Will Inflation And The Stock Market Conspire To Kill The 4% Rule?


A recent WSJ headline sent chills down the backs of every retiree—”Cut Your Retirement Spending Now, Says Creator of the 4% Rule.”

In the article, the WSJ quoted the father of the 4% rule, William Bengen, as saying that “there’s no precedent for today’s conditions.” Stock and bond prices are still at record highs. Mix in a reference to 8.5% inflation, and the WSJ starts to sound like an insurance salesperson pitching indexed annuities.

So are things really that bad? And do retirees need to rethink the 4% Rule? I don’t think so, and here’s why.

The 4% Rule is Now the 4.4% Rule

In the article, Mr. Bengen said he believes a safe initial withdrawal rate is 4.4%. Yes, that’s an increase from his initial findings in his 1994 paper.

In his 1994 paper, he assumed retirees invested in the S&P 500 and intermediate Treasury bonds. That’s it. Since then he expanded the asset classes to include mid-cap, small-cap, micro-cap and international stocks. This diversification caused him to increase the safe withdrawal rate from 4% to 4.7%. Because of the unprecedented conditions noted above, however, new retirees might want to start at 4.4%, he said.

As far as I can tell, the 4.4% rate is not based on data. Still, it represents a 10% increase, not decrease, from his initial 4% rule. That doesn’t sound so bad.

“The combination of 8.5% inflation with high stock and bond market valuations make it difficult to forecast whether the standard playbook will work for recent retirees,” said Bengen. He’s even gone so far as put 70% of his personal portfolio in cash. When the father of the 4% rule cashes out, shouldn’t we?

I don’t think so. For starters, it’s important to understand how Bengen developed the 4% Rule. He examined 50-year retirement periods dating back to 1926. For each, he identified the highest withdrawal rate one could take in the first year of retirement, adjusted for inflation in subsequent years, without running out of money for at least 30 years.

As you might imagine, every year had a different initial withdrawal rate. Some years the starting rate was twice what it was in others. Here’s the key point. He didn’t average all of these initial withdrawal rates to come up with the 4% rule. He took the absolute worst year—1968.

Here’s more on how the 4% Rule works.

What does this mean? It means the 4% Rule has survived the stock market crash of 1929, the Great Depression, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the inflation of the 1970s and early 1908s, the 1987 market crash, 9/11, the Great Recession and Covid-19.

Stock Prices

No matter how difficult past times have been, current conditions feel awful in ways that history never can. One need look no further than Robert Shiller’s CAPE (cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio) of the S&P 500 to raise concerns. It stands at roughly twice its average and at historic highs. It’s only been higher once, and that was during the tech bubble.

Yet as “unprecedented” as this may seem, it’s not for two reasons. First, most portfolios don’t have the same PE as the S&P 500, even if measured using CAPE. Add in mid-cap, small-cap and international stocks, and the PE comes down significantly.

Second, and more important, the CAPE of the S&P 500 would fall to average with a 50% decline in the S&P 500. This wouldn’t be fun, but it wouldn’t be unprecedented, either.

As noted above, the market lost 90% to kick off the Great Depression. And going back to the tech bubble, the market lost 9%, 12% and 22% from 2000 to 2002. That’s not quite a 50% total loss, but close. And from peak to trough during the Great Recession (2007-2009), the market lost more than 50%. The 4% Rule survived like a cockroach.

Bond Prices and Inflation

Bond yields were at historic lows. I say “were” because that’s no longer the case. The roughly 3% yield on the 10-year Treasury is still below average, but there are plenty of years dating back to the 1800s when they were lower. And when Bengen published his 1994 paper, TIPS were three years away and the first I bond was still four years away. So at least now we can keep up with inflation.

Here’s the key. The 4% Rule has survived Treasury yields as low as 1 to 2%. It also survived inflation of more than 13% and a decade of inflation at 6% or higher. And like the Energizer Bunny, it keeps going and going (or ticking for you Timex fans).

Final Thoughts

Some year might come along that is worse than 1968 for new retirees. Maybe 2022 will turn out to be a worse time to retiree since the late 60s. Perhaps in 30 years we’ll know that for 2022, the initial safe withdrawal rate was 4.2% instead of 4.4%.

But can we really predict that based on current conditions, when the 4% rule has survived much worse? I don’t think so.

Rob is a Contributing Editor for Forbes Advisor, host of the Financial Freedom Show, and the author of Retire Before Mom and Dad–The Simple Numbers Behind a Lifetime of

Source: Will Inflation And The Stock Market Conspire To Kill The 4% Rule?


More contents:

More Remote Working Apps:

https://quintexcapital.com/?ref=arminham     Quintex Capital

https://www.genesis-mining.com/a/2535466   Genesis Mining

 http://www.bevtraders.com/?ref=arminham   BevTraders

https://www.litefinance.com/?uid=929237543  LiteTrading

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/369164  prime stocks

  https://jvz3.com/c/202927/361015  content gorilla

  https://jvz8.com/c/202927/366443  stock rush  

 https://jvz1.com/c/202927/373449  forrk   

https://jvz3.com/c/202927/194909  keysearch  

 https://jvz4.com/c/202927/296191  gluten free   

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/286851  diet fitness diabetes  

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/213027  writing job  

 https://jvz6.com/c/202927/108695  postradamus

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/372094  stoodaio

 https://jvz4.com/c/202927/358049  profile mate  

 https://jvz6.com/c/202927/279944  senuke  

 https://jvz8.com/c/202927/54245   asin   

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/370227  appimize

 https://jvz8.com/c/202927/376524  super backdrop

 https://jvz6.com/c/202927/302715  audiencetoolkit

 https://jvz1.com/c/202927/375487  4brandcommercial

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/375358  talkingfaces

 https://jvz6.com/c/202927/375706  socifeed

 https://jvz2.com/c/202927/184902  gaming jobs

 https://jvz6.com/c/202927/88118   backlink indexer  https://jvz1.com/c/202927/376361  powrsuite  

https://jvz3.com/c/202927/370472  tubeserp  

https://jvz4.com/c/202927/343405  PR Rage  

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/371547  design beast  

https://jvz3.com/c/202927/376879  commission smasher

 https://jvz2.com/c/202927/376925  MT4Code System

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/375959  viral dash

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/376527  coursova

 https://jvz4.com/c/202927/144349  fanpage

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/376877  forex expert  

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/374258  appointomatic

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/377003  woocommerce

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/377005  domainname

 https://jvz8.com/c/202927/376842  maxslides

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/376381  ada leadz

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/333637  eyeslick

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/376986  creaitecontentcreator

https://jvz4.com/c/202927/376095  vidcentric

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/374965  studioninja

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/374934  marketingblocks https://jvz3.com/c/202927/372682  clipsreel  

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/372916  VideoEnginePro

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/144577  BarclaysForexExpert

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/370806  Clientfinda

https://jvz3.com/c/202927/375550  Talkingfaces

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/370769  IMSyndicator

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/283867  SqribbleEbook

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/376524  superbackdrop

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/376849  VirtualReel

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/369837  MarketPresso

https://jvz1.com/c/202927/342854  voiceBuddy

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/377211  tubeTargeter

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/377557  InstantWebsiteBundle

https://jvz6.com/c/202927/368736  soronity

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/337292  DFY Suite 3.0 Agency+ information

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/291061  VideoRobot Enterprise

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/327447  Klippyo Kreators

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/324615  ChatterPal Commercial

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/299907  WP GDPR Fix Elite Unltd Sites

https://jvz8.com/c/202927/328172  EngagerMate

https://jvz3.com/c/202927/342585  VidSnatcher Commercial

https://jvz3.com/c/202927/292919  myMailIt

https://jvz3.com/c/202927/320972  Storymate Luxury Edition

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/320466  iTraffic X – Platinum Edition

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/330783  Content Gorilla One-time

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/301402  Push Button Traffic 3.0 – Brand New

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/321987  SociCake Commercial https://jvz2.com/c/202927/289944  The Internet Marketing

 https://jvz2.com/c/202927/297271  Designa Suite License

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/310335  XFUNNELS FE Commercial 

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/291955  ShopABot

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/312692  Inboxr

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/343635  MediaCloudPro 2.0 – Agency

 https://jvz2.com/c/202927/353558  MyTrafficJacker 2.0 Pro+

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/365061  AIWA Commercial

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/357201  Toon Video Maker Premium

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/351754  Steven Alvey’s Signature Series

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/344541  Fade To Black

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/290487  Adsense Machine

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/315596  Diddly Pay’s DLCM DFY Club

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/355249  CourseReel Professional

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/309649  SociJam System

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/263380  360Apps Certification

 https://jvz2.com/c/202927/359468  LocalAgencyBox

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/377557  Instant Website Bundle

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/377194  GMB Magic Content

https://jvz2.com/c/202927/376962  PlayerNeos VR

One In Three Children With Disabilities Experience Violence

Children with disabilities twice as likely to experience any form of violence (physical, emotional, sexual, neglect) than children without disabilities.

Children with disabilities experience a high burden of all forms of violence, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis published online March 17 in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

Zuyi Fang, Ph.D., from the School of Social Development and Public Policy at Beijing Normal University, and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review to estimate violence against children with disabilities. Ninety-eight studies (involving 16.8 million children) were included in the analysis.

The researchers found that the overall prevalence of violence against children with disabilities was 31.7 percent, and the overall odds of children with disabilities experiencing violence was higher than for children without disabilities (odds ratio, 2.08). The estimates varied by the type of violence, disability, and perpetrator.

While there was a high degree of heterogeneity across most estimates, sensitivity analysis suggested a high degree of certainty for these estimates. The included studies were, on average, of medium quality. There was particular vulnerability to experiencing violence among children in economically disadvantaged contexts.

“Our findings reveal unacceptable and alarming rates of violence against children with disabilities that cannot be ignored,” a coauthor said in a statement. “We must urgently invest in services and support that address the factors that place children with disabilities at heightened risk of violence and abuse, including caregiver stress, social isolation, and poverty.”

Screenshot 2022-03-28 at 20-56-37 image.jpg (WEBP Image 210 × 219 pixels)

By: Physician’s Briefing Staff

Source: https://consumer.healthday.com


Austrian Programmer And Ex Crypto CEO Likely Stole $11 Billion Of Ether

Ethereum, the second biggest crypto network, is worth $360 billion. Its creator, Vitalik Buterin, has more than 3 million Twitter followers, has made videos with Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis, and has met with Vladimir Putin. All the most popular trends in crypto over the last several years launched on Ethereum: initial coin offerings (ICOs), decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). And it has spawned a whole class of blockchain imitators, often called “Ethereum killers.”

Ethereum is also the subject of a great mystery: who committed the largest theft of ether (Ethereum’s native token) ever, by hacking The DAO? The decentralized venture capital fund had raised $139 million in ether (ETH) by the time its crowd sale ended in 2016, making it the most successful crowdfunding effort to that date. Weeks later, a hacker siphoned 31% of the ETH in The DAO—3.64 million total or about 5% of all ETH then outstanding—out of the main DAO and into what became known as the DarkDAO.

Who hacked The DAO? My exclusive investigation, built on the reporting for my new book, The Cryptopians: Idealism, Greed, Lies, and the Making of the First Big Cryptocurrency Craze, appears to point to Toby Hoenisch, a 36-year-old programmer who grew up in Austria and was living in Singapore at the time of the hack. Until now, he has been best known for his role as a cofounder and CEO of TenX, which raised $80 million in a 2017 initial coin offering to build a crypto debit card—an effort that failed.

The market cap of those tokens, which spiked at $535 million, now sits at just $11 million.After being sent a document detailing the evidence pointing to him as the hacker, Hoenisch wrote in an email, “Your statement and conclusion is factually inaccurate.” In that email, Hoenisch offered to provide details refuting our findings—but never answered my repeated follow-up messages to him asking for those details.

To put the enormity of this hack in perspective, with ETH now trading around $3,000, 3.64 million ETH would be worth $11 billion. The DAO theft famously and controversially prompted Ethereum to do a hard fork—where the Ethereum network split into two as a way to restore the stolen funds—which ultimately left the DarkDAO holding not ETH, but far less valuable Ethereum Classic (ETC). The proponents of the fork had hoped ETC would die out, but it now trades around $30. That means the descendant wallets of the DarkDAO now hold more than $100 million in ETC—a high dollar monument to the biggest whodunnit in crypto.

Last year, as I was working on my book, my sources and I, utilizing (among other things), a powerful and previously secret forensics tool from crypto tracing firm Chainalysis, came to believe we had figured out who did it. Indeed, the story of The DAO and the six-year quest to identify the hacker, shows a lot about just how far the crypto world and the technology for tracking transactions have both come since the first crypto craze. Today, blockchain technology has gone mainstream. But as new applications arise, one of the first uses of crypto—as an anonymity shield—is in retreat, thanks to both regulatory pressure and the fact that transactions on public blockchains are traceable.

Since Hoenisch won’t talk to me, I can only speculate about his possible motives; back in 2016 he identified technical vulnerabilities in the DAO early and may have decided to strike after concluding his warnings weren’t being taken seriously enough by the creators of the DAO. (One of his TenX cofounders, Julian Hosp, an Austrian medical doctor who now works in blockchain full time, says of Hoenisch:

“He is a person that is super opinionated. Always believed he was right. Always.”) Looked at from that perspective, this is also a tale of the big brains and big egos that drive the crypto world–and of a hacker who may have justified his actions by telling himself he simply did what the faulty code baked into The DAO allowed him to do.

In early 2016, the Ethereum network was not even a year old, and there was only one app on it that people were interested in: The DAO, a decentralized venture fund built with a smart contract that gave its token holders the right to vote on proposals submitted for funding. It had been created by a company named Slock.it, which, instead of seeking traditional venture capital, had decided to create this DAO and then open it up for crowdfunding—with the expectation that its own project would be one of those funded by The DAO. Slock.it’s team thought The DAO might attract $5 million.

Yet when the crowd sale opened on April 30th, it took in $9 million in just the first two days, with participants exchanging one ether for 100 DAO tokens. As the money poured in, some on the team felt queasy, but it was too late to cap the sale. By the time the funding closed a month later, 15,000 to 20,000 individuals had contributed, The DAO held what was then 15% of all ether and the price of the cryptocurrency was steadily rising. At the same time, a variety of security and structural concerns were being raised about The DAO, including one that would, ironically, later prove to be crucial to limiting the hacker’s immediate access to the spoils.

That problem: withdrawing funds was too hard. Someone wanting to retrieve their money had to first create a “child DAO” or “split DAO,” which required not only a high degree of technical knowledge, but also waiting periods after each step and the agreement of anyone else who moved funds into that child DAO.

On the morning of June 17th, ETH reached a new all-time high of $21.52, making the crypto in The DAO worth $249.6 million. When American Griff Green woke up that morning in Mittweida, Germany (he was staying in the family home of two brothers who were Slock.it cofounders), he had a message on his phone from a DAO Slack community member who said something weird was happening— it looked like funds were being drained.

Green, Slock.it’s first employee and community organizer, checked: there was indeed a stream of 258-ETH (then $5,600) transactions leaving The DAO.  By the time the attack stopped a few hours later, 31% of the ETH in The DAO had been siphoned out into the DarkDAO. As awareness of the attack spread, ether had its highest trading day ever, with its price plummeting 33% from $21 to $14.

Split Fortunes

The 2016 DAO crowdfunding sale drove the price of ether (ETH) to a then record high—until the June 17th attack on The DAO sent it plummeting. After the hard fork on July 20th, the old blockchain began trading as ether classic (ETC).

Soon, the Ethereum community pinpointed the vulnerability that enabled this theft: the DAO smart contract had been written so that any time someone withdrew money, the smart contract would send the money first, before updating that person’s balance. The attacker had used a malicious smart contract that withdrew money (258 ETH at a time), then interfered with the updating of the contract, allowing them to withdraw the same ether again and again. It was as if the attacker had $101 in their bank account, withdrew $100 at a bank, then kept the bank teller from updating the balance to $1, and again requested and received another $100.

Even worse, once the vulnerability became public, the remaining 7.3 million ETH in The DAO was at risk of a copycat attack. A team of white hat hackers (that is, hackers acting ethically) formed and used the attacker’s method to divert the remaining funds into a new child DAO. But the attacker still had about 5% of all outstanding ETH, and even the rescued ether was vulnerable, given the flaws in The DAO. Plus, the clock was ticking down to a July 21st deadline—the first date when the original hacker might be able to get at the funds they had diverted into the DarkDao.

If the community wanted to keep the attacker from cashing out, they would need to put tokens in the hacker’s DarkDAO and then in any future “split DAOs” (or child DAOs) the unknown hacker created. (Under the rules of the DAO smart contract, the attacker couldn’t withdraw funds if anyone else in their split DAO objected.) Bottom line: if the white hats ever missed their window to object, the attacker would be able to abscond with the funds—meaning this informal group would have to be constantly vigilant.

Eventually, after much bickering (on Reddit, on a Slack channel, over email and on Skype calls) and Ethereum founder Buterin publicly weighing in, and after it seemed that a majority of the Ethereum community supported the measure, Ethereum did a “hard fork.” On July 20th the Ethereum blockchain was split into two. All the ETH that had been in the DAO was moved to a “withdraw” contract which gave the original contributors the right to send in their DAO tokens and get back ETH on the new blockchain. The old blockchain, which still attracted some supporters and speculators, carried on as Ethereum Classic.

• • •

On Ethereum Classic, The DAO and the attacker’s loot (in the form of 3.64 million ETC) remained. That summer, the attacker moved their ETC a few hops away to a new wallet, which remained dormant until late October, when they began trying to use an exchange called ShapeShift to cash the money out to bitcoin. Because ShapeShift didn’t at that time take personally identifying information, the attacker’s identity was not known even though all their blockchain movements were visible.

Over the next two months, the hacker managed to obtain 282 bitcoins (then worth $232,000, now more than $11 million). And then, perhaps because ShapeShift frequently blocked their attempted trades, they gave up cashing out, leaving behind 3.4 million Ether Classic (ETC), then worth $3.2 million and now more than $100 million.

That might have been the end of the story—an unknown hacker sitting on a fortune he couldn’t cash out. Except last July, one of my sources involved in the DAO rescue, a Brazilian named Alex Van de Sande (aka Avsa) reached out, saying the Brazilian Police had opened an investigation into the attack on The DAO — and whether he might be a victim or even the hacker himself.  Van de Sande decided to commission a forensics report from blockchain analytics company Coinfirm to help exonerate himself (though then, the police closed the investigation, he said). In case any similar situations arose in the future, he went forward with the report examining those cash-out attempts in 2016.

Among the early suspects in the hack had been a Swiss businessman and his associates, and in tracing the funds, Van de Sande and I also found another suspect: a Russia-based Ethereum Classic developer. But all these people were in Europe/Russia and the cash-outs mapped onto an Asian-morning-through-evening schedule—from 9 A.M. to midnight Tokyo time—when the Europeans were likely sleeping. (The timing of their social media posts suggested they kept fairly normal hours.) But based on a customer support email the hacker had submitted to ShapeShift in the leadup to the attack, I believed they spoke fluent English.

Jumping off from the Coinfirm analysis, blockchain analytics company Chainalysis saw the presumed attacker had sent 50 BTC to a Wasabi Wallet, a private desktop Bitcoin wallet that aims to anonymize transactions by mixing several together in a so-called CoinJoin. Using a capability that is being disclosed here for the first time, Chainalysis de-mixed the Wasabi transactions and tracked their output to four exchanges. In a final, crucial step, an employee at one of the exchanges confirmed to one of my sources that the funds were swapped for privacy coin Grin and withdrawn to a Grin node called grin.toby.ai. (Due to exchange privacy policies, normally this sort of customer information would not be disclosed.)

The IP address for that node also hosted Bitcoin Lightning nodes: ln.toby.ai, lnd.ln.toby.ai, etc., and was consistent for over a year; it was not a VPN.

It was hosted on Amazon Singapore. Lightning explorer 1ML showed a node at that IP called TenX.

For anyone who was into crypto in June 2017, this name may ring a bell. That month, as the ICO craze was reaching its initial peak, there was an $80 million ICO named TenX. The CEO and cofounder used the handle @tobyai on AngelList, Betalist, GitHub, Keybase, LinkedIn, Medium, Pinterest, Reddit, StackOverflow, and Twitter. His name was Toby Hoenisch.

Where was he based? In Singapore.

Although he was German-born and raised in Austria, Hoenisch is fluent in English.

The cash-out transactions occurred mainly from 8 A.M. until 11 P.M. Singapore time.

And the email address used on that account at the exchange was [name of exchange]@toby.ai.

In May 2016, as it was finishing up its historic fundraise, Hoenisch was intensely interested in The DAO. On May 12, he emailed Hosp a tip (“Profitable crypto trade coming up”) to short ETH once the DAO crowdfunding period ended. On May 17th and 18th, in the DAO Slack channel, he engaged in a long conversation in which he made, depending on how you count, 52 comments, minimum, about vulnerabilities in The DAO, getting into various aspects of the code and nitpicking over exactly what was possible given the way the code was structured.

One issue spurred him to email Slock.it’s chief technology officer, Christoph Jentzsch, its lead technical engineer, Lefteris Karapetsas, and community manager Griff Green. In his email, he said he was writing a proposal for funding from The DAO for a crypto card product called DAO.PAY, and added, “For our due diligence, we went through the DAO code and found a few things that are worrisome.” He outlined three possible attack vectors and later emailed with a fourth. Jentzsch, a German who had been working on a PhD in physics before dropping out to focus on Ethereum, responded point by point, conceding some of Hoenisch’s assertions but saying others were “false” or “don’t work.” The back and forth ended with Hoenisch writing; “I’ll keep you in the loop if we find anything else.”

But instead of further email exchanges, on May 28th, Hoenish wrote four posts on Medium, beginning with, “TheDAO—risk free voting.” The second, “TheDAO—blackmailing withdrawals,” foreshadowed the main issue with The DAO and why Ethereum ultimately chose to hard fork: if it did not, the only other options were to let the attacker cash out his ill-gotten gains or for some group of DAO token holders to follow him forever into new split DAOs he created as he attempted to cash out. “TLDR: If you end upon in a DAO contract without majority voting power, then an attacker can block all withdrawals indefinitely,” he wrote. The third showed how an attacker could do this cheaply.

To put the enormity of this hack in perspective, with ETH now trading around $3,000, 3.64 million ETH would be worth $11 billion.

His last, most telling post for the day, “TheDAO—a $150m lesson in decentralized governance,” said DAO.PAY decided against making a proposal after uncovering “major security flaws” and that “Slockit down-played the severity of the attack vectors.” He wrote, “TheDAO is live … and we are still waiting for Slockit to put out a warning that THERE IS NO SAFE WAY TO WITHDRAW!”

On June 3, his last Medium post, “Announcing BlockOps: Blockchain Hack Challenges” said, “BlockOps is your playground to break encryption, steal bitcoin, break smart contracts and simply test your security knowledge.” Although he promised to “post new challenges in the field of bitcoin, ethereum and web security every 2 weeks,” I could find no record that he did so.

Two weeks later came the DAO attack. The morning after the attack, at 7:18 A.M. Singapore time, Hoenisch trolled Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin by retweeting something Buterin had said before The DAO was attacked, but after it was known that the vulnerability used in the attack was evident in the DAO’s code. In the two-week old tweet, Buterin had said that he’d been buying DAO tokens since the security news. Over the following weeks, Hoenisch tweeted anti-hard fork posts like one titled, “Too Big to Fail is Failure Guaranteed.”

Curiously, on July 5, a couple weeks after the attack, Hoenisch and Karapetsas exchanged Reddit DMs titled “DarkDAO counter attack” — though the substance of the messages is unclear because Hoensich has deleted all his Reddit posts. (Hosp recalls that Hoenisch told him he had deleted his Reddit account after an altercation with an “idiot” on Reddit over The DAO.) Hoenisch wrote, “Sorry for not contacting first. I got carried away from finding it and telling the community that there is a way to fight back. In any case, I don’t see any way the attacker can use this.”

After Karapetsas told Hoenisch of the white hats’ plans to protect what was left in The DAO, Hoenisch replied, “I took down the post.” Karapetsas responded, “I will keep you up to date with what we do from now on.” Hoenisch’s last message in that exchange: “I’m sorry if I messed up the plan.”

On July 24th, the day after the Ethereum Classic chain revived and began trading on Poloniex, Hoenisch tweeted, “ethereum drama escalating: from #daowars to #chainwars. Ethereum classic now traded on poloniex as $ETC and miners planning attacks.” On July 26th, he retweeted Barry Silbert, the founder and CEO of the powerful and well-respected Digital Currency Group, who had tweeted, “Bought my first non-bitcoin digital currency…Ethereum Classic (ETC).”

“He (the DAO hacker) really screwed the pooch. Reputation is way more valuable than money.”

Upon hearing the name Toby Hoenisch, without knowing evidence indicated he was the DAO attacker, Karapetsas, a usually good-humored Greek software developer who was one of the DAO creators and had engaged with him by email and on Reddit, said: “He was obnoxious…. he was quite insistent on having found a lot of problems.”

After hearing that the DarkDAO ETC had been cashed out to a Grin node with Hoenisch’s alias, Karapetsas observed that if Hoenisch had instead remedied the situation while the DarkDao funds were frozen, the Ethereum community would have given him “huge kudos” for finding the weakness and then returning the ETH. Similarly, Griff Green, whose current projects lean towards helping non-profit and public causes grow in the digital world, believes the hacker missed the chance to “be a hero.” Says Green: “He really screwed the pooch…Reputation is way more valuable than money.”

Ironically, in a 2016 blog post, Hoenisch wrote, “I’m a white hat hacker by heart.’’ Twenty days later came the DAO attack.

As I noted earlier, after being sent a document laying out the evidence that he was the hacker and asking for comment for my book, Hoenisch wrote that my conclusion is “factually inaccurate.” He said in that email he could give me more details—and then did not respond to four requests for those details, nor to additional fact checking queries for this article. In addition, after receiving the first document detailing the facts I’d gathered, he deleted almost all his Twitter history (though I’ve saved the relevant tweets).

In May 2015, Hoenisch and the cofounders of his crypto debit card venture—first known as OneBit—had some success at a Mastercard Masters of Code hackathon in Singapore. They started making the card available that year on an invitation-only basis, because, as Hoenisch explained on Reddit, “We don’t want to launch a half-assed Bitcoin wallet that gets us in trouble for violating KYC (know your customer) laws. And yes, legal is the main reason we can’t just ship it.” A Bitcoin Magazine article at the time said Hoenisch had a background in AI, IT security and cryptography.

In early 2017, just months after the presumed DAO attacker stopped trying to cash out their ETC, Hoenisch’s team—by then operating as TenX—announced it had received $1 million in seed funding from (among others) Fenbushi Capital, where Ethereum founder Buterin was a general partner. Then came the $80 million ICO. In early 2018, things started to go south for TenX when its card issuer, Wavecrest, was booted from the Visa network, meaning that TenX’s users could no longer use their debit cards.

On Oct. 1, 2020, TenX announced it was sunsetting its services because its new card issuer, Wirecard SG, had been directed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to cease operations. On April 9, 2021, TenX posted a blog called “TenX, Meet Mimo.” It outlined a new business that would offer a euro-pegged stablecoin, which kept its value pegged to a fiat currency such as US dollars or euros or Japanese Yen. The market cap of TenX tokens, which spiked at $535 million, now sits at just $11 million. TenX has rebranded itself as Mimo Capital and is offering holders of TenX tokens mostly worthless MIMO tokens instead at a rate of 0.37 MIMO for each TenX.

Hosp, who was the public face of the company while there, was booted by Hoenisch and another cofounder in January 2019. This occurred a couple months after some crypto publications reported on Hosp’s past affiliation with an Austrian multi-level marketing scheme. However, before hearing that evidence indicated Hoenisch was the DAO attacker, Hosp said his feeling had been that Hoenisch had perhaps pushed him out over jealousy that Hosp had sold bitcoin at the top of the bubble in late 2017, netting himself $20 million. Meanwhile, Hoenisch had kept all his crypto as the bubble – and his personal net worth – deflated.

“He came from a very poor family, he had no experience in investing, and he was in crypto in 2010 but he had literally no money, nothing, when we were in Las Vegas together [in the summer of 2016] he had nothing, and I was doing really well with my investments… he would always push for getting more salary, for having something nicer.” Hosp also mentioned Hoenisch had to send money home to his mother, who had raised him, as well as his sister and brother, as a single parent.

As new blockchain applications arise, one of the first uses of crypto—as an anonymity shield—is in retreat.

Upon hearing that Hoenisch was the likely DAO attacker, Hosp said he was “getting goose bumps” and begin recalling details from his interactions with his former partner that now seemed to take on new significance. For example, when asked if Hoenisch was into Grin (the privacy coins to which the hacker had cashed out) Hosp said, “Yes! Yes, he was. He was fascinated by that…I lost money because of those stupid coins! I invested in them because of him, because he was so fascinated by them.”

He said that Hoenisch was also obsessed with building a Bitcoin/Monero “atomic swap” – or a way to use smart contracts to swap between Bitcoin and the privacy coin Monero. At the time, Hosp was confused by that, because he felt there was no market for such a product. Later, Hosp pulled up chats from August 2016, in which Hoenisch seemed excited about the price of ETC, the coin held by the hacker after the ethereum fork.

When trying to recall the incident that he believed prompted Hoenisch to close his Reddit, Hosp began searching on his computer and muttered to himself, “He always used tobyai.” He confirmed that one of Toby’s regular email addresses ended in @toby.ai.

Recalled a still astounded Hosp: “For some weird reason, he was quite well aware of what was happening…He understood more of the DAO hack when I asked him what had happened…than I had found on the internet or anywhere.”


MORE FROM FORBESHow An NFT Pivot Turned A Tiny Mobile Game Company Into Multibillion-Dollar Powerhouse MORE FROM FORBESHow Azukis Suddenly Became The World’s Best-Selling NFT Collection MORE FROM FORBESHow Crypto’s Original Bubble Boy Rode Ethereum And Is Now Pulling The Strings Of The DeFi Boom MORE FROM FORBESForbes Blockchain 50 2022 MORE FROM FORBESDAOs Aren’t A Fad – They’re A Platform

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.

A former senior editor of Forbes, I’m a crypto journalist, host of the Unchained podcasts, and author of The Cryptopians: Idealism, Greed, Lies, and the Making of the First Big Cryptocurrency Craze. https://bit.ly/cryptopians

Source: Exclusive: Austrian Programmer And Ex Crypto CEO Likely Stole $11 Billion Of Ether


Recent News

Survey : Inflation is Costing Americans

The vast majority of Americans expect inflation to continue for at least six months. Meanwhile, Americans on both sides of the aisle say rising prices are hurting their families.

Nearly 8 in 10 Americans expect inflation to increase over the next six months, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, suggesting that an issue predominantly emphasized by Republicans that has loomed large over the Biden administration is perhaps crossing party lines.

Although Americans typically predict rising inflation, it’s unusual to this degree, Gallup says. The current expectation is the highest the group has ever measured, at 79% of those surveyed, with the prior record set in September 2005.

The estimates come as a growing number of Americans – who have not had to deal with sharply rising prices in decades – have in recent months named the issue as a top problem facing the U.S., doing so at higher rates than in nearly 40 years.

But Americans are still more preoccupied with the government and the coronavirus pandemic, naming them as top issues over inflation. Still, concern over inflation and its longevity are expected to continue to increase, Gallup says, while more Americans will likely report financial hardship, spelling trouble for the Biden administration.

Among those most affected are lower-income households that are less able to accommodate the rising prices, Gallup says. And while just 10% of the country says inflation’s effects are so severe that their standard of living has been impacted, about half of Americans say higher prices are harming their finances in one way or another.

Meanwhile, Americans view the economy more negatively than positively overall. Just 23% describe economic conditions as good or excellent, while 77% think they are only fair or poor. And around two-thirds of Americans believe the economy is only getting worse.

Top Biden administration officials have taken to blaming inflation on the pandemic and global disruptions to the economy to counter negative polling, while touting such achievements as passage of the American Rescue Plan that put money into the pockets of Americans, rising wages and reductions in household poverty.

But the widespread expectation among Americans that inflation will climb in the next six months suggests that even among Democrats, the issue is top of mind.

According to Gallup, political considerations appear to influence to what degree people say rising prices are “hurting their families.” Whereas 60% of Republicans report experiencing hardship over rising prices and a similar share of independence agree, around 36% of Democrats say the same.



Kaia Hubbard is a general news reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She joined the company in 2020 as an intern, after previously writing for Willamette Week, her hometown paper. Kaia is a graduate of the University of San Diego, where she led her college paper as editor-in-chief, winning regional and national awards for her work.

Source: Americans Across Party Lines Are Feeling the Effects of Inflation: Survey | Economy | US News



The hottest inflation in nearly four decades will cost millions of Americans an additional $3,500 in expenses this year, according to a new analysis published on Wednesday. Findings from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a nonpartisan group at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, show that most U.S. households will need to allocate at least 6% more of their budget in order to sustain last year’s spending level on goods and services.

That figure is even higher for low-income Americans, who need to increase their spending by at least 7%. The recent inflation burst is disproportionately hurting lower-income households, largely because they collectively spend more on energy – which has seen some of the wildest price swings over the past year – while wealthy Americans spend more on services, which has seen the smallest inflation increases. 

That could mean, based on 2020 spending data, that the bottom 20% of income-earners saw their consumption expenditure increase by 6.8% to $2,120 per household, while the top 5% saw a 6.1% increase, or roughly $7,636 per household. Middle-income earners also saw a large increase in expenses, with an increased consumption expenditure of $4,351, or an increase of 6.8%.

“Since higher-income groups had a bigger increase in expenditures in all categories, they also saw a bigger increase in total expenditure,” the analysis said. “However, because of variation in the composition of consumption bundles, we find that higher-income households had smaller percentage increases in their total expenditure.” 

The Penn Wharton analysis comes on the heels of a new government report that revealed consumer prices soared 6.8% in November from the previous year, the fastest pace since June 1982, when inflation hit 7.1%. 


More contents:

Cash-out refinances see yearly increase despite rising mortgage rates, data shows

Cambridge Artificial Pancreas Proves Life Changing For Young Diabetics

Management of type 1 diabetes is a difficult balancing act that involves finger-prick sampling and insulin injections to keep blood glucose levels in check, but the notion of an “artificial pancreas” promises to lighten the load.

Scientists at the University of Cambridge have been pushing the boundaries of this technology for more than a decade and have now reported promising findings from trials in very young children, where their solution produced “life-changing” results.

Back in 2020, University of Cambridge scientists launched what was billed as the world’s first licensed, downloadable artificial pancreas smartphone app for type 1 diabetes.

Like other artificial pancreas technologies under development, the idea is to fulfill the role of the pancreas in diabetes sufferers, where it is no longer able to produce the insulin needed to absorb glucose from the blood.

The team’s CamAPS FX smartphone app works with a glucose monitor and pump, using a complex algorithm to determine when the user is in need of insulin and delivering it as needed.

The newly published study was designed to investigate how the technology can benefit young children, in which type 1 diabetes management is particularly problematic due to irregular eating and activity, along with high variability in the amount of insulin they require.

The study involved 74 children with type 1 diabetes, aged one to seven, with all subjects using the CamAPS FX artificial pancreas system for 16 weeks.

They then used current technology called sensor-augmented pump therapy, in which parents monitor their child’s glucose levels and manually adjust insulin delivery via a pump, also for 16 weeks. This allowed the scientists to compare the performance of the two.

“CamAPS FX makes predictions about what it thinks is likely to happen next based on past experience,” explains study author Professor Roman Hovorka. “It learns how much insulin the child needs per day and how this changes at different times of the day.

It then uses this to adjust insulin levels to help achieve ideal blood sugar levels. Other than at mealtimes, it is fully automated, so parents do not need to continually monitor their child’s blood sugarlevels.

“CamAPS FX makes predictions about what it thinks is likely to happen next based on past experience,” explains study author Professor Roman Hovorka. “It learns how much insulin the child needs per day and how this changes at different times of the day.

It then uses this to adjust insulin levels to help achieve ideal blood sugar levels. Other than at mealtimes, it is fully automated, so parents do not need to continually monitor their child’s blood sugar levels.”

When using the CamAPS FX app, the children spent 71.6 percent of their day in the target range for glucose levels, around nine percentage points, or 125 additional minutes, higher than the control.

They also spent 22.9 percent of the time with raised blood sugar levels, nine percentage points lower than the control, and also exhibited lower average blood sugar levels, reducing their risk of diabetes-related complications.

“Very young children are extremely vulnerable to changes in their blood sugar levels,” said Dr. Julia Ware, the study’s first author. “High levels in particular can have potentially lasting consequences to their brain development. On top of that, diabetes is very challenging to manage in this age group, creating a huge burden for families.

CamAPS FX led to improvements in several measures, including hyperglycemia and average blood sugar levels, without increasing the risk of hypos. This is likely to have important benefits for those children who use it.”

This study marks the first time the CamAPS FX system has been proven effective in very young children over a period of several months, with parents describing it as “life-changing.”

As it stands, the technology is available through certain hospital trusts in the UK, but the scientists hope as it continues to prove itself through these types of trials, it can change the lives of more and more sufferers of the condition.

From the first clinical trials of our algorithms to today’s findings has taken well over a decade, but the dedication of my team and the support of all the children and families who have taken part in our studies, has paid off,” Hovorka said. “We believe our artificial pancreas will transform the lives of families with very young children affected by type 1 diabetes.”

Nick Lavars

By:Nick Lavars

Source: Cambridge artificial pancreas proves “life-changing” for young diabetics


More contents:

Outcomes Important to Patients Diagnosed with Both COPD and Sleep Apnea: Findings from the O2VERLAP Study Focus Groups

Explore Potential Mechanisms of Chronic Cough

Sleep problems in pain patients entering tertiary pain care: the role of pain-related anxiety, medication use, self-reported diseases, and sleep disorders

Diabetes Fact sheet N°312”. World Health Organization. August 2011. Archived from the original on 26 August 2013. Retrieved 2012-01-09.

“Diabetes Blue Circle Symbol”. International Diabetes Federation. 17 March 2006. Archived from the original on 5 August 2007.

“Diagnosis of Diabetes and Prediabetes”. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. June 2014. Archived from the original on 6 March 2016. Retrieved 10 February 2016.

Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state: a historic review of the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment”. Diabetes Care. 37 (11): 3124–31. doi:10.2337/dc14-0984. PMC 4207202. PMID 25342831.

“Causes of Diabetes”. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. June 2014. Archived from the original on 2 February 2016. Retrieved 10 February 2016.

%d bloggers like this: