Pascal Rigert

[NANA♥️ @__________Nadia]

Made the pedicure lady happy by combing the hair with her feet.❤

[Sue 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @suespeaksup]

Well I have cried laughing at this 🤣🤣🤣

[Alain Schwald @AlainS1991]

Wer nach diesem Interview noch Ja zu den Rahmenverträgen mit der EU sagt, kann man auch nicht mehr helfen...
https://t.co/DAM8JtGmOd

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this, so I want to make a couple of points.

I'm not owed eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created. The idea is as ludicrous as me checking with the boss I had when I was twenty-one for what opinions I should hold these days.

Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them.

However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created.

When you've known people since they were ten years old it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently, I hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gently coaxed through their dialogue in a big scary film studio. For the past few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the Witch Trials of JK Rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said.

The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's 'all witches' speech, and in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a postscript that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me, which contained the single sentence 'I'm so sorry for what you're going through' (she has my phone number). This was back when the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness.

Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is. She'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her 'public bathroom' is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who's identified into the women's prison?

I wasn't a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women's rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.

The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me - a change of tack I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was - I might never have been this honest.

Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother. Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.

[Roland Mathys @MathysRoland]

Damit ist das RA2.0 tot!
Danke @ignaziocassis!

Er gibt nun zu, dass die grundsätzliche automatische Rechtsübernahme (zur Vertuschung als „dynamisch“ bezeichnet) Tatsache ist!

Zudem gibt er auch zu, dass VI, die irgend einen Punkt des RA2.0 touchieren, eigentlich nicht mehr möglich sind.

Zudem sagt er, dass eine Abstimmung mit der Pistole am Kopf (man muss immer mit bei der Abstimmung völlig unbekannten Bestrafungen rechnen) Standard sein wird.

Das verstösst übrigens gegen Artikel 34 Absatz 2 BV.

#RA2_0_NEIN

[Johnny B. Good @Cat5SMASHICANE]

American politics. There is no more entertaining reality show out there. 🤣🤣🤣

[RYAN SΞAN ADAMS @RyanSAdams]

Ethereum is winning the war for real world assets and nothing is close.

I just looked at the numbers and oh my god.

Two things to establish.

First, RWAs are a network effect game. Liquidity begets liquidity. Institutions go where there's liquidity. Power laws win.

Second, the network effect game is three fold. There's a good, better, best for Ethereum network effects.

Good = Ethereum virtual machine (EVM)
Better = Ethereum L2
Best = Ethereum L1

Ok.

Let's go category by category on RWAs.

Stablecoins.

Ethereum has almost $160 billion of stablecoins on its L1, that's 57% of all stablecoins - already impressive.

If you add EVM share you get 95%.

That means 95% of all stablecoins reinforce Ethereum's existing network effects. Newer stablecoin focused networks - Stripe Tempo, Circle Arc, Plasma Tether - all EVM. Strange as it sounds, EVM momentum is dominant but increasing.

Stablecoins are the king of RWAs, the OGs - 90% of all RWAs are stablecoins. No RWA class is as mature. All other assets will go where the stablecoins go.

Winning stablecoins probably means winning RWAs and Ethereum stablecoin network effects are staggering.

Treasuries.

Ethereum L1 has $5.2 billion here, that's 70% share. Add EVM and you get 86% share of onchain Treasuries.

All issuers that matter - BlackRock, WisdomTree, Franklin, Ondo have treasuries on Ethereum. No one gets fired for deploying on Ethereum, so everyone does - 34 total issuers on Ethereum, the next closest doesn't have half that number.

Treasuries are the world reserve asset and Ethereum is the onchain home for treasuries.

Gold.

Ethereum L1 has 78% of the worlds tokenized gold - almost $2B worth. If you add the EVMs, it's 99.96%. Utterly dominant.

Tokenized gold is poised for growth with crypto native issues like Paxos and Tether tripling down. And when the big gold institutions enter - say BlackRock's Gold EFT - where do you think they'll deploy?

If you're bullish onchain gold you're bullish Ethereum.

Stocks.

Tokenized stocks are the most nascent of onchain markets and the most regulated - only $420m so far. Stocks is the one category Ethereum is not yet dominating.

Ethereum L1 has $65m - that's only 15%.

But look more closely - Algorand and Stellar only have 1 stock each, whereas Ethereum has 200. Exodus Movement is the single stock on Algorand and worth $215m alone, a clear outliner experiment - likely incentivized by Algorand.

Remove those and Ethereum L1 is closer to 44% of total, trailed closely by Solana at 30%. Does Solana stand a chance here?

Maybe.

But consider the heavyweights about to enter - Robinhood, eToro, even Coinbase - all of these are preparing to list tokenized securities on Ethereum L2s. All of these will be ready when the SEC greenlights tokenized stocks.

Robinhood alone has $170 billion in stocks it could move onchain to Ethereum.

Hard to win against these network effects.

Let's zoom out

Adding stablecoins and non-stablecoin RWAs together you see Ethereum dominance.

Ethereum L1 = 79% marketshare ($160B)
Add Ethereum L2s = 86% marketshare ($185B)
Add Ethereum EVMs = 93% marketshare ($200B)

93% of RWAs are good for Ethereum.
86% of RWAs are really good for Ethereum.
79% of RWAs are really really good for Ethereum.

This is why people like @fundstrat say things like institutions are building on Ethereum - they are.

Ethereum is winning the RWAs game and nothing is close.

What if the EVM wins but Ethereum doesn't?

Some people still find a way to believe that the EVM will win but Ethereum won't - they point to permissioned corporate chains building separate L1 EVMs and say, a-ha! They're building a better Ethereum!

My friends - every centralized EVM chain just cements Ethereum's lead - the only thing the corp chains will agree on is using Ethereum for security and neutrality, none can compete on this dimension.

What if Ethereum wins but ETH doesn't?

Others will find a way to believe none of these RWA adds value to ETH the asset. How is this accretive to Ethereum revenue?

My friends - if Ethereum becomes the world ledger you think it's farfetched to believe ETH the asset - with lower issuance than bitcoin or gold and better censorship resistance - you think it's farfetched to believe ETH will catch up and even exceed these other store of value assets?

ETH issuance is .7% - issuance is capped - the world is starved for fixed supply assets that aren't anyone else's liability and have no counterparty risk.

Once they see it the world will catch on.

Ethereum = world ledger
ETH = world reserve asset

[PPP - Politische Pranks&Possen +TV-Tipps @Prankmelder]

Von Schirach mit Klartext! Sowas geht beim Staats-TV nur bei Lanz! Danke dafür!

#lanz #Oerrblog #OERR #zdf #spd #oerrabschaffen #Rehlinger

[Saffron Sniper @Saffron_Sniper1]

18 Different customs from around the
world, kind to creepy - A Thread🧵

1. “Bacha bazi” is a disturbing practice in parts of Pakistan, especially Pashtun regions, where young boys are dressed as girls, made to dance for older men, and often physically abused.

[MartinC2Janssen @zauberberg188]

economiesuisse und Rahmenvertrag
Um es vorwegzunehmen: Ihre Argumente sind — IMO — falsch, unehrlich oder unerheblich. Im Detail:
— Sie schreiben: «Wir haben mit den Bilateralen einen massgeschneiderten Weg und können dort gezielt Abkommen abschliessen, wo wir Marktzugang oder eine Kooperation anstreben.» Sie wissen sicher, dass das nicht stimmt. Nur schon der ganze Bankensektor ist ausgeschlossen. Die EU will keinen Wettbewerb aus der Schweiz. „Level-playing Field“ heisst das Stichwort: Unsere Industrie wird so lange mit Regulierungen überzogen werden, bis wir alle komparativen Vorteile verloren haben. 
— Sie schreiben: «Gerade in einer geopolitisch fragilen Zeit ist der Zugang zum europäischen Binnenmarkt kein Detail, sondern eine zentrale Voraussetzung für Wachstum, Innovation und Standortsicherheit🤝.» Sie wissen sicher, dass Sie hier einen völlig falschen Eindruck erwecken. Der Marktzugang in die EU steht dank dem FHA 1973 schon seit mehr als 50 Jahre offen. Im Übrigen liegen Wachstum, Innovation und Standortsicherheit in der Schweiz und ganz bestimmt nicht in der EU.
— Sie schreiben: «Die neuen Verträge bieten der Schweiz nicht nur Planungssicherheit, sondern auch Handlungsspielraum …». Sie wissen sicher, dass das nicht stimmt und vielmehr das Gegenteil zutrifft. Es gibt viel weniger Planungssicherheit als heute, weil nicht mehr wir selbst planen und entscheiden, sondern im Wesentlichen die EU. Zudem haben wir im Rahmen des Integrationsverfahrens, wo EU-Recht direkt in Schweizer Recht überführt wird, gar nichts zu sagen. Und der Handlungsspielraum ist gegenüber heute, wo das Volk fast alles entscheiden kann, völlig inexistent. 
— Sie sprechen zu guter Letzt von „Bilateralen“, obwohl an diesen Verträgen, wie wir gerade auch im Zusammenhang mit dem USA-Dossier erfahren haben, gar nichts bilateral ist. „Unterwerfungsvertrag“, „Anschlussvertrag“ oder gar „Kapitulationsvertrag“ trifft den Sachverhalt besser.

[SparksN123 @SparksN123]

Truth bomb.

[Imtiaz Mahmood @ImtiazMadmood]

Muslims living with Hindus = Problem.
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem.
Muslims living with Christians = Problem.
Muslims living with Jews = Problem.
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem.
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem.
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem.
Muslims living with Muslims = Big Problem.

This led to:
They’re not happy in Gaza.
They’re not happy in Egypt.
They’re not happy in Libya.
They’re not happy in Morocco.
They’re not happy in Iran.
They’re not happy in Iraq.
They’re not happy in Yemen.
They’re not happy in Afghanistan.
They’re not happy in Pakistan.
They’re not happy in Syria.
They’re not happy in Lebanon.
They’re not happy in Nigeria.
They’re not happy in Kenya.
They’re not happy in Sudan.

Where are they happy?

They’re happy in Australia.
They’re happy in England.
They’re happy in Belgium.
They’re happy in France.
They’re happy in Italy.
They’re happy in Germany.
They’re happy in Sweden.
They’re happy in the USA and Canada.
They’re happy in Norway and India.

They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic.

Whom do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves.

They blame the countries they are happy in.

They want to change the countries they’re happy in to be like the countries they came from, where they were unhappy.

[Arynne Wexler @ArynneWexler]

WORLD RECORD: Greta Thunberg becomes the first hostage victim in history whose kidnappers’ only demand is that she leave

[Dr. Parik Patel, BA, CFA, ACCA Esq. @ParikPatelCFA]

Can’t believe Elon and Trump broke up during Pride month

[Love Music @khnh80044]

How to play 'Happy Birthday' Like Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Bach and Mozart Piano by Nicole Pesce. Which style do you feel is suitable and the most wonderful?🤔🤔

[David Biner @david_biner]

Deep State, der: heute gut erklärt von @ThierryBurkart @NZZ

[Community Notes & Violations @CNviolations]

💀 9 BRUTAL comebacks liberals won't like.

🧵THREAD🧵

1. Legendary.