptocurrency is unintuitive and weird — there are no physical walls to protect our money, no doors to access our vaults.
Bitcoin Energy Myth Six: Proof of Stake works just as well without the Energy Burden
Critics also point to an alternative consensus mechanism known as ‘Proof-of-Stake’ (PoS) as an efficient alternative. It is true, ‘Proof-of-Stake’ consumes much less energy and provides a market alternative for those solely focused on energy consumption. But it comes with drawbacks, particularly in centralization that PoW avoids. PoS determines governance by crypto holdings (stake). Validators are rewarded additional stake. This system is vastly more complex from a security standpoint.
Further it centralizes the governance in those that have the most stake or perhaps are willing to buy it. This invites all the issues of censorship, exclusion, and rule by cultural elite that plague the current web.
‘Proof of Stake’ is just a fancy phrase meaning “those who have the most wealth wield political control.” That sounds a lot like our current system, which Bitcoin is specifically designed to solve. Bitcoin explicitly rejects politics, and doesn’t grant any special privileges based on coins held. If holding more coins gave you more control, the attempted takeover of Bitcoin through the 2X movement (backed by the largest custodians and exchanges in the industry) would have succeeded.
It would be like a political system where you get a vote for every hundred dollars you have, and then also get paid a dollar by the government for casting a vote. Mary the high school science teacher with $20,000 in net worth gets 200 votes, and earns $200 from the government for voting. Jeff Bezos, with $200 billion in net worth, gets 2 billion votes, and earns $2 billion from the government for voting. He’s a more valuable citizen than Mary, by a factor of a million, and also gets paid more by the government for already being wealthy.
Proof of Work is apolitical and self-sustaining
Bitcoin and ‘Proof-of-Work’ consensus represent a new way of transacting and interacting. But it also threatens those at the top of the cultural pyramid. It is unsurprising reactive forces emanating from legacy media, academia, and government would so oppose this paradigm shift. It is also ironic these same forces imbue their self-identity in solidarity with the oppressed, marginalized, or “the planet.”
But the coming world Bitcoin points us all toward a world without need of self-appointed stewards. It enables us to choose our own path, even if it costs some energy.
By Jossey PLLC
This post originally appeared on the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute https://cei.org/blog/six-myths-about-cryptocurrency-energy-use/
Federal Reserve research surprisingly upbeat on stablecoins.
Amid the Biden administration’s crypto onslaught new research from the Federal Reserve paints stablecoins in a surprisingly positive light. In a new paper, Stablecoins: Growth Potential and Impact on Banking, Gordon Liao and John Caramichael discuss at length the potential benefits stablecoins can bring to the U.S. economy, credit intermediation in particular. This view starkly contrasts the administration’s posture published last fall by the President’s Working Group (PWG) which cast a dire outlook and urged Congress to smother stablecoins with “appropriate federal prudential oversight on a consistent and comprehensive basis.” (Stablecoins are digital assets pegged to a stable monetary value, usually the U.S. dollar.).
To be sure, the paper focuses on how widespread stablecoin adoption would affect the Fed balance sheet and credit intermediation and eschews other issues, for example, monetary policy and consumer protection. Still, the researchers’ glowing outlook is welcome amid the constant crypto hostility and promotion by some officials of knock off government alternatives. Interestingly, the paper (perhaps inadvertently) warns of the dangers of adopting those alternatives known as central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
Federal Reserve researchers produced glowing 26-page report
The contrast between the Fed research and the PWG is stunning. In a 26-page report, the PWG had a single positive sentence about stablecoins whilst mentioning “risk” 131 times and “concern” another 20. The Fed research started by praising stablecoin programmability and composability, meaning their ability to interact with smart contracts and create new payment and financial services from scratch. The research shows stablecoin flexibility not only benefits crypto traders—their original purpose—but a vast array of current and potential use cases. It promotes stablecoins’ ability to facilitate instantaneous payment settlement globally 24/7 with low transaction fees. This is especially useful in disrupting the current archaic cross-border payment system.
Amazingly, for a government report, the research touts stablecoins’ role facilitating decentralized finance (DeFi) and its potential for financial inclusion by lowering barriers to entry and bypassing fee-collecting institutions. The researchers also look to the future by describing stablecoins’ ability to tokenize financial markets which could “increase liquidity, transaction speeds, and transparency while reducing counterparty risk, trading costs, and other barriers to market participation.” Finally, the researchers describe stablecoins potential for enabling the next iteration of the internet known loosely as Web3. If allowed to thrive, the coming internet will keep power and value at the bottom of the technology stack at the individual level instead of being sucked to the top by a few dominant apps.
Federal Reserve research warns against chartering stablecoins as ‘narrow banks’
Interestingly, in discussing stablecoin benefits to the overall economy, and to credit intermediation in particular, the researchers exclude the so-called narrow-bank model whereby stablecoin issuers would back their reserves 1:1 with central bank liabilities. This model is what the PWG urges.
The researchers state:
In most [stablecoin] scenarios we consider, credit provision would likely not be negatively affected. In fact, the replacement of physical currency (banknotes) by stablecoins could potentially allow for more bank-led credit provision. A notable exception that can lead to sizable credit disintermediation is the scenario in which stablecoins are required to be fully backed by central bank reserves, which we call the narrow bank framework. In this framework, redemption run risk is minimized at the expense of larger credit disintermediation.
Perhaps inadvertently the research warns of the dangers of CBDCs, which like narrow-bank stablecoins would also be direct liabilities of the central banking authority and assets under custody for the commercial banks that hold them. This means they could not be lent out to increase economic activity as happens with ordinary deposits in the fractional-reserve lending system. In fact, the research labels narrow-bank stablecoins and CBDCs as “roughly equivalent” whilst warning of the dangers these stablecoins present to credit intermediation and the larger economy.
Researchers suggests integrating stablecoins into the financial system
Instead, the researchers suggest integrating stablecoins into the fractional reserve lending system by treating them as ordinary deposits, being liabilities of commercial banks with standard FDIC insurance.
As commercial banks engage in fractional-reserve banking with stablecoin deposits, their balance sheet expands with expansions in credit and security holdings accounting for most of the expansion. The central bank shrinks its balance sheet on the net, as reserves increase slightly while cash liabilities decrease significantly. Households accumulate more assets, funded by the expansion in bank loans. The effect on credit provision is positive. With the administration’s openly hostile stance toward crypto from the Treasury Secretary, to the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to the IRS to its allies in Congress, the Fed research offers a glimmer of hope for crypto’s future.
A version of this post originally appeared on the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute https://cei.org/blog/new-federal-reserve-study-is-surprisingly-upbeat-on-stablecoins/
Join thecrowdfundinglawyers.com founder Paul H. Jossey, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), and Iain Murray for a discussion about Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC).
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
A cookie is a string of information that a website stores on a visitor’s computer, and that the visitor’s browser provides to the website each time the visitor returns.
THECROWDFUNDINGLAWYERS.COM uses cookies to help identify and track visitors, their usage of THECROWDFUNDINGLAWYERS.COM sites, and their website access preferences. THECROWDFUNDINGLAWYERS.COM visitors who do not wish to have cookies placed on their computers should set their browsers to refuse cookies before using THECROWDFUNDINGLAWYERS.COM’s websites, with the drawback that certain features of THECROWDFUNDINGLAWYERS.COM’s websites may not function properly without the aid of cookies.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
