Here’s Why Ethereum (ETH) Price Can Plunge More Ahead

Ethereum, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency has been trading under major selling pressure. ETH prices have dropped by 40% over the past 30 days. However, expert suggests that this drop may continue further.

July/August can be worst months

Daniel Cheung, Co founder of Pangea Fund Management in a Twitter thread mentioned a massive short opportunity for Ethereum at $1,200 in the next 2 months. He suggests that the market hasn’t yet seen the capitulation yet. It added that July and August are lined up to be the worst months ahead.The fund manager highlighted that currently, the market is in the Macro trade regime. The Bitcoin and Ethereum trends suggest that the crypto market has been trading very sensitively to inflation.

The recent selling pressure has led the Global crypto market cap to plunge by another 5% over the past day. It now stands at $902 billion. The digital asset market recorded its all time high (ATH) of $3 trillion in November 2021.

Ethereum price can drop by 40%

The world’s second largest crypto is still likely to be levered and liquid bet on Nasdaq and that too for the next 2 months. He believes that Nasdaq still has a lot of room to fail ahead. It is still down by 30% from the recent ATH with a prior drawdown. Cheung added that a further 20% downside is still in the frame for QQQ and 40% for Ethereum.

ETH prices are down by more than 9% in the last 24 hours. It’s trading at an average price of $1,111, at the press time. Its 24 hours trading volume is up by 7% to stand at $14.6 billion. However, it is still down by 77% from its all time high.

By Ashish Kumar

Critics by Lapin

Ethereum price analysis is bearish today as we have seen more downside reached over the last 24 hours with a steady downside momentum. Therefore, we expect ETH/USD to drop even lower and look to retrace even lower. The next obvious target is the $1,050 support, which, if broken, would lead to a lot more downside in July.  The market has traded in the red over the last 24 hours. The leader, Bitcoin, lost 4.81 percent, while Ethereum a more substantial 9.17 percent. The rest of the top altcoins have followed close by, with some declining even further.

Ethereum price movement in the last 24 hours: Ethereum breaks past $1,175

ETH/USD traded in a range of $1,111.20 to $1,229.74, indicating substantial volatility over the last 24 hours. Trading volume has increased by 5.36 percent, totaling $14.58 billion, while the total market cap trades around $135.5 billion, resulting in market dominance of 15.13 percent.

ETH/USD 4-hour chart: ETH targets $1,050 next?

On the 4-hour chart, we can see the Ethereum price still testing further lows with no signs of reversal just yet. Therefore, more downside should follow to the $1,050 previous local swing low. Ethereum price action has seen strong bullish signals over the second half of June. After the initial reaction from the last swing low at $1,050, ETH/USD retraced to $1,175, setting a strong lower high. However, further downside did not follow as the $1,050 offered strong support.

From the newly found local higher low, ETH rallied higher one more time last week. A new high was set at $1,275, indicating that the several-week bearish momentum could soon end. On Monday, bearish momentum took over as buyers became exhausted. After some , ETH/USD set a lower local high and broke past the $1,775 local support. Late yesterday the decline continued, pushing the Ethereum price as low as the $1,100 mark.

This means that bullish momentum could soon come back. However, as long as bearish candles are seen later today, we expect further downside at the $1,050 previous low to be reached soon. From there, much depends on how the market will react. If a break below this support follows, we could see a lot more downside and both lower lows and highs set in July. Alternatively, if the $1,050 mark holds, ETH could move into consolidation.

Ethereum price analysis: Conclusion 

Ethereum price analysis is bearish today as we have seen a lot more retrace from the previous swing high at $1,275 so far this week. Since no signs of reversal have followed today, we expect ETH/USD to move even further and target the previous local low. In case it is broken, ETH should see a lot more downside early in July.

Related news:

Amazon Funds Its Empire By Squeezing Its Marketplace Sellers

Amazon has always presented its Marketplace, where outside businesses sell products through Amazon’s platform, as one of its biggest success stories: mutually beneficial to Amazon, sellers, and customers alike. But a new report says those benefits are increasingly lopsided — in Amazon’s favor.

The report, which comes from the nonprofit Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), asserts that Amazon takes a larger and larger cut of sellers’ earnings through the various fees it levies on them. These fees have become so lucrative for Amazon that they now represent the company’s most profitable segment as well as its fastest-growing revenue stream, according to ILSR. And because sellers are paying Amazon high fees, customers may face inflated prices, even when they shop beyond Amazon’s borders.

“Amazon is the only winner here,” Stacy Mitchell, ILSR co-director and author of the report, told Recode. “It’s exploiting its monopoly power over these small businesses to pocket a huge and growing cut of their revenue.”

You might consider this to be a good business strategy on Amazon’s part, as it’s certainly paid off for the company. And some sellers on Amazon’s platform say they’re happy with the arrangement — at least, for now. But a growing number of others argue that Amazon’s dominance over the e-commerce market and its power over its sellers has given rise to anti-competitive practices that hurt Amazon’s competitors, competition in general, and consumers.

“Amazon’s dominance is bad for businesses, jobs, and America’s competitiveness,” Rep. David Cicilline, chair of the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee, told Recode. “This important study makes clear that Amazon is crushing sellers through abusive policies that make it nearly impossible for everyday businesses to get ahead.”

These are some of the same issues identified by regulators and lawmakers who have accused Amazon of abusing its market dominance. They say it’s further evidence that action must be taken to curb Amazon’s power — and some of them are already working on legislation.

“It is important to understand how tech platforms can exploit their power to hurt small businesses and raise prices for consumers,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, chair of the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee, told Recode. “This report highlights how Amazon’s tactics can lead to that result and why Congress must act to set clear rules of the road for the digital giants that dominate our online economy.”

Amazon disputes the report’s findings, calling it “intentionally misleading” for lumping its mandatory fees and optional services together as “seller fees.” Amazon maintains that all of its fees — mandatory and optional — are competitive with what similar services charge, and that many sellers are successful without taking advantage of those optional services. But Mitchell says many sellers feel compelled to pay those ostensibly optional fees if they want their businesses to stay afloat.

Marketplace: The gift that keeps on giving (to Amazon)

Marketplace is a huge part of Amazon’s business. In his 2020 letter to shareholders, Jeff Bezos said it accounted for nearly 60 percent of Amazon’s retail sales, which come from nearly 2 million sellers. So when you buy a product on Amazon, chances are it was sold by an independent business using Amazon’s platform. Amazon isn’t providing that platform for free.

“The trade-off that any seller is dealing with is you get access to a huge audience, you get access to scale, the ability to scale your sales, but it comes at a cost to margin,” Andrew Lipsman, principal analyst at eMarketer, told Recode.

The cost to sellers is increasing every year, according to ILSR’s analysis, making business unsustainable for some sellers while Amazon’s profits grow.

The new ILSR report found that Amazon’s seller fees accounted for an average of 19 percent of sellers’ earnings in 2014. That’s almost doubled to 34 percent in 2021. And while seller fees accounted for 14 percent of Amazon’s entire revenue in 2014, that figure is up to 25 percent in 2021. Amazon will pull in $121 billion from seller fees alone, ILSR estimates.

That revenue translates to a lot of profit — more than even Amazon Web Services (AWS), Amazon’s cloud computing platform typically believed to be the company’s most profitable arm. AWS netted $13.5 billion in 2020, according to Amazon’s financial data. ILSR estimates seller fees netted $24 billion. (Amazon says these figures are inaccurate but did not provide its own; the company’s public earnings statements also don’t combine seller fees in this way.)

“Everyone thinks AWS generates all of Amazon’s profits,” Mitchell said. “But in fact, Marketplace is this massive tollbooth that gushes profits.”

Seller fees primarily come from three things: sales, fulfillment, and ads. Every item sold is subject to a referral fee, which is Amazon’s commission. Over the years, that’s stayed pretty consistent at 15 percent (it may be lower or higher, depending on the product category). According to ILSR, those referral fees made up the majority of seller fees as recently as 2017.

Since then, however, the majority of fees come from Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA), Amazon’s service that stores, packs, and ships sellers’ items to customers. Ad revenue is steadily gaining ground as more sellers pay for more ads to get prominent placement on Amazon’s site, including on product pages and search results.

Sellers who use FBA pay Amazon a fee based on the size and type of item they sell. Sellers also have to pay to ship items to and from Amazon’s fulfillment centers and to store them there. For some sellers, this might be a cheaper or easier option than doing it all themselves. Amazon says FBA’s pricing is competitive with similar fulfillment services if not cheaper, and sellers aren’t required to use it.

But help with logistics isn’t the only appeal of FBA for many sellers. Enrolling in the FBA program is the only way that most sellers can qualify for Prime. (Some sellers may qualify for Seller Fulfilled Prime, but it’s not accepting new enrollees at this time.) Getting that Prime badge is huge for a seller. Amazon shoppers — especially those 200 million Prime members — are far more likely to buy products that qualify for Amazon Prime. But that’s not only because they want to take advantage of the free shipping. It’s also because customers may not even see non-Prime offerings in the first place, thanks to the mechanics of the so-called Buy Box.

When multiple sellers offer the same item, Amazon’s algorithm picks one of them to be the default purchase on the product’s page. This is called “winning the Buy Box,” and when the customer clicks to add an item to their cart or to buy now, the seller who won the Buy Box is the one who gets the sale.

Prime items are far more likely to win the Buy Box than non-Prime items, and customers rarely click on that small “other sellers” link or the small “new and used” box where all the other listings are housed. This gives sellers a major incentive to pay for FBA, even if it costs more than taking care of the shipping themselves.

These FBA fees have been great for Amazon, which has dramatically expanded the logistics network that powers FBA as well as the number of sellers participating in the program. Five years ago, about half of Amazon’s top 10,000 sellers worldwide used FBA. By 2019, it was 85 percent. Amazon even offers a version of FBA for products ordered from other e-commerce services, including Shopify. Dave Clark, the CEO of Amazon’s consumer business, believes his company will be the largest delivery service in the United States by early 2022.

FBA aside, there are other ways sellers are paying Amazon more and more in the hope of generating sales. Amazon has been making a big push into digital advertising recently, and seller ads are part of its strategy. Critics have accused Amazon of increasing the number of sponsored slots in search results to increase ad inventory, and of charging more for the ads in them. (Amazon says the number of ads varies, and pricing is determined by an auction.)

Because of this, some sellers feel like they’re paying more and getting less. Amazon itself says these ads increase product visibility, which can translate into more sales. But that also means less visibility for the products in organic search results that earned their placement through strong sales and positive reviews. Sellers are already competing for this space with Amazon’s own products, and that competition might not be fair, as Amazon reportedly ranks its own products above others that had higher ratings. (Amazon has disputed these reports and says its ranking models don’t take into account whether the product is made by Amazon or offered by a third-party seller.)

Either way, many sellers increasingly feel pressure to buy ads just to get the same search placement (and sales) they once got for free. In a statement to Recode, Amazon maintained that FBA and ads are not mandatory and that sellers may find them beneficial.

“Sellers are not required to use our logistics or advertising services, and only use them if they provide incremental value to their businesses,” an Amazon spokesperson said.

How sellers’ problems affect your wallet

If you’re not a seller that relies on Amazon to survive, you might not see how any of this affects you. If you’re an Amazon customer, you might even think that this system is ensuring that you can buy products at the best price. But you might be wrong.

“Whether you shop on Amazon or not, you are paying higher prices because of its monopoly power,” Mitchell said.

When sellers have to raise their prices to account for Amazon’s increased fees, they often pass those costs along to the customer. And, thanks to Amazon’s fair pricing policy, sellers have to offer the same price on other platforms that they do on Amazon — even if their costs to sell on those platforms are less. If they don’t, Amazon may suspend or demote their listings. Sellers don’t want to take that risk, which could be potentially devastating to their business.

This policy could mean that, as sellers adjust their prices to account for Amazon’s fees, prices end up being higher elsewhere, too. It also makes it harder for other e-commerce platforms to compete with Amazon and challenge its market dominance, since they aren’t able to offer lower prices that would attract more customers. The lack of options means sellers are basically stuck with Amazon if they want to reach its exponentially larger and loyal consumer base.

Sellers have helped Amazon grow to own 40 percent and 50 percent (depending which report you cite) of the e-commerce market in the United States, and in some product categories, its share is far higher. Its closest platform competitor, Walmart, has just 7 percent. Amazon is often the first place online shoppers look for products — even before search engines — especially if those shoppers are Prime members. A large, established company can pull itself out of Amazon, as Nike did in 2019, and still do fine. Most businesses don’t have that luxury.

“Small businesses don’t have other options when it comes to the digital economy,” Rep. Ken Buck, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee, told Recode. “Amazon continues to use their monopoly power to crush competition.”

One solution is for lawmakers and regulators to step in. Some are trying: The European Commission announced last year that it is investigating whether Amazon gave preferential treatment to itself and sellers that used FBA when determining who gets the Buy Box. The fair pricing policy and its potential to inflate prices across the internet is the basis of the District of Columbia’s lawsuit against Amazon, as well as a class action lawsuit filed by Amazon customers last year.

Several members of Congress — Buck, Cicilline, and Klobuchar among them — have introduced bills that would forbid some of Amazon’s practices they believe to be anti-competitive. These bills came out of a 16-month-long House antitrust subcommittee investigation into Big Tech companies, including Amazon. The committee accused Amazon of luring in customers and sellers with artificially low prices and Prime memberships that the company loses money on, only to raise rates as soon as Amazon’s market dominance was assured.

The proposed legislation would forbid Amazon from giving its own products prominent placement, unless it earned that place organically, and from requiring sellers to pay for ads or services like FBA in order to get preferred placement. One bill would forbid Amazon from competing in a marketplace it also owns, and could force Amazon to split off into a first-party sales company and a company that operates a platform for third-party sellers.

Amazon has responded to all of this by denying that such measures are necessary or that it’s doing anything wrong. The company has become one of the biggest lobbying spenders in the country, and it’s been emailing select sellers to warn them that pending antitrust legislation could make it difficult or impossible for them to sell their products on Amazon.

After years of studying Amazon’s business practices, Mitchell, of ILSR, thinks the best solution is arguably the most drastic.

“Policymakers could regulate Amazon’s fees — basically accept it as a regulated shopping monopoly, like a utility,” she said. “But I think a much better, more market-oriented approach is to break it up by splitting Amazon’s major divisions into stand-alone companies.”

Source: Amazon funds its empire by squeezing its marketplace sellers

 

More contents:

“Amazon.com, Inc. 2020 Form 10-K Annual Report”. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “California Secretary of State Business Search”. Secretary of State of California. “Amazon.com, Inc. – Form-10K”. NASDAQ. December 31, 2018. Retrieved March 17, 2019. Lotz, Amanda.

“‘Big Tech’ isn’t one big monopoly – it’s 5 companies all in different businesses”. The Conversation. Retrieved May 16, 2019.

“The Big Four of Technology”. October 31, 2017. Retrieved May 16, 2019. Rivas, Teresa.

“Ranking The Big Four Tech Stocks: Google Is No. 1, Apple Comes In Last”. http://www.barrons.com. Retrieved May 16, 2019.

“FANG Stocks News: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix And Google”. Investor’s Business Daily. September 15, 2020. Kantar.

“Accelerated Growth Sees Amazon Crowned 2019’s BrandZ™ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brand”. http://www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved May 25, 2020.

Amazon Empire: The Rise and Reign of Jeff Bezos”. PBS. Guevara, Natalie (November 17, 2020).

“Amazon’s John Schoettler has helped change how we think of corporate campuses”. bizjournals.com. Archived from the original on March 9, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2021. Streitfeld, David; Kantor, Jodi (August 17, 2015).

“Jeff Bezos and Amazon Employees Join Debate Over Its Culture”. The New York Times. ISSN0362-4331. Retrieved February 20, 2019.

“Amazon and Whole Foods Market Announce Acquisition to Close This Monday, Will Work Together to Make High-Quality, Natural and Organic Food Affordable for Everyone” (Press release). Business Wire. August 24, 2017.

“Jeff Bezos reveals Amazon has 100 million Prime members in letter to shareholders”. CNBC. April 18, 2018. Retrieved January 2, 2019. Furth, John F. (May 18, 2018).

“Why Amazon and Jeff Bezos Are So Successful at Disruption”. Entrepreneur. Retrieved May 16, 2019. Bylund, Per (August 29, 2017).

“Amazon’s Lesson About Disruption: Rattle Any Market You Can”. Entrepreneur. Retrieved May 16, 2019. Newman, Daniel.

“Alibaba vs. Amazon: The Battle Of Disruptive Innovation Beyond Traditional E-Commerce”. Forbes. Retrieved May 16, 2019.

“Microsoft Cloud Revenues Leap; Amazon is Still Way Out in Front”. srgresearch.com. Reno, Nevada: Synergy Research Group. Jopson, Barney (July 12, 2011).

“Amazon urges California referendum on online tax”. Financial Times. Archived from the original on July 14, 2011. Retrieved August 4, 2011.

“Fortune Global 500 List 2018: See Who Made It”. Fortune. Retrieved January 8, 2019. Cheng, Evelyn (September 23, 2016).

“Amazon climbs into list of top five largest US stocks by market cap”. CNBC. Retrieved February 20, 2019. Magazine, BrandZ (July 1, 2020).

“BrandZ Global Top 100 Most Valuable Brands”. BrandZ. Harwell, Drew (April 30, 2019).

“Amazon’s facial-recognition AI is supercharging police in Oregon”. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 30, 2019. Kantor, Jodi; Streitfeld, David. “Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace”. The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2020. Stampler, Laura (February 14, 2019).

Amazon Will Pay a Whopping $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits”. Fortune. Retrieved February 20, 2019. Khan, Lina (January 2017). “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox”. Yale Law Journal. 126 (3): 564–907. Baum, Andrew (October 23, 2015).

Amazon Wins Ruling on Results for Searches on Brands It Doesn’t Sell”. The National Law Review. Foley & Lardner. Retrieved December 21, 2015.

The David Rubenstein Show: Jeff Bezos, Bloomberg Markets and Finance, September 19, 2018 Abadi, Mark.

MacKenzie Bezos played a big role in the founding of Amazon and drove across the country with Jeff to start it”. Business Insider. Retrieved December 24, 2020. Cain, Áine.

Meet MacKenzie Bezos, who stands to become one of the world’s richest women after her divorce, was one of the first Amazon employees, and has written 2 award-winning novels”. Business Insider. Retrieved December 24, 2020. Hubbard, Lauren (April 4, 2019).

Who Is Jeff Bezos’s Ex-Wife, Novelist MacKenzie Bezos?”. Town & Country. Retrieved December 24, 2020. “Amazon.com – History & Facts”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved January 3, 2019.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos will step down as CEO”. Fox8. February 2, 2021. Archived from the original on February 2, 2021. Retrieved February 2, 2021. Haselton, Todd (February 2, 2021).

Jeff Bezos to step down as Amazon CEO, Andy Jassy to take over in Q3″. CNBC. Retrieved February 2, 2021.

Officers & Directors”. Amazon. Retrieved March 29, 2019. “Toys R Us bankruptcy: A dot-com-era deal with Amazon marked the beginning of the end”. Quartz. Retrieved November 11, 2018.

Toys R Us wins Amazon lawsuit”. BBC News. March 3, 2006. Retrieved December 1, 2012. Metz, Rachel (June 12, 2009).

Amazon to pay Toys R Us $51M to settle suit”. USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved December 1, 2012.

Amazon/Borders form online partnership”. CNN Money. April 11, 2001. Retrieved November 11, 2018.

How ‘Amazon factor’ killed retailers like Borders, Circuit City”. SFGate. July 13, 2015. Retrieved November 11, 2018. Streitfeld, David (October 18, 2011).

Bookstores Drop Comics After Amazon Deal With DC”. The New York Times. ISSN0362-4331. Retrieved February 20, 2019. Barr, Alistair (November 11, 2013).

Amazon starts Sunday delivery with US Postal Service”. USA Today. Retrieved November 25, 2013.

Nike confirms ‘pilot’ partnership with Amazon”. Engadget. Retrieved July 3, 2017. Cosgrove, Elly; Thomas, Lauren (November 13, 2019).

Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore”. CNBC. Zimmerman, Ben. “Council Post: Why Nike Cut Ties With Amazon And What It Means For Other Retailers”. Forbes. Muldowney, Decca (August 23, 2021).

As demand for bikes surged, Amazon got in the way”. The Verge. Bhumika, Khatri (September 27, 2018).

Amazon’s JV Appario Retail Clocks In $104.4 Mn For FY18″. Inc42 Media. “Booths teams up with Amazon to sell down South for the first time”

Google Pushes to Overturn EU’s $5 Billion Antitrust Decision on Android

BRUSSELS— Alphabet Inc.’s GOOG -0.88% Google started its appeal Monday to overturn a $5 billion antitrust fine imposed by the European Union, contending that its Android operating system for mobile devices has boosted competition rather than foreclosing it.

The tech giant presented oral arguments in Luxembourg before the EU’s second-highest court, in its appeal to overturn the 2018 decision from the bloc’s antitrust enforcer. In that case, EU authorities found Google had illegally abused the market power of Android to push companies that manufacture and distribute Android phones into agreements aimed at entrenching and expanding the dominance of the Google search engine on mobile devices.

That decision was the largest of three antitrust fines totaling more than $9 billion that the EU has levied against Google in the past half decade. It also ordered changes to the distribution agreements buttressing one of the company’s biggest growth engines: search ads on mobile phones.

“Android has created more choice for everyone, not less,” a Google spokeswoman said. “This case isn’t supported by the facts or the law.”

A verdict isn’t expected for months, and it can be appealed to the EU’s top court, the Court of Justice. Still, the litigation is a new test for the EU’s competition and digital-policy chief, Margrethe Vestager, who already faces a pending appeal of an earlier decision against Google’s alleged abuse of the dominance of its search engine to favor its online-shopping ads.

Ms. Vestager has since opened a new antitrust probe into Google’s ad-tech business, along with a wave of cases exploring whether companies including Facebook Inc., Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. abuse their dominance to drive out smaller rivals. The companies deny wrongdoing.

A spokeswoman for the European Commission, the bloc’s top antitrust regulator, declined to comment.

While the appeal is under way, Google has had to comply with the decision, offering all users of new Android phones in the EU a choice screen of alternative search engines. But so far Google’s market share for search on mobile phones has remained relatively stable, according to Statcounter.

At issue in the hearing this week is whether Google’s Android is indeed dominant, as European regulators argue, and whether Google’s distribution deals for the operating system and its Google Play app store for Android were anticompetitive.

The Commission has argued that Google used those agreements to block the rise of potential competitors and secure the dominance of its cash cow search engine on mobile phones—an outcome far from assured at the time.

The Commission found Google had abused its control of the Android operating system by forcing phone makers to pre-install Google Search and Google’s Chrome browser if they also wanted to include Google’s Play store for apps, by far the most common way to get Android apps.

The Commission also found Google’s so-called antifragmentation agreements—deals that discourage official Android manufacturers from selling devices that run unofficial, modified versions of Android—illegally blocked the development and emergence of competing operating systems.

“Instead of an antifragmentation agreement, it should be called an anticompetition agreement,” said Thomas Vinje, a lawyer representing FairSearch, a group representing Oracle Inc. and other companies whose 2013 complaint led the Commission to open a formal case investigating Android in 2015.

Apple and Google have one of Silicon Valley’s most famous rivalries, but behind the scenes they maintain a deal worth $8 billion to $12 billion a year according to a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit. Here’s how they came to depend on each other. Photo illustration: Jaden Urbi

Google argues that those analyses are flawed. It says Android devices must compete with Apple’s iPhone and iPad, and the Commission was wrong to largely exclude them from its analysis. The company argues that its antifragmentation agreements are necessary to keep Android phones compatible with apps, and aren’t a barrier to creating competing operating systems.

Google also says the allegation that it blocked competing apps is false because manufacturers typically install many rival apps on Android devices, and consumers can easily download others. The company says it has a right to recoup the money it spends developing Android, which it makes available free to manufacturers, by encouraging them to install Google Search, from which the company makes the bulk of its revenue.

Google and the Commission will be joined in this week’s arguments by nearly a dozen outside companies and trade groups that have filed their own supporting briefs in the case. Google’s supporters include the Computer & Communications Industry Association and two handset manufacturers.

Arguments on the Commission’s side will include some from German publisher groups and complainants in the case, including FairSearch.

By: Sam Schechner at sam.schechner@wsj.com and Daniel Michaels at daniel.michaels@wsj.com

Source: Google Pushes to Overturn EU’s $5 Billion Antitrust Decision on Android – WSJ

.

Related Contents:

Why Wall Street Is Afraid of Government-Backed Digital Dollar

Imagine Imagine logging on to your own account with the U.S. Federal Reserve. With your laptop or phone, you could zap cash anywhere instantly. There’d be no middlemen, no fees, no waiting for deposits or payments to clear.

That vision sums up the appeal of the digital dollar, the dream of futurists and the bane of bankers. It’s not the Bitcoin bros and other cryptocurrency fans pushing the disruptive idea but America’s financial and political elite. Fed Chair Jerome Powell promises fresh research and a set of policy questions for Congress to ponder this summer. J. Christopher Giancarlo, a former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is rallying support through the nonprofit Digital Dollar Project, a partnership with consulting giant Accenture Plc. To perpetuate American values such as free enterprise and the rule of law, “we should modernize the dollar,” he recently told a U.S. Senate banking subcommittee.

For now the dollar remains the premier global reserve currency and preferred legal tender for international trade and financial transactions. But a new flavor of cryptocurrency could pose a threat to that dominance, which is part of the reason the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston has been working with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on developing prototypes for a digital-dollar platform.

Other governments, notably China’s, are ahead in digitizing their currencies. In these nations, regulators worry that the possibilities for fraud are multiplying as more individuals embrace cryptocurrency. Steven Mnuchin, former President Donald Trump’s treasury secretary, said he saw no immediate need for a digital dollar. His successor, Janet Yellen, has expressed interest in studying it. Support for a virtual greenback cuts across party lines in Congress, which will have a say on whether it becomes reality.

At a hearing in June, Senators Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, and John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, signaled openness to the idea. Warren and other Democrats stressed the potential of the digital dollar to offer free services to low-income families who now pay high banking fees or are shut out of the system altogether.

Kennedy and fellow Republicans see a financial equivalent of the space race that pitted the U.S. against the Soviet Union—a battle for prestige, power, and first-mover advantage. This time the adversary is China, which announced this month that more than 10 million citizens are now eligible to participate in ongoing trials.

The strongest opposition to a virtual dollar will come from U.S. banks. They rely on $17 trillion in deposits to fund much of their core business, profiting from the difference between what they pay in interest to account holders and what they charge for loans. Banks also earn billions of dollars annually from overdraft, ATM, and account maintenance fees. By creating a digital currency, the Federal Reserve would in effect be competing with banks for customers.

In a recent blog post, Greg Baer, president of the Bank Policy Institute, which represents the industry, warned that homebuyers, businesses, and other customers would find it harder and more expensive to borrow money if the Fed were to infringe on the private sector’s historical central role in finance. “The Federal Reserve would gain extraordinary power,” wrote Baer, a former assistant treasury secretary in the Clinton administration.

Some economists warn that a digital dollar could destabilize the banking system. The federal government offers bank depositors $250,0000 in insurance, a program that’s successfully prevented bank runs since the Great Depression. But in a 2008-style financial panic, depositors might with a single click pull all their savings out of banks and convert them into direct obligations of the U.S. government.

“In a crisis, this may actually make matters worse,” says Eswar Prasad, a professor at Cornell University and the author of a book on digital currencies that will be published in September. Whether a virtual dollar is even necessary remains up for debate. For large companies, cross-border interbank payments are already fast, limiting the appeal of digital currencies. Early adopters of Bitcoin may have won an investment windfall as its value soared, but its volatility makes it a poor substitute for a reliable government-backed currency such as the dollar.

Yet there’s a new kind of crypto, called stablecoin, that could pose a threat to the dollar’s dominance. Similar to the other digital currencies, it’s essentially a string of code tracked and authenticated via an online ledger. But it has a crucial difference from Bitcoin and its ilk: Its value is pegged to a sovereign currency like the dollar, so it offers stability as well as privacy.

In June 2019, Facebook Inc. announced it was developing a stablecoin called Libra ( since renamed Diem). The social media giant’s 2.85 billion active users worldwide represent a huge test market. “That was a game changer,” Prasad says. “That served as a catalyst for a lot of central banks.”

Regulators also have concerns about consumer protection. Stablecoin is only as stable as the network of private participants who manage it on the web. Should something go wrong, holders could find themselves empty-handed. That prospect places pressure on governments to come up with their own alternatives.

Although the Fed has been studying the idea of a digital dollar since at least 2017, crucial details, including what role private institutions will play, remain unresolved. In the Bahamas, the only country with a central bank digital currency, authorized financial institutions are allowed to offer e-wallets for handling sand dollars, the virtual counterpart to the Bahamian dollar.

If depositors flocked to the virtual dollar, banks would need to find another way to fund their loans. Advocates of a digital dollar float the possibility of the Fed lending to banks so they could write loans. To help banks preserve deposits, the government could also set a ceiling on how much digital currency citizens can hold. In the Bahamas the amount is capped at $8,000.

Lev Menand, an Obama administration treasury adviser, cautions against such compromises, saying the priority should be offering unfettered access to a central bank digital currency, or CBDC. Menand, who now lectures at Columbia Law School, says that because this idea would likely require the passage of legislation, Congress faces a big decision: to create “a robust CBDC or a skim milk sort of product that has been watered down as a favor to big banks.”

By: Christopher Condon

Source: Cryptocurrency: Why Wall Street Is Afraid of Government-Backed Digital Dollar – Bloomberg

.

Critics:

Wall Street is warming up to the idea that the next big disruptive force on the horizon is central bank digital currencies, even though the Federal Reserve likely remains a few years away from developing its own.

Led by countries as large as China and as small as the Bahamas, digital money is drawing stronger interest as the future of an increasingly cashless society. A digital dollar would resemble cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin or ethereum in some limited respects, but differ in important ways.

Rather than be a tradable asset with wildly fluctuating prices and limited use, the central bank digital currency would function more like dollars and have widespread acceptance. It also would be fully regulated and under a central authority.

Myriad questions remain before an institution as large as the Fed will wade in. But the momentum is building around the world. As the Fed and other central banks work through those logistical issues, Wall Street is growing in anticipation over what the future will hold.

“The race towards Digital Money 2.0 is on,” Citigroup said in a report. “Some have framed it as a new Space Race or Digital Currency Cold War. In our view, it doesn’t have to be a zero sum game — there’s a lot of room for the overall digital pie to grow.”

There, however, has been at least the semblance of a race, and China is perceived as taking the early lead. With the launch of a digital yuan last year, some fear that the edge China has ultimately could undermine the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. Though China said that is not its objective, a Bank of America report notes that issuing digital dollars would let the U.S. currency “remain highly competitive … relative to other currencies.”

References:

Will Covid Return When It Gets Colder?

In this week’s edition of the Covid Q&A, we look at what the cold weather might bring for the virus. In hopes of making this very confusing time just a little less so, each week Bloomberg Prognosis is picking one question sent in by readers and putting it to experts in the field. This week’s question comes to us from Rebecca in Albany, New York. She asks:

What will happen to infection rates in the U.S. when cold weather returns next fall?

While many parts of the world are still battling outbreaks of Covid-19, this summer in the U.S. it’s started to feel like the pandemic is over. Many states have completely done away with restrictions, and national case numbers are at their lowest levels since the pandemic began. But new, more contagious variants of the virus are on the rise, and there are regional pockets of vaccine holdouts that threaten to keep Covid in circulation.

All this suggests, unfortunately, is that it’s likely the U.S. isn’t done with the coronavirus just yet. “While it’s not purely a function of cooler temperature, Covid will rise again in the fall (if it doesn’t before),” says Andrew Noymer, a professor of public health at University of California, Irvine. “Covid’s future is as a seasonal disease in the fashion of influenza — and Covid’s future is now. Covid will be back in the fall or winter, or both.”

Without U.S. inoculation rates far higher than their current level, Noymer says, vaccines are unlikely to stop a cold-weather surge. “The vaccines will make the coming wave less severe than the one that crested in January 2021, but vaccination rates are currently not high enough to prevent another wave,” he says.

A resurgence was always likely, he says, but more contagious strains like the delta variant first identified in India may make the wave come sooner.  “Every major viral respiratory disease is seasonal with a winter dominance,” he says. “Influenza doesn’t vanish, and neither will Covid.”

Ali Mokdad, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington, said that projections by the school’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation show a slow rise in cases in early September that will pick up with winter and peak in late January or early February. How bad it gets, he says, will depend on vaccination coverage, the variants in circulation and whether people return to habits like mask-wearing.

Still, several Covid vaccines appear to be far more efficacious than those for the seasonal flu. That means that while we may see a resurgence of the coronavirus, the worst is still most likely behind us.

Track the virus

One in Five Young Adults Not Working, Studying 

Almost one in five young adults in the U.S. was neither working nor studying in the first quarter as Black and Hispanic youth remain idle at disproportionate rates. The increase last quarter appears to be driven largely by joblessness, while school attendance rose moderately as campuses started to reopen, according to the study. Young adults are still experiencing double-digit unemployment rates.

Inactive youth is a worrying sign for the future of the economy, as they don’t gain critical job skills to help realize their future earnings potential.

People will be interacting more often indoors in places with poor ventilation, which will increase the risk of transmission, says Mauricio Santillana, a mathematician at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who models disease spread.

But even if there is a small seasonal effect, the main driver of increased spread will be the vast number of people who are still susceptible to infection, says Rachel Baker, an epidemiologist at Princeton University in New Jersey. That means people in places that are going into summer shouldn’t be complacent either, say researchers.

“By far the biggest factor that will affect the size of an outbreak will be control measures such as social distancing and mask wearing,” says Baker.

By:

Critics:

Evidence so far

Seasonal trends in viral infection are driven by multiple factors, including people’s behaviour and the properties of the virus — some don’t like hot, humid conditions.

Laboratory experiments reveal that SARS-CoV-2 favours cold, dry conditions, particularly out of direct sunlight. For instance, artificial ultraviolet radiation can inactivate SARS-CoV-2 particles on surfaces1 and in aerosols2, especially in temperatures of around 40 °C. Infectious virus also degrades faster on surfaces in warmer and more humid environments3. In winter, people tend to heat their houses to around 20 °C, and the air is dry and not well ventilated, says Dylan Morris, a mathematical biologist at Princeton. “Indoor conditions in the winter are pretty favourable to viral stability.”

To assess whether infections with a particular virus rise and fall with the seasons, researchers typically study its spread in a specific location, multiple times a year, over many years. But without the benefit of time, they have tried to study the seasonal contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission by looking at infection rates in various places worldwide.

A study4 published on 13 October looked at the growth in SARS-CoV-2 infections in the first four months of the pandemic, before most countries introduced controls. It found that infections rose fastest in places with less UV light, and predicted that, without any interventions, cases would dip in summer and peak in winter. In winter, “the risk goes up, but you can still dramatically reduce your risk by good personal behaviour”, says Cory Merow, an ecologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, and a co-author of the study. “The weather is a small drop in the pan.”

But Francois Cohen, an environmental economist at the University of Barcelona in Spain, says that testing was also quite limited early in the pandemic, and continues to be unreliable, so it is impossible to determine the effect of weather on the spread of the virus so far.

Baker has tried to tease apart the effect of climate on the seasonal pattern of cases during the course of a pandemic, using data about the humidity sensitivity of another coronavirus. She and her colleagues modelled5 the rise and fall in infection rates over several years for New York City with and without a climate effect, and with different levels of control measures.

They found that a small climate effect can result in substantial outbreaks when the seasons change if control measures are only just managing to contain the virus. “That could be a location where climate might nudge you over,” Baker says. The team posted its results on the preprint server medRxiv on 10 September; the authors suggest that stricter control measures might be needed during winter to reduce the risk of outbreaks.

In the future

If SARS-CoV-2 can survive better in cold conditions, it’s still difficult to disentangle that contribution from the effect of people’s behaviour, says Kathleen O’Reilly, a mathematical epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “Flu has been around for hundreds of years and the specific mechanism as to why you have peaks of flu in the winter is still poorly understood,” says O’Reilly.

And even if researchers had more reliable data for SARS-CoV-2, they would see only small or negligible seasonal effects so early in the pandemic, when much of the population is still susceptible, says Relman.

Over time, however, seasonal effects could play a more important part in driving infection trends, as more people build up immunity to the virus. This could take up to five years through natural infection, or less if people are vaccinated, says Baker.

But whether a seasonal pattern emerges at all, and what it will look like, will depend on many factors that are yet to be understood, including how long immunity lasts, how long recovery takes and how likely it is that people can be reinfected, says Colin Carlson, a biologist who studies emerging diseases at Georgetown University in Washington DC.

What you should read

Source: Will Covid Return When It Gets Colder? – Bloomberg

.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in misinformation and conspiracy theories about the scale of the pandemic and the origin, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease. False information, including intentional disinformation, has been spread through social media, text messaging,and mass media. Journalists have been arrested for allegedly spreading fake news about the pandemic. False information has also been propagated by celebrities, politicians, and other prominent public figures. The spread of COVID-19 misinformation by governments has also been significant.

Commercial scams have claimed to offer at-home tests, supposed preventives, and “miracle” cures. Several religious groups have claimed their faith will protect them from the virus. Without evidence, some people have claimed the virus is a bioweapon accidentally or deliberately leaked from a laboratory, a population control scheme, the result of a spy operation, or the side effect of 5G upgrades to cellular networks.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared an “infodemic” of incorrect information about the virus that poses risks to global health.While belief in conspiracy theories is not a new phenomenon, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this can lead to adverse health effects. Cognitive biases, such as jumping to conclusions and confirmation bias, may be linked to the occurrence of conspiracy beliefs.

See also

%d bloggers like this: