Relax tigr
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TIGR/
we sold 1/2 calls today in amazon, nvidia and 0dte to buy moar sds, {tltw | usfr } today
we are still in ggn and swing trade hodl only one percent
vin was right to protect with puts if he went margin 4 to 1 for yeild feast in roundtree or yieldmax slaughter bots
we are not leveraged and pumping out 20 percent with lower beta than the herd
if crypto is your anchor position thats your beta
never fight the tape was noted
i sold ybtc to early
no care
Bi Felicia was a bad idea in the demsheviks carnage
sans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pXoQ6iYO1w
Enjoy your moment.
H noted Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:55 am
THE MISTAKEN DOCTRINE OF COMMON LAW
The doctrine equating the monetary irregular-deposit contract
with the loan or mutuum contract has also prevailed in
Anglo-Saxon common law, via the creation of law in the binding
case system. At the end of the eighteenth century and
throughout the first half of the nineteenth, various lawsuits
were filed by which depositors, upon finding they could not
secure the repayment of their deposits, sued their bankers for
misappropriation and fraud in the exercise of their safekeeping
obligations. Unfortunately, however, British case-law
judgments fell prey to pressures exerted by bankers, banking
customs, and even the government, and it was ruled that the
monetary irregular-deposit contract was no different from the
loan contract, and therefore that bankers making self-interested
use of their depositors’ money did not commit misappropriation.
Of all of these court rulings, it is worthwhile to
consider Judge Lord Cottenham’s decision in Foley v. Hill and
others in 1848. Here the judge arrives at the erroneous conclusion
that the money placed in the custody of a banker is, to all intents
and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he
pleases. He is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it. He
is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy,
if he engages in a hap hazardous speculation; he is not
bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal,
but he is, of course, answerable for the amount,
because he has contracted, having received that money, to
repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to
that paid into his hands.
Now if you persist without the IRS documentation you are not paying attention what taproot actually did.
First principles, Clarice. Simplicity.
https://therevelator.org/china-sparrow-campaign/
And it started with a bird.
https://x.com/SprinterFamily/status/185 ... -trump-win