Latest news with #IsaacNewton
Coin Geek
a day ago
- Business
- Coin Geek
How to scam everyone
Homepage > News > Editorial > How to scam everyone Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... The mechanics of a Ponzi scheme are not complex, but they are devastatingly effective. First, you lure investors with the promise of consistent, above-average returns. You collect capital from early believers and then use that very capital to fabricate 'returns' for the earliest participants. These returns create buzz. Soon, trusted voices and respected figures begin to vouch for the system, amplifying your scheme through the echo chamber of credibility. The money doesn't come from the success of the investment; it comes from other investors. And so the pyramid grows until it bursts. This model has been around for centuries. I have written about the South Sea Bubble in the past, but in summary, the South Sea Company was a debt-restructuring and speculative play created to service England's war obligations and stabilize finances. It promised absurd profits based on colonial trade potential. But it had no real profits. To cement its image, the company seduced one of its fiercest critics, Isaac Newton, into investing. His involvement brought credibility. Eventually, even the king and the British Treasury got involved. The result? A national catastrophe. South Sea Company can't be a scam because Isaac Newton got the King to invest! — Kurt Wuckert Jr (@kurtwuckertjr) April 23, 2025 Charles Ponzi's name has become synonymous with the scheme itself. He promised investors 50% returns in 45 days by exploiting postal arbitrage. It was all a lie. There were no real profits, only the illusion of success built on inflows from fresh victims, but he was a talented marketer and ruined a lot of people with his scheme. Bernie Madoff did the same thing on a larger scale. Madoff, a respected figure in New York's financial world and a trusted member of the Jewish community, built his entire empire on the trust of people who believed he would never scam his own. But he did. With nearly $65 billion in fabricated returns, his fraud became the largest of its kind in history. The saddest part is that it took his own children's disgust to bring it all down. When they discovered that he had scammed his own community, including charities run by people in his real life, they couldn't stomach doing anything but turning him in for his crimes. Bernie Madoff died the same day as the Coinbase IPO. And you don't think there's magic. #PassTheTorch Sam Bankman-Fried ran the 21st century's first crypto mega-scam. FTX was a house of cards built on a token (FTT) with no intrinsic value, propped up by artificial liquidity and incestuous accounting. By wash-trading FTT against BTC and Tether, reallocating fake paper profits, and cycling it all through Alameda Research, he made an illusion of success so powerful that it lured in celebrities, regulators, and major venture capital firms. Tom Brady. Sequoia. BlackRock (NASDAQ: BLK). It was all a lie, and when it came crashing down, SBF was sentenced to die in prison for his crimes. The best thing about the FTX situation is that it strengthened my thesis about 'crypto.'The gains & the losses are basically all fake, real businesses just say 'who?' about the SBF news, and bitcoin is still almost completely untested opportunity. What a joke! — Kurt Wuckert Jr (@kurtwuckertjr) November 15, 2022 So here we are again. And this time, the face is Michael Saylor. Saylor, formerly known for one of the biggest single-week losses in stock market history (approximately $14 billion in erased value due to MicroStrategy's (NASDAQ: MSTR) accounting misstatements), has reemerged as BTC's evangelist-in-chief. He lost his credibility once and then lost his tax residency in a more recent scandal involving fraudulent claims about his primary home address. But rather than face disgrace, he pivoted. And it had him under water for quite some time, too. Fun Fact: Michael Saylor might be the single worst investor in history. He lost more money than anyone else in the Dot Com crash. Now, he is under water over a billion dollars on the best performing asset of all time because he timed it wrong and bought the top with leverage. — Kurt Wuckert Jr (@kurtwuckertjr) June 30, 2022 By rebranding MicroStrategy as a 'Bitcoin treasury company,' Saylor leveraged the same playbook as Ponzi, Madoff, and SBF. He borrowed money to buy BTC, told everyone BTC was going 'up forever,' and encouraged others to invest in his company: a leveraged BTC play wrapped in the facade of tech legitimacy. As long as BTC rises, he looks like a genius. But if BTC falters, the entire MicroStrategy house of cards crumbles. And it doesn't stop there. Jack Mallers, once heralded as the everyman of Bitcoin, is actually the third-generation heir to a Chicago TradFi dynasty, and he's running the same book of business. He is starting a direct competitor to 'Strategy' and hoping to create FOMO among as many businesses as possible to create a demand curve to pump BTC forever. But it can't pump forever, and you know it! None of this is accidental. It's the scam. It's always the scam. You front-load the scheme with influencers. You pay off critics. You create a trusted mythology about the project. And you extract capital from believers while propping up the illusion of momentum. When the bubble bursts, you're either gone or you pivot to the next grift. Bitcoin wasn't supposed to be this. It was created as a tool for freedom. A bearer asset that real people could hold like a gold bar and spend like global, liquid cash at a moment's notice. Peer-to-peer electronic cash, not wrapped derivatives, smart contracts, and custodial magic shows. It took a decade of social engineering to convince people to trust custodial BTC, to lock their holdings into platforms with no proof of reserves, and to relinquish their own keys in exchange for paper promises, but it happened, and we're watching the product of the first real paper BTC pump. This isn't just another cycle. This is the bubble. This is the moment that every lesson in financial fraud has been trying to warn you about. And if history repeats itself again, the collapse will wipe out trillions in paper gains and real capital alike. And instead of blaming Saylor or the other people who convinced them that bad ideas were good ideas, too many people will blame Bitcoin itself. And, I think that's the real goal: make as much money off of 'Bitcoin' the meme, while destroying the trust of Bitcoin the idea. You've been warned. Watch | Certihash Sentinel Node: Improving cybersecurity with blockchain
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Newton Golf Company (NASDAQ: NWTG) Regains Compliance with Nasdaq Listing Requirements
CAMARILLO, Calif., May 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via IBN – Newton Golf Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: NWTG), a technology-driven golf shaft manufacturer, today announced that it has received formal notice from The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ('Nasdaq') confirming that the company has regained compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1), which requires a minimum of $2.5 million in stockholders' equity for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market. The confirmation from Nasdaq follows Newton Golf's filing of its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, which reported stockholders' equity of $6.2 million. As a result, Nasdaq has closed the compliance matter originally raised on April 14, 2025. 'We are pleased to have resolved this matter and to remain in full compliance with Nasdaq's continued listing requirements,' said Greg Campbell, Executive Chairman of Newton Golf Company. 'Our strong balance sheet reflects the underlying momentum in our business and the investor confidence we continue to earn through performance and transparency.' Newton Golf continues to build momentum, reporting 246% year-over-year revenue growth in Q1 2025 as adoption of the Newton Motion shaft surged across retail channels and major professional tours. Gross margin expanded to 70%, reflecting improved unit economics and strong product-market fit. The first quarter is typically the offseason for golf, yet Newton delivered a strong performance and continued expansion. More than 40 professional players are now gaming Newton shafts across major tours. The company also expanded its international footprint and showcased its innovation at the 2025 PGA Show, reinforcing its position as one of the most exciting emerging brands in performance golf. For more information about Newton Golf's products, visit For investor-related updates and filings, visit Investor Alerts Stay updated with the latest from Newton Golf! Sign up for investor alerts at to receive company news and strategic developments directly to your inbox. About NEWTON GOLF At Newton Golf, we harness the power of physics to revolutionize golf equipment design. Formerly known as Sacks Parente, our rebranding reflects our commitment to innovation inspired by Sir Isaac Newton, the father of physics. By applying Newtonian principles to every aspect of our design process, we create precision-engineered golf equipment—including Newton Motion shafts and Gravity putters—that deliver unmatched stability, control, and performance. Our mission is to empower golfers with scientifically advanced tools that maximize consistency and accuracy, ensuring every swing is backed by the laws of physics. To purchase Newton Golf products, visit Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements relate to future events or the future financial performance of Newton Golf Company (the 'Company') and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terms such as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "intends," "believes," "estimates," "projects," "potential," "continues," or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the expected benefits of the reverse stock split, the Company's ability to maintain compliance with Nasdaq listing requirements, the potential for increased institutional investor interest, the Company's future growth strategy, expansion of its product portfolio, anticipated financial performance, and future business prospects. These forward-looking statements reflect the Company's current expectations and projections based on information available as of the date of this release and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, general economic, financial, and business conditions; changes in consumer demand and industry trends; the Company's ability to successfully implement its strategic initiatives; competition in the golf equipment market; supply chain disruptions; regulatory compliance and legal proceedings; and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. The Company cautions investors that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results may differ materially from those projected. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law. Media Contact: Beth Gast BG Public Relations Investor Contact: Scott McGowan Investor Brand Network (IBN) Phone: 310.299.1717 ir@
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CoreWeave's (CRWV) Ascent Implies That with Great Data Comes Great Responsibility
CoreWeave Inc. (NASDAQ:CRWV) has delivered edge-of-the-seat excitement for investors this year. A gravity-defying one-month gain of 145% in May has brought its YTD tally to around 160%, an impressive performance for a stock in the over $10 billion market capitalization bracket. Indeed, much of this rally has been news-driven (and not speculation), including Nvidia's (NASDAQ:NVDA) revelation of a 7% stake (as of March end) and a string of high-profile contracts. The latest being the $4.0 billion expansion deal with OpenAI, which already has an existing agreement with the company worth up to $12 billion, and the signing of a new hyperscaler client. But as Isaac Newton reminded us, what goes up must come down. After such a meteoric rise, some investors are asking the inevitable question: Can the rally continue or even sustain at these levels? Pat Burton, senior managing director at Winslow Capital Management, recently argued that the risk-reward is unfavourable for CoreWeave compared to more stable companies like Microsoft. That cautious view is gaining traction, even as the stock price scales new highs. According to a May 23 Bloomberg report, data from S3 Partners LLC shows that short interest in CoreWeave shares, as measured by the percentage of shares borrowed by short sellers, has surged from 18% in late April to 45% earlier in the week. Theoretically, this increased short interest could result in a short squeeze, in which short sellers are forced to buy additional shares to cover their positions as prices rise. But according to S3 Partners' analysis, a squeeze is unlikely to deter them as the market appears to have ample appetite to initiate new short positions. So, what's spooking some of these investors despite Nvidia's backing and rapid topline growth? The most prominent concern is CoreWeave's balance sheet leverage. The company is piling up massive debt at a relatively higher cost to fund its capital expenditure plans. Bloomberg notes that its debt-to-total assets ratio climbed to 54% by March 31, well above the 30% average of the Nasdaq 100 index. Another growing concern is whether AI demand is beginning to peak after some major tech companies have scaled back their investment in AI infrastructure, sparking fears that CoreWeave's growth may not be as sustainable as hoped. Among notable names that have made their cautious view clear is D.A. Davidson analyst Gil Luria. Luria downgraded the stock to Underperform (May 15) with a price target of $36, when the stock was trading at around $66. In very blunt terms, he stated the business is not worth scaling because of its lower return on investment. Greg Miller from Citizens JMP, who recently initiated coverage on CoreWeave with a Hold rating, asked investors to be on the sidelines as the current risks are too high. As of May 23, data from shows that 44% of analysts rate CoreWeave a Buy, 50% recommend a Hold, and 6% recommend a Sell on the shares. The consensus 12-month median price target is $67, implying a potential downside of around 35%. Finally, a key date for investors to watch is the lockup period expiry for CoreWeave on September 24, 2025. That's when the insiders will be free to sell their shares, and the free float will increase. This often tends to increase the trading volume and volatility of the stock. CoreWeave Inc. (NASDAQ:CRWV) provides AI developers and companies with cloud-based graphics processing unit (GPU) infrastructure, primarily based on Nvidia GPUs. While we acknowledge the potential of CRWV as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than CRWV and that has 100x upside potential, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money. Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
What Makes Stars Twinkle?
Ah, it's a lovely night for enjoying the outdoors. You go outside in the warm summer air to listen to the crickets and breathe in the scents of verdant life and then turn your head to the heavens. You see hundreds of stars in the sky, and the brightest are conspicuously twinkling and gleaming. Some are even shifting their colors across the rainbow, delighting your eyes and mind—unless you're out there to do some observing with a telescope. That twinkling is lovely for any average stargazer to behold, but scientifically it's a pain in the astronomer. Twinkling is the apparent rapid variation of brightness and color of the stars. It's technically called scintillation, from the Latin for 'sparkle,' which is apt. While it is admittedly lovely, it's still the bane of astronomers across the world. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] For millennia, twinkling was misunderstood. As with so many scientific principles, it was misdiagnosed by ancient Greeks such as Aristotle, who attributed it to human vision. At that time, he and his peers believed that the eye actively created vision by sending out beams that illuminated objects and allowed us to see them. But these beams were imperfect, so the belief went, and the farther away an object was, the more the beam would be distorted; stars, being very far away, suffered this flaw greatly, causing them to twinkle. It was Isaac Newton, through his studies of optics, who finally determined the true cause. A fundamental property of light—true of all waves, in fact—is that it bends when it goes from one medium to another. You're familiar with this: a spoon sitting in a glass of water looks bent at the top of the liquid. This is called refraction, and in the case of the spoon, it happens when the light goes from the water in the glass to the air on its way to your eye, distorting the shape of the otherwise unbent spoon. The amount of refraction depends on the properties of the materials through which the light travels. Density, for instance, can dictate the degree of refraction for light moving through gas—so light traveling through air alone will still bend if the air has different densities from one spot to the next. If Earth's atmosphere were perfectly static and homogeneous, then the refraction of starlight would be minimal. Our air is always in motion, however, and far from smooth. Winds far above the planet's surface stir the air, creating turbulence. This roils the gases, creating small air packets of different densities that move to and fro. Starlight passing through one such parcel of air will bend slightly. From our point of view on Earth, the position of the star will shift slightly when that happens. The air is also in motion, so from moment to moment, the starlight will pass through different parcels on its way to your eye or your detector, shifting position each time, usually randomly because of the air's turbulent motion. What you see on the ground, then, is the star rapidly shifting left, right, up and down, and all directions in between, several times per second—in other words, twinkling. The amount of the shift is confusingly called 'seeing' by astronomers, and it's actually quite small. It's usually only a few arcseconds, a very small angle on the sky—the full moon, for example, is about 1,800 arcseconds wide. Stars, though, are so far away from us that they appear to be a minuscule fraction of an arcsecond wide, a tiny point of light to the eye, so even this minuscule arcsecond-scale shifting makes them appear to dance around. Note that this is why planets typically don't twinkle. Jupiter, for example, is usually several dozen arcseconds wide, so twinkling doesn't affect its position as much, and we perceive its light to be steady. Twinkling is usually more obvious for stars near the horizon than overhead. The atmosphere is a shell of air surrounding Earth. When we look straight up, we're looking through roughly 100 kilometers of air, but toward the horizon, that length increases to more than 1,000 km! That gives the air many more chances to refract the starlight, increasing twinkling. But it's not just position that twinkling affects. Different wavelengths—colors—of light refract by different amounts. This is why a prism or a raindrop breaks light up into separate colors to create a rainbow. For a star, which can emit light at essentially all colors, this means sometimes its red light is bent toward you and blue is bent away, so the star appears ruddy. A fraction of a second later, a different parcel of air refracts the blue light toward you, and the star sparks azure. This effect is most apparent for white stars near the horizon. Sirius is white, and it's the brightest star in the night sky; when rising or setting, it can flash brilliantly and change colors rapidly. This is probably why it's often reported as a UFO! So if you hear a report that a bright spacecraft changed colors rapidly as it hovered over the trees, be aware that it almost certainly was not an alien ship but an alien sun. For astronomers, though, twinkling leads to a very different outcome: light from an object gets spread out over an image's exposure time. Details in a distant galaxy, for example, look out of focus and blurry. Also, faint objects appear even fainter because their light is smeared out. These are serious problems but ones for which we have a solution: adaptive optics. Inside some telescopes are sensors that can detect the amount of twinkling. This information is sent to a computer that rapidly calculates the distortion, then adjusts pistons behind a deformable mirror to reshape the reflective surface in a way to compensate for the twinkling. Most large ground-based telescopes employ this amazing tech, which produces clear, sharp images despite the atmospheric turbulence. Twinkling has a scientific use as well. The kind of light we see is not the only kind that refracts; radio waves do so as well when they pass through interstellar plasma, the ionized gas between the stars. Pulsars are rapidly spinning neutron stars that send out brief radio wave pulses at rapid intervals. The radio waves scintillate as they pass through plasma on their way to Earth, and astronomers can measure that scintillation to investigate that plasma. Research published in Nature Astronomy in April 2025 used this to look at the material in space close to the sun and map out structures in the Local Bubble, a region of space surrounding the sun where ancient supernovae cleared out much of the gas. Scientists found 21 large arcs of plasma sustained by turbulence inside the bubble, which surprised them because it was previously assumed that the bubble was more smooth. Personally, I'm of two minds about twinkling. It's lovely, certainly, but it caused me quite a bit of grief when I was using a telescope for my own research. Depending on what you're trying to study, though, it can still be a useful tool. So one might say my own opinion of twinkling is malleable; it can be bent either way.
Scientific American
16-05-2025
- Science
- Scientific American
What Makes Stars Twinkle?
Ah, it's a lovely night for enjoying the outdoors. You go outside in the warm summer air to listen to the crickets and breathe in the scents of verdant life and then turn your head to the heavens. You see hundreds of stars in the sky, and the brightest are conspicuously twinkling and gleaming. Some are even shifting their colors across the rainbow, delighting your eyes and mind—unless you're out there to do some observing with a telescope. That twinkling is lovely for any average stargazer to behold, but scientifically it's a pain in the astronomer. Twinkling is the apparent rapid variation of brightness and color of the stars. It's technically called scintillation, from the Latin for 'sparkle,' which is apt. While it is admittedly lovely, it's still the bane of astronomers across the world. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. For millennia, twinkling was misunderstood. As with so many scientific principles, it was misdiagnosed by ancient Greeks such as Aristotle, who attributed it to human vision. At that time, he and his peers believed that the eye actively created vision by sending out beams that illuminated objects and allowed us to see them. But these beams were imperfect, so the belief went, and the farther away an object was, the more the beam would be distorted; stars, being very far away, suffered this flaw greatly, causing them to twinkle. It was Isaac Newton, through his studies of optics, who finally determined the true cause. A fundamental property of light—true of all waves, in fact—is that it bends when it goes from one medium to another. You're familiar with this: a spoon sitting in a glass of water looks bent at the top of the liquid. This is called refraction, and in the case of the spoon, it happens when the light goes from the water in the glass to the air on its way to your eye, distorting the shape of the otherwise unbent spoon. The amount of refraction depends on the properties of the materials through which the light travels. Density, for instance, can dictate the degree of refraction for light moving through gas—so light traveling through air alone will still bend if the air has different densities from one spot to the next. If Earth's atmosphere were perfectly static and homogeneous, then the refraction of starlight would be minimal. Our air is always in motion, however, and far from smooth. Winds far above the planet's surface stir the air, creating turbulence. This roils the gases, creating small air packets of different densities that move to and fro. Starlight passing through one such parcel of air will bend slightly. From our point of view on Earth, the position of the star will shift slightly when that happens. The air is also in motion, so from moment to moment, the starlight will pass through different parcels on its way to your eye or your detector, shifting position each time, usually randomly because of the air's turbulent motion. What you see on the ground, then, is the star rapidly shifting left, right, up and down, and all directions in between, several times per second—in other words, twinkling. The amount of the shift is confusingly called 'seeing' by astronomers, and it's actually quite small. It's usually only a few arcseconds, a very small angle on the sky—the full moon, for example, is about 1,800 arcseconds wide. Stars, though, are so far away from us that they appear to be a minuscule fraction of an arcsecond wide, a tiny point of light to the eye, so even this minuscule arcsecond-scale shifting makes them appear to dance around. Note that this is why planets typically don't twinkle. Jupiter, for example, is usually several dozen arcseconds wide, so twinkling doesn't affect its position as much, and we perceive its light to be steady. Twinkling is usually more obvious for stars near the horizon than overhead. The atmosphere is a shell of air surrounding Earth. When we look straight up, we're looking through roughly 100 kilometers of air, but toward the horizon, that length increases to more than 1,000 km! That gives the air many more chances to refract the starlight, increasing twinkling. But it's not just position that twinkling affects. Different wavelengths—colors—of light refract by different amounts. This is why a prism or a raindrop breaks light up into separate colors to create a rainbow. For a star, which can emit light at essentially all colors, this means sometimes its red light is bent toward you and blue is bent away, so the star appears ruddy. A fraction of a second later, a different parcel of air refracts the blue light toward you, and the star sparks azure. This effect is most apparent for white stars near the horizon. Sirius is white, and it's the brightest star in the night sky; when rising or setting, it can flash brilliantly and change colors rapidly. This is probably why it's often reported as a UFO! So if you hear a report that a bright spacecraft changed colors rapidly as it hovered over the trees, be aware that it almost certainly was not an alien ship but an alien sun. For astronomers, though, twinkling leads to a very different outcome: light from an object gets spread out over an image's exposure time. Details in a distant galaxy, for example, look out of focus and blurry. Also, faint objects appear even fainter because their light is smeared out. These are serious problems but ones for which we have a solution: adaptive optics. Inside some telescopes are sensors that can detect the amount of twinkling. This information is sent to a computer that rapidly calculates the distortion, then adjusts pistons behind a deformable mirror to reshape the reflective surface in a way to compensate for the twinkling. Most large ground-based telescopes employ this amazing tech, which produces clear, sharp images despite the atmospheric turbulence. Twinkling has a scientific use as well. The kind of light we see is not the only kind that refracts; radio waves do so as well when they pass through interstellar plasma, the ionized gas between the stars. Pulsars are rapidly spinning neutron stars that send out brief radio wave pulses at rapid intervals. The radio waves scintillate as they pass through plasma on their way to Earth, and astronomers can measure that scintillation to investigate that plasma. Research published in Nature Astronomy in April 2025 used this to look at the material in space close to the sun and map out structures in the Local Bubble, a region of space surrounding the sun where ancient supernovae cleared out much of the gas. Scientists found 21 large arcs of plasma sustained by turbulence inside the bubble, which surprised them because it was previously assumed that the bubble was more smooth. Personally, I'm of two minds about twinkling. It's lovely, certainly, but it caused me quite a bit of grief when I was using a telescope for my own research. Depending on what you're trying to study, though, it can still be a useful tool. So one might say my own opinion of twinkling is malleable; it can be bent either way.
