Edits since publishing - Added more specific price info per range. Bumped Edward Green & John Lobb Main Range up a tier. Split Loake 1880 into separate entry. Added George Cleverley RTW. Shuffled Oliver Sweeney and Jeffery West down a tier. Bumped JL Main Range back down a tier - sorry JL. Added a D Tier to differentiate at the low end. Removed Oliver Sweeney - they are made in Italy. Added Tim Little. Added Wildsmiths. Added some comments to Church's.
Most of my shoes come from British makers and thanks to the dubious political direction my country is going and ever increasing import fees, this trend looks likely to continue in future. This is intended as an overview of the major British makers who are primarily RTW focused, and will also pull out RTW collections from bespoke makers where viable. It won't talk about bespoke shoes, even if the maker in question does produce them.
This post is not an attempt to diminish or demean shoes from any of the "lower tier" brands, just to provide a bit of guidance to a selection of makers that can sometimes be impenetrable and a bit confusing.
This post is visible on my (very much non-monetised) blog.
"Methodology" (such as it is)
In instances where a RTW maker has ranges of significantly different quality I’ll attempt to highlight it, although ultimately many makers will have a smaller, high-end range made to a higher specification that may belong in a higher tier (such as Cheaney Imperial or Loake Export Grade), and the list might get a bit overwhelming with too much detail.
Obviously quality and value are tricky, subjective concepts so I’ve resorted to the time-honoured tradition:

S Tier - Highest
A Tier - High
B Tier - Mid
C Tier - Low

After feedback I'm also adding "D Tier - Lowest" to differentiate some of the brands at that end.
For quality I’ll be considering the consistency, choice and quality of leather used; fineness and consistency of finishing; how appealing the styling is (very subjective obviously) and the overall quality of the construction.
“C / Low” quality in this context doesn’t mean terrible by any means - it’s just relative to the quality of the other makers. Clearly, Clarks make a lower quality shoe than Gaziano & Girling - that doesn’t mean they are “bad” for the money, because you can buy 15 pairs of Clarks for the price of one pair of Gaziano & Girling.
For price the breakdown is as follows:

££££ for shoes £1,000+
£££ for shoes £500 - £1,000
££ for shoes £200 - £500
£ for shoes less than £200

Edit: I've added in more precise price information per entry following feedback that some bands were too broad. All prices include VAT (20%).
Lastly the most difficult to assess notion, which is value. For this you need to balance the price against the quality and ultimately decide how much you’re willing to spend - to my mind, Crockett & Jones Main Range is the best value readily available RTW shoe.
I’m pretty confident in the below - I’ve owned at least one pair of shoes from all of these makers and sub-brands, and many more in the case of some of them - although obviously your mileage may vary somewhat. But hopefully it’s a good introduction at the least.
Gaziano & Girling Main Range - ££££ (£1,300) / S Tier
G&G are the current darling of the English shoe industry. A relatively young, forward looking and energetic brand who make strikingly styled shoes and boots. Undeniably expensive, but the drama and theatre of their designs makes them my favourite maker. Their leather quality is impeccable and their finishing is generally pretty unimpeachable.
Foster & Son New RTW - ££££ (£1,600) / S Tier
As one of the most venerable bespoke makers, Foster & Son traditionally outsourced a lot of their RTW offerings to brands like Crockett & Jones. They now produce RTW in their own factory, and some of the new designs are of a strikingly high quality (and with prices moving into the £1,600 region you’d hope so!). I spent some time handling them in their shop (back when going to shops and handling things used to be a thing) and would put them above G&G in terms of finishing, if a bit more conservative in styling.
John Lobb Prestige Range - ££££ (£1,500) / S Tier
Similar in quality to Edward Green’s Top Drawer, the designs in JL’s Prestige Line have finer finishing and smaller, limited edition design compared to their main range. I’ve compared the finishing quite closely between the two as I was considering some as wedding shoes, and would say the extra cash is worth it if you can afford it, if only because the main range designs can be a tad monotonous compared to more flamboyant makers like G&G.
Anthony Cleverley - ££££ (£1,300) / S Tier
George Cleverley is a legendary bespoke maker, and their Anthony Cleverley line is made to very high standards with a surprisingly broad range of designs. Quite aggressively styled to reflect the aesthetics of the bespoke models from GC proper, with a very slim fit and profile, these are really top tier. Not to be confused with the more readily available George Cleverley RTW options, which are I think made by Crockett & Jones for GC.
Edit - as pointed out in comments, prevailing opinion is that AC models are made by Edward Green for GC. It's possible that the AC range in general is being wound down, as they are increasingly difficult to actually order
Edward Green Main Range - ££££ (£1,000 - £1,300) / S Tier
Not a maker that needs a lot of introduction, with iconic models like the Galway boot or the Dover split-toe derby. I personally find their pricing just a bit uncomfortably high for what you get, but can’t fault the quality of their output. While I love the drama of Gaziano & Girling, many would probably find EG to be a more practical day-to-day maker. They also have a number of models in the sub-£1000 price range, though the aforementioned iconic designs lean towards £1,300-ish pricing. EG also have a Top Drawer MTO range, with finer waist treatment, finishing, materials and customisation options, although it's not readily available online.
John Lobb Main Range- ££££ (£1,000) / A Tier
Another very well established maker - the RTW options are from the Hermes owned brand, distinct from the bespoke makers at John Lobb St. James. You can expect a supremely well-made pair of shoes, although JL’s designs and choices of leather are a bit sterile and boring sometimes. Scrolling through their current collection lacks oomph compared to Edward Green or even the much cheaper Crockett & Jones.
Edit - from the comments, Main Range finishing can be ropey. I'd second this from quite a lot of time spent going over them in store, so moving to A Tier
Alfred Sargent Handgrade / Exclusive - ££ £ (£400 - £600) / A Tier
Alfred Sargent are an underrated maker - it’s unsurprising as they keep a pretty low profile online. They’re actually quite hard to buy at this point, particularly the higher end ranges here which I think now can only be ordered straight from the brand. Tiers are a bit tricky for this one - Handgrade probably belongs in A tier, and the Exclusive collection is potentially B tier, but both punch well above their weight in terms of quality and styling, and should be picked up quickly if you see them for a good price on eBay.
Crockett & Jones Handgrade - £££ (£600) / A Tier
The Handgrade collection sports better finishing, sharper and more asymmetric last shapes, and a higher grade of leathers. The price increase from the main range is noticeable, and many would find the increase in quality marginal, so I'm torn on recommending them over the main range.
Gaziano & Girling Classic Range - £££ (£600) / A Tier
A newer range from Gaziano & Girling - pricing is about equivalent to Crockett & Jones Handgrade. The styling is noticeably less sharp than G&G's main collection designs and the construction is relatively cruder (though still really impressive), but they have a solid collection of models that would fit in an everyday dress shoe rotation. Is it worth losing the quality from the main range just to get the G&G name and lose half the price? I’m on the fence.
George Cleverley RTW - £££ (£525) / A Tier
A distinct collection from Anthony Cleverley, George Cleverley RTW is priced just into this tier at about £525. Prevailing opinion is that they are made by Crockett & Jones for GC.
Tricker’s - ££ (£465) / B Tier
Tricker’s are best known for their boots but they have a respectable selection of dressy shoes too. Robust and long-lasting - provided the chunkiness of the aesthetic works for you - a pair of Tricker's, properly cared for, really will last a lifetime. Readily available at reduced prices in regular sales and from Tricker’s own outlet website.
Crockett & Jones Main Range - ££ (£450) / B Tier
If money was no object I’d have only Gaziano & Girling shoes, but as it is I think Crockett & Jones offer the best value of any British maker. They have an extremely wide range of styles and continue to innovate seasonally, and their Shell Cordovan is second to none in the British market. They are my go-to recommendation for anybody looking to buy their first decent pair of shoes (though I think I've probably owned about 30 pairs by this point). They also have, by a wide margin, the friendliest and most helpful store experience of any of the big Jermyn Street stores. Compare and contrast with some of the higher end stores which sometimes give the impression they'd rather not have you cluttering the shop up.
Alfred Sargent Main Range - ££ (£300) / B Tier
Solid but not spectacular, Alfred Sargent’s main range options are a good choice. Like the higher grade ranges, they appear to have been withdrawing from a number of more prominent online retailers - maybe they are looking to consolidate sales through their own site in the future?
Cheaney - ££ (£300-£400) / B Tier
A robust and strong maker that continues to fly under the radar compared to brands like Crockett & Jones or Tricker’s. Unfortunately a lot of their designs can stray into quite gimmicky territory - as a brand they seem to lack a core identity or sense of direction.
Church’s- ££ (£500) / B Tier
Church’s long and storied history is largely, and I think fairly, overshadowed by the perceived decline in quality since their purchase by Prada and shift towards designs defined by sequins, spikes and horrible bookbinder leather. They still make an excellent and classic shoe in models like the Consul, but brand name aside they don’t really hold a candle to Crockett & Jones these days. They do have a strong international presence, and continue to sell very well on eBay though.
Wildsmith - ££ (£500) / B Tier
Not a widely known name, but one with a lot of interesting history. The brand was formed in 1847, though the company in its current form is owned by Herring Shoes, with shoes made by Sargent, Cheaney and Barker. They don't have a wide collection - I remember they had a relatively large relaunch a few years ago, but the range seems to have shrunk since. Only a handful of models are now available to order through Herring directly, so in spite of some slick looking models I fear the brand isn't that long for this world.
Tim Little - ££ (£410) / B Tier
I forgot to include these in the initial list, which is surprising as I have a pair of Tim Little shoes hidden at the back of my wardrobe. They are a small brand with only one shop, but the owner is also the owner and Creative Director of Grenson, so they clearly have some manufacturing weight behind them. The Goodyear welted options are made in the UK. The pair I have are well made, although the last is a bit banana-shaped and elongated in the toe for my tastes. May be worth picking up on eBay or at a discount.
Grenson- ££ (£300 - £400) / B Tier
Grenson aren’t without their charms - the Triple Welt boots have a real chunky appeal. Like Cheaney, I think they tend to cast their net a bit wide in terms of wild new designs without maintaining a core stylistic focus like a brand like Crockett & Jones manage to. In a rapidly more crowded pricepoint, makers like Grenson, Cheaney, Barker and Loake are facing real challenges in staking a claim.
Loake 1880 Export Grade / 1880 Legacy / 1880 - ££ (£250 - £400) / B Tier
As suggested from comments, I've split Loake's higher grade collections out. The 1880 Export Grade have some particularly impressive models, though a pretty limited range of designs.
Sanders - ££ (£200 - £350) / B Tier
Very similar models and aesthetic to Tricker’s, but somewhat cheaper - at a glance you’d be forgiven for confusing their Acorn calf Aintree boots with Tricker’s Stow boots. No real standout designs, but as a pair of reliable boots you could do a lot worse.
Herring Shoes Premier - ££ (£350 - £400) / B Tier
As well as being one of the best UK sites for buying a number of brands on this list, Herring have their own label with unique designs. Some of the Premier models are a tad overdesigned with a lot of mixed materials and bold colours, but Herring's regular sales offer a good chance to get some of the classier models for a good price. Edit - I may have been thinking of past collections more with this - the current collection is pretty understated. Also pointed out in comments that Herring's own brand are made by Alfred Sargent, Barkers, Cheaney and Loake. I'm going to leave them as their own entry as the range of designs is quite large, and the designs are quite distinctive to Herring
Jeffery West - ££ (£250 - £400) / C Tier
Largely defined by gaudy colours, pointy (or square toes) and an overall eye-sore, wrong-side-of-dandy look. To say I am not a fan would be a delicate understatement - I would say Jeffery West have the distinction of making the ugliest shoes on this list, but appreciate this is my own preference talking.
Good insight from the comments: "Whilst Jeffrey West are a bit out there and some of their designs miss the mark a tad, I do think it's nice to see something a bit different to the usual kinda dull offerings I think English shoemakers put out." Fair point and I agree to an extent, so do take my own views with a pinch of salt!
Barker - ££ (£250) / C Tier
Barker are not in an enviable position - they are a relatively well-known brand but lean more into eye-catching, gaudy models each season without much connection to a central aesthetic. Some of their higher end models are okay, but they really dive deep into the low-end too which mars things a bit, and are competing with a lot of other makers for their slice of the pie.
Herring Shoes Classic - £ (£120 - £250) / C Tier
Herring has some really cheap and cheerful models at the lower end. Even so, a lot of the designs are pretty classic and versatile, and alongside Herring’s excellent service these are actually a really solid bet in the sub-£200 price range.
Edit: pointed out in comments that Herring's own brand are made by Alfred Sargent, Barkers, Cheaney and Loake. I'm going to leave them as their own entry as the range of designs is quite large, and the designs are quite distinctive to Herring
Loake Shoemakers / L1 - £ (£150) / C Tier
Loake offer a pretty bewildering array of ranges and quality levels - at best the 1880 Export Grade could comfortably slip into tier B, and at worst their L1 or Loake Lifestyle ranges (which I believe are made in India, although Loake's site very much fails to make this clear) would fall to the bottom of Tier C. Most of their output these days falls into this lower standard of quality, although they are probably the most readily available maker on this list in terms of third-party sellers. A good option for those who need a sensible pair of shoes but don't want to splash out C&J money.
NPS / Solovair - £ (£170) / C Tier
NPS have the “British work-boot” aesthetic nailed down - not astounding quality, but a far better alternative if you’re thinking of buying a pair of Doc Marten’s. NPS did produce Doc Marten's under license in the 50s, but by the 80s the company was nearly dead in the water until it was saved in the mid-2000's. Speaking of DMs...
Doc Marten’s - £ (£180) / D Tier
It's remarkable that this brand is so far down the list, as it probably had more cultural impact than any other maker here. In the 60s and 70s Doc Marten's became a bona-fide cultural icon - a uniform of the anti-establishment. The company fell to near bankruptcy in the 2000s, but appear to have bounced back since. Although they do still have a selection of boots made in England in the original factory, much of their output are cemented models that will fall to bits pretty rapidly.
Clark’s - £ (£100) / D Tier
I know, I know - Thou Shalt Not Disparage the Desert Boot, but Clarks sticks in my head as the place my mum took me to buy shoes for school. They seem to have given up the push from a few years ago into competing with higher quality GYW boots, and what we are left with is, in terms of material and construction, the lowest position on this list.
Anyhow, that's pretty much it. Please comment with any I've forgotten, and feel free to chastise me if you think I've viciously misrepresented your favourite maker.

Taking up a traditional musical instrument to play sea shanties and sea songs (for total novices or experienced musicians)

What with the current fascination with sea shanties and sea songs, I figured that some folks might be interested in trying out the musical instruments of Western sailors of the 1800s and early 1900s. While a classic shanty tended to be sung just with vocals, sailors played a variety of musical instruments popular in their eras, and in the Folk Revivals of the mid 1900s, lots of musicians did fine work adding instrumentation to the old tunes.
Maybe you’re an experienced musician looking to try a new sound after discovering sea songs, or maybe you’ve never played a note and hearing these great old tunes has inspired you to learn. In whatever case, in this little write-up I’m going to lay out some of the traditional instruments of the era which were favored by sailors, and explain for each how affordable and easy to learn they can be, and link you in some examples to listen to and places to learn more about each instrument.
I’m not a PhD musicologist, but I do have a lot of research background, been playing traditional music for over 30 years, and have a general handle on the scene and the era. And I have for over a decade done little projects online to encourage people to push their boundaries and break away from the mainstream by trying musical instruments beyond the most common ones. Being entranced by a new genre of music is a fine time to further expand your horizons by taking up an instrument and making music yourself.

WINDS * Tinwhistle * Flute (and piccolo and fife) * Trumpet
STRINGS * Guitar * Banjo (and banjo ukulele) * Fiddle * Mandolin * Ukulele
FREE REEDS * Harmonica * Concertina * Melodeon/Button Accordion * (Toy Accordion/Melodeon)
PERCUSSION * Drums * (Bodhrán)
NOT TRADITIONAL SAILOR INSTRUMENTS, BUT WOULD SOUND AWESOME WITH SHANTIES * Appalachian/Mountain dulcimer * Udu or Ibo drum * Bagpipe * Electronic Instruments
I will note before we begin, especially in the budget category, there are some real bargains but plenty of junk, so please use this article as a starting point, but read up a little on best buys. Don’t just say “oh, I dig Irish flute, and I see a new one on eBay for $50, sounds like a bargain!” and buy it without doing a little research, or you’ll get stuck wasting time and money on unplayable junk. All the more so for used instruments, which can offer great savings, but you really want to buy from a reputable dealer or a musician, or have an ironclad strategy for DIY repair, lest you get something too out of whack to learn on and too pricey to repair. Plenty of bargains, just don’t get impulsive, do just a little research before each purchase and you’ll be glad you did. There are online communities full of geeks like me for each of these instruments, who'd be happy to chat with you about choosing a good one for your money, and how you can best learn to play.
We’re looking largely at the instruments of seafaring European (and diaspora) folk of the 1800s and early 1900s, which you can note largely resembled the instruments of the working class on land, farmers and city laborers, just with an eye towards durability and portability at sea. Fortunately, many of these instruments are relatively affordable, intuitive to learn (they had to be, to catch on with a largely illiterate population that just wanted to get to playing music without fuss), and often rugged and compact for travel. I realized after I finished this article that all these instruments can be learned by ear and video without formal written study, and (with the exception of fiddle) beginner tutorials for them are written in “tablature” (numbers that say where your fingers go) rather than sheet music, making them even easier to learn for total novices.
WINDS
Wind instruments had the huge advantage of being relatively compact, simple, and affordable, and some of them had a dual purpose for signaling or for military music, or just being heard above the noise of work and waves to keep a rhythm for work or dancing.
Tinwhistle
A tinwhistle is a small metal pipe with six finger-holes, and a whistle-like mouthpiece that directs the breath onto a sharp edge that produces the note. Like a referee’s whistle but with control of the notes.
The great thing about tinwhistle is you can get a totally serviceable instrument for literally $9 or so; they’re just that cheap to make. There are professional Irish musicians who spend decades playing $9 whistles (often doing a little fine-tuning on their own to smooth them out), so they’re by no means just toys. Even if you aren’t in a hurry to learn, honestly at that price you might as well pick one up next time you’re shopping online, and give it a whirl. An instrument you could own for life for the price of a decent 6-pack. The subreddit tinwhistle can provide advice and resources, and off-Reddit there’s the specialized Chiff and Fipple Forum.
If you buy a tinwhistle as a beginner, absolutely get one in the Key of D (the most common key), because 99% of teaching materials are for D, the common key for Irish music. (You'll notice an Irish crossover trend in much of this advice). There are some tutorials for shanties online, but honestly best bet would be to use some of the tutorials for Irish tunes just to learn the basics, and then you’ll swiftly be able to transition to learning other genres by ear.
"Drunken Sailor" tinwhistle duet with concertina
Flute (including piccolo and fife)
The flute is of course a tube where you blow across a hole to make a note. Most of us have seen the classical flute in videos, silver with all those fancy mechanical keys, but the flutes of the 1800s were largely wooden and had few or no keys, just open finger-holes like the tinwhistle. In the modern day, such “simple flutes” are largely associated with folk music, especially Irish, so there are plenty on the market, including affordable ones made of synthetic materials or metals. Just don't be seduced by import "rosewood" cheapies, they're junk, one made of PVC pipe by an actual musician would be a better buy than those wall-hangers.
I made a post on Chiff and Fipple asking about affordable flutes and fifes, and got some good options under $50 for some really simple plastic tube instruments of decent make, and some finer Irish flutes turned from synthetics around $250. Flutes come in a variety of sizes, but like tinwhistles the easiest way to learn is using Irish music tutorials and then adding nautical repertoire once you have the basics down, so again probably get Key of D.
You can get a Low D flute about 2 feet long, or a High D flute (known as a fife or piccolo, or band flute) an octave above, the same rough size and pitch as a tinwhistle, just different method of blowing. The Low D instruments are pretty similar to each other, but for High D ("fife/piccolo/band flute") note some are "true fifes" made to play best at very high pitches for fife and drum music, others are meant to play smoothly at their lowest register, identical in range to a tinwhistle. So mind that distinction and ask the experts if you aren't sure which model suits your vision.
Dixon Irish flute duet with cittern (large mandolin cousin)
Modern high-quality Irish keyless piccolo
Trumpet
In my poring over old engravings and photographs, I was struck by how many showed sailors playing various trumpet-type instruments in the late 1800s, which kind of makes sense given the cultural crossover with military Naval traditions, and the volume of a trumpet which helps cut through wind and noise for signaling or dance music. I’m sure there are a zillion good write-ups on buying a basic trumpet (from $100-300), so I’ll leave you go google those or visit Trumpet.
But personally reading up for this article got even me thinking about trying my hand at a little brass. I'm honestly torn between getting one of the novel plastic "brass" instruments made for learners like pTrumpet or jHorn (around $100) because I like innovative design, or carefully buying an okay-quality used brass instrument (after consulting experts) for similar price. But I bet a whaler would've loved a plastic one if they'd been available in 1863.
"Wellerman" on trumpet
STRINGS
Guitar
In my survey of period imagery, I did indeed find some images of men at sea playing guitar, but do bear in mind that guitar in the 1800s and early 1900s was nowhere near as omnipresent as it is today, and in different forms. Plenty of other instruments were far more popular, up until the mid-1900s where guitar really became a go-to choice in the West. Note too that steel strings on guitars, as well as larger body sizes, didn’t show up much until the early 1900s, so for much of this period those who played guitar played smaller body instruments, with gut strings (nowadays nylon strings sound almost like gut but are massively more durable and affordable).
That said, tons of musicians in the Folk Revivals of the 1900s played a modern large guitar with steel strings and sounded great, so it really depends what tradition and sound you want to imitate. Again there are thousands of write-ups on taking up guitar, and plethora of new and used models, steel strings or nylon, all sizes, so I’ll leave that to you to Google or hit up LearnGuitar.
But I would encourage you to keep an open mind to guitar types to get a little more unusual flair in your musical stylings, break away from the crowd a bit. If you’re an experienced strings player, if you want to get that droning and modal sound you hear in shanties, try tuning your current guitar to the Drop D or DADGAD tunings (see DADGAD), also popular in Irish music, and I think you’ll like your results.
And if you’re a novice considering starting on guitar, I’m one of those people who believes that 2 months on a $50 ukulele and then four months on a guitar gets you further ahead than 6 months on a guitar alone, because uke is just so much more accessible for the total beginner. (Plus you’ll end up having a spare uke to carry where your guitar is inconvenient and left at home.) So if you’re considering guitar, check ukulele and ponder whether a uke of some sort could be an affordable and easy initial stage to launch your studies.
Irish jig on guitar in DADGAD tuning
"Drunken Sailor" on nylon-strung guitar
Banjo
The banjo is an instrument developed by American enslaved people, inspired by related instruments they’d known in Africa. By the mid 1800s, the banjo had crossed demographic lines and become hugely popular with European-Americans and spread to other countries, far more popular than the guitar was at the time. It was the go-to plucked string instrument for much of the 1800s.
If you’re looking to take up banjo, know that the banjos of this period had a different sound and playing style than the modern bluegrass instrument, so set aside your stereotypes and listen to some recordings of “Old Time” banjo rather than the bluegrass and country licks you’re used to hearing in soundtracks. These banjos were less piercing, mellower, and a more languid style. And much like on guitars, steel strings were less common, gut being typical and having a much softer sound (today we have nylon options). So when you go reading up “how to choose a banjo” articles or visiting Banjo (or BanjoHangout.com), look for an “open back” banjo rather than one with the heavy metal ring around the head (“resonator”) which makes it louder and sharper for bluegrass.
If you want to get really traditional, and sound softer and be easier on your fingers, spend $9 to get nylon (imitating gut) strings for a much less cliché and smoother sound. (Just note nylon strings stretch like crazy for a few days until they break in and stabilize, be patient.) Speaking of sound, absolutely don’t fall into trying to learn the modern “three-finger” or “Scruggs” style of play, which is a post-WWII styling, but read up on the old “clawhammer” or “frailing” style of play, which sounds entirely different and may pleasantly surprise you if you thought you don’t like banjo.
"Wellerman" on 5-string banjo, played clawhammer style
Nylon strings on a fretless banjo, just to show a very different sound
I will briefly mention some banjo variants other than the 5-string type we’re mostly familiar with. There is also the “tenor banjo” which has four strings, lacking that shortened fifth string off to the side on the currently popular banjos. A tenor banjo is tuned differently: depending on what strings you’re using (and you can swap the strings out for about $10) it’s tuned either like a violin/mandolin, or like a guitaukulele, so those skills cross over well, and is slightly shorter than the common 5-string.
Three Irish reels on a tenor banjo
And if you want a banjo that to one degree isn’t as historically associated with sailors, but to the other is actually surprisingly similar to the smaller and mellower banjos of the early 1800s, there’s the “banjo ukulele” hybrid which is quite affordable and easy to learn.
Frankly, if this is your first instrument and you want banjo, I’d get a banjo ukulele first rather than a 5-string, because they’re just so affordable (decent ones start around $100 new) and handy and easy to learn, and very mellow, not like the cliché sound you’d expect. And though they lack the fifth string, in the last decade or so a ton of YouTube uke experts have been developing the “clawhammer ukulele” style of play. It works impressively well on ukulele or banjo ukulele (which are played the exact same way, same online tutorials apply, they just have a different body and thus sound).
"Leave Her Johnny, Leave Her" on banjo ukulele, clawhammer style
Fiddle
The “fiddle” is physically basically the same as a violin, just played in a folk rather than classical style. There are probably millions of violins bouncing around the world, including plenty of used deals, but you really want to read up on how to find a good deal on a new or used one, because violins are a little finicky. I would also say that unless you’re extremely motivated or getting a Zoom teacher, I wouldn’t advise fiddle as your very first instrument. Because they lack frets and learning to use a bow is its own distinct skill, they have a bit of a steep initial learning curve. So you maybe want to learn a little ukulele or mandolin (which has the same fingering as fiddle) before jumping in. But that said, if you just love fiddle and are ambitious, or already have a little strings background, by all means dive on in. Learn it in standard tuning, but once you get the basics down, try "open tunings" for shanties and the like. Hit up Fiddle for advice.
The fiddle was a hugely popular instrument from the 1700s up to the mid-1900s before falling off sharply heading into the rock ‘n’ roll era. With fiddle you can cover a huge variety of historical musical traditions.
"Blow Boys Blow" on fiddle, while singing (something you don’t see classical violinists do)
Mandolin
This originally Italian instrument took on a wider popularity in the Western world around the late 1800s and early 1900s, again being more popular than guitar in many areas during that period. A mandolin has the chording ability of the guitar but the melodic dexterity of a fiddle, is nice and compact especially compared to a large modern guitar, and can be bought in a passable starter model as low as ~$99. Though if you can stretch to a budget of more like $300, you’ll really appreciate the improvement.
Plenty of used ones floating around, though buy those from a musician or reputable dealer, not from randos on eBay with something they pulled out of a closet from ages ago. Mandolins are under very high tension, and older ones that are low quality or mistreated can be warped or cracked in ways a novice can’t easily notice, but that make them unsuitable to be played. Don't jump on the first "bargain" you see, mando is common enough that you'll see bargains every other day, don't get impulsive, get advice from mandolin players online.
I will note that although mandolin had a narrower time and place of popularity than banjo or especially fiddle, it closely resembles even earlier instruments like the “English guitar”, “cittern” and “Portuguese guitar” that were more widespread, so can serve as a partial stand-in for a number of centuries and locales. Plenty of good information at mandolin awaits you if you want to take up mando.
Beginner mandolins are pretty affordable, and it's not too hard to learn, but it will take time for your hands to adjust and toughen up your finger pads. If you want to try mandolin tuning on an even more affordable instrument and with less string tension, you can get a basic starter ukulele and get Aquila's "Fifths" strings for ukulele (make sure to get the size that corresponds to the size of your uke) for $5-10 and string it in GDAE or CGDA, and then the fingerings would cross directly over to mandolin or mandola.
"Salt Water Shanty" tune on the mandolin
An example of the related "Portuguese guitar", shared between England and Portugal by the sea trade, played on the docks of Lisbon for "fado" music
"Bach 1st Cello Suite" on a ukulele re-strung to CGDA
Ukulele
The ukulele is based on traditional Portuguese small guitar-like instruments, and was introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in 1879 when the SS Ravenscrag brought over Portuguese immigrants in 1879. The instrument caught the imaginations of the local Hawaiians, and some Portuguse woodworkers who'd just arrived capitalized on that trend and began producing a local version. So certainly sailors coming and going from Hawaiian ports had a chance to become familiar with the instrument.
The ukulele is one of the easiest string instruments to play, and the skills cross directly over to guitar and other instruments. If you're new to strings I would highly suggest getting a $50-99 ukulele first to get used to strings, and then decide your best move. As noted above, a uke can be an excellent stand-in for guitar, banjo, or mandolin (especially if restrung in fifths).
"Wellerman" on a regular $40 ukulele, conventional strumming and sounding awesome
"5 Sea Shanties on Ukulele", a really great and crystal-clear tutorial for noobs by Destiny Guerra
Ukulele has a shanty contest recently, might want to check out the submissions by other Redditors of shanties on ukulele
FREE REEDS
The name “free reeds” might sound confusing, but it basically just means things like the accordion and harmonica (which despite looking so different, are close cousins). On common reed instruments like saxophone or oboe, the air tube has one reed (a flexible tongue that produces a note as it vibrates when air flows over it) that makes the core pitch, and by opening holes to change the functional length of the tube you change the note. In contrast, with free reeds, you have an array of individual reeds that always make the same note, and you choose which note(s) to play by directing air over them with a button (accordion) or by moving it against your mouth (harmonica)
Harmonica
I think most folks are familiar with the basic concept of a harmonica, so I’ll just note there are a harmonicas at every price range, all kinds of keys (and ones in minor scales and such), and a lot of harmonica players own a whole stack of them to have a variety. While there are playable ones for like $10, aim for about $25-35 or more for your first one, if able, rather than going totally cheap, just so you aren’t held back as you’re trying to learn. There are a ton of free harmonica tutorials online, and books you can buy, and harmonica to advise, so you can’t go too wrong.
The modern harmonica was invented in the 1800s (based in concept on centuries-old instruments of Southeast Asia encountered by travelers). Hohner started mass-producing barge-fulls of them in Germany shortly after the American Civil War, and exporting them to the US. While maybe we don’t think of harmonicas as a sailor thing, they were an omnipresent affordable and pocket-sized instruments, surely familiar to sailors of the period.
"Drunken Sailor" on a less-common minor-key harmonica
"Wellerman" tutorial on standard harmonica
Concertina
The association between sailors and concertina is so strong as to be almost cliché, due in large part to Hollywood portrayal, like sea shanty concertinist Alf Edwards cameoing in 1965’s “Moby Dick". The concertina is basically like a small hexagonal accordion, but a simpler and less raucous sound due to (usually) only one reed per note, and every button is an individual note rather than some buttons being chords.
Concertina is pretty intuitive to play, and there are some good free tutorials online. For a novice interested in sea shanties you probably want the “Anglo” style (different notes on push and pull, like a harmonica or melodeon). Commonly people buy the 30-button Anglo, because most concertina buyers play Irish music and you want 30 for that. But for shanties and other simple folk, you can do well with a 20-button (which can also play most Irish), which tend to be a little cheaper. I would really give a pass to the $150-200 China-made ones on Amazon and eBay, and go for at least $299 or so for a new 20b or used 30b. (Or hit up Cnet's sales subforum to ask if anyone has a bargain 20b for a noob).
While Anglo is hands-down the traditional choice of sailors, in the Folk Revivals, for whatever reason (lots of them cheap in pawnshops?) a lot of folk musicians took up the English-system concertina. The English externally looks similar but has the same note on push and pull of the bellows, so totally different playing style. Some of the most famous shanty players of the 1960s-1970s (like the fantastic Alf Edwards mentioned above) played English, which in the actual sailing days was the instrument of the wealthy, not laborers.
But y’all are in luck, because I’m a mod at Concertina and have written a pretty comprehensive Concertina FAQ and Buying Guide for novices, the sub itself can help advise with any questions, and for serious experts or to shop an active buy/sell forum for bargains, visit Concertina.net Forums.
Note for both concertina and melodeon (button accordion), “Appcordions” produces free or cheap apps for your phone or tablet which emulate concertina (Anglo, English, or Duet fingering systems) or button accordion. The apps take a little getting used to, but are fun to try out the concept before committing. Read the instructions or watch a tutorial for each to understand how to emulate bellows direction changes on an app, and they're better on tablet than phone, but passable on phone.
Modern shanty "Grogg Mayles" played on Anglo concertina (note the constant back-forth to change notes)
A. L. Lloyd singing “Off to Sea Once More” backed up by Alf Edwards on English concertina (Lloyd is my favorite shantyman of all time, and Edwards so gorgeous on English that I forgive him the heresy of passing up Anglo)
Melodeon (Button Accordion)
When modern people think “accordion” they tend to think the huge ones with a piano keyboard, such as played by Weird Al. But for much of the 1800s and early 1900s, the dominant accordion was the “melodeon” (Americans tend to call them a “button accordion”) which is generally smaller, and has one, two, or three rows of buttons instead of a piano keyboard. Like the Anglo concertina or the harmonica, a given melodeon button produces a different note when you change air direction, which means that notes that make a chord line up together, making it very intuitive to play.
There are hordes of melodeons on the used market, but ones hauled out of a closet after 40 years of no play can need hundreds of dollars of refurbishment by a skilled technician. So again don’t go buying from randos on eBay, but buy from an actual player, or reputable dealer (many of whom buy the tore-up rando ones cheap on eBay, fix them up and flip them at reasonable prices). Figuring out the good deals can be daunting to a novice, so I went to Melodeon.net and got a detailed discussion going resulting in somewhat of a novice buyer’s guide for sea shanties that you might find easier to digest.
With some hunting around the various reputable dealers, and Melodeon.net’s sales section, you can find a decent melodeon as low as $250-350 (easier still in the UK or EU where melodeon is more common). Also check out the small sub Melodeon (we may add a sticky or wicki to link dealers of affordable refurbished button accordions). Fortunately shanty players are less picky about specific keys and models, so can get some good deals on less-fashionable variants other musicians are slow to buy.
High Barbary on 2.5-row melodeon, voice and fiddle
"Bully in the Alley" tutorial on 2-row D/G melodeon
Addendum: “Toy” Accordions (Melodeons)
I will address one kind of intriguing and highly affordable option for learning the basics on melodeon. There’s a little 7-button job called a “toy accordion” made in China (the button kind, not piano kind), sold on all the major online retailers. It isn’t so much really a "toy" as it is a small functional instrument but of kinda middling materials and iffy quality control, but it is a genuine musical instrument. Funnily enough, a small and shoddy mass-produced melodeon was exactly what laborers and sailors of the mid to late 1800s played, churned out of factories in Germany at prices so low they were practically disposable. Ironically the “toy” is arguably the historically authentic option, in spirit.
I don’t want to sound like I’m shilling for Amazon, I don’t even have affiliate links to them on my YouTube channel (maybe someday), but I’m telling you now that Amazon or equivalent is a good place to get a toy accordion. That way you can buy a model and from a seller with the best reviews, and (this is vital) one with “free returns”. The QC on these is iffy, so if you get a lemon it’s great to be able to put it right back in the box, click “return” on the app, and it gets picked up off your porch or you drop it off at a local business that processes Amazon returns. And if you like you can even just re-order it with your refund until they get it right.
These “toys” run about $20-40 (I just bought an EastaMugig, and it seems pretty decent and ready to tweak), so just pick one with good reviews, ensure it has free returns, and give it a whirl. Or if you really want to cut to the chase, there are accordion “fettlers” (repairers) who will just gut a toy for you and put quality reeds in it. Currently Smythe’s Accordions is the main shop I know of doing this in the US, and will put in quality reeds in the key of your choice, into a Russian toy accordion (better quality), if you want to spend $200.
Now, if you get one into your paws that plays okay and you want to keep it, I suggest immediately opening it up and making some minor tweaks. This is one of those things all the melodeon folks casually mention and afaik nobody has bothered to make a proper tutorial on (I hope to shortly for my YouTube channel), but you can make these substantially better with very little skill. Basically put, you got seven buttons, with two notes per button, and two reeds per note to give it a tremolo/echo effect. The issue is those doubled reeds use up a lot of air, and your bellows are small, and one reed will always be more in-tune than the other. So you get some really basic tools and masking tape, pour a beer or soda, carefully open it (they’re pretty sturdy if you get a good one) and identify the two reeds for each note, lay down masking tape along one to silence it. While you’re in there, if you can identify any reeds that aren’t sounding properly, they’re probably clogged with dust, and you can google up how to carefully slide something thin like a dollar bill under the tongue to knock the dust loose and allow it to sound. Tape off one of each pair, assemble it and try it, and if a given note (now one reed per note) sounds off, make a note of which, disassemble and switch the tape from the other reed and see if the other one sounds better.
It’ll take some futzing, but no major skill and no permanent changes (do it carefully so you can still return it if it just won’t shape up). If you get it right, now it’ll be using half as much air so way easier to play, and if you like there are many other little tweaks to adjust button play, fix bellows leaks, and all that, all pretty low-skill. But fundamentally for $20-40 you can have a kinda shoddy yet effective little melodeon, much like the sailors of old, on which you can accompany sea songs.
Drunken Sailor on a decent yet stock toy accordion
Irish polkas on a toy accordion that’s been fitted with quality reeds
PERCUSSION
Looking at old sailor imagery, you generally see small snare drums and bass drums, and there seems to be a large crossover between those on civilian ships and similar ones played in the British and American navies of the era. If you’re a real stickler you can get “rope-tuned” old-school wooden snare and small bass drums (sold for fife and drum reenactors), or make do with modern used marching-band instruments.
I do want to note there is one kind of drum that’s relatively recent in tradition and wouldn’t really have been played by shanty-era sailors, but sounds absolutely amazing with shanties if you aren’t a stickler: the Irish bodhrán. It’s a relatively shallow circular shell with one drum head, held in one hand and the other hands holds a double-headed stick (like a little kayak paddle) and virtuosically skips it off the drum head in rhythmic patterns. It's pretty cool, but if you get one, learn it proper because eager noobs not bothering to learn skill and just whacking on it are a cliche in the Irish trad scene. Bodhran is tiny but has some good links, and you can always ask and see who answers.
Daniel Payne of Newfoundland sings “Wind Through the Window” while backing himself on bodhrán
NOT TRADITIONAL SAILOR INSTRUMENTS, BUT WOULD SOUND AWESOME WITH SHANTIES
I want to briefly discuss one instrument from each category that aren’t strictly historical to seafarers, but really fit in with the spirit of shanties. These would be great retcons, and one very modern wildcard at the end.
Appalachian/Mountain dulcimer
The dulcimer was likely a French or German instrument acquired by the rural folks in the Appalachian mountains of the US, and worked into the local tradition due to its simplicity. It’s a long wooden box played in the lap, tuned to open tunings, with only partial fretting, which makes it ridiculously easy to learn and accompany yourself on. I like to joke that it's the "Celtic sitar."
I taught quite a few workshops on the dulcimer for groups, and it’s about one of the easiest fretted string instruments to learn. They’re pretty affordable (you can get cardboard-bodied [seriously, they work] ones around $50, basic wooden ones around $100, ask around at dulcimer) and they have that droning and dark sound that would go great with shanties.
"Skye Boat Song" on dulcimer
Udu or Ibo drum
This percussion instrument, originating in West Africa, is a clay pot (some modern makers use synthetics) that is drummed upon, and capable of some really cool percussive sounds. Can produce a surprising number of tonal effects, I think of it as the "African tabla." Runs about $100+ for the basic synthetic models by Meinl, which are lighter and more durable than ceramic. LP makes durable ceramic ones from about $75. See the very tiny sub Udu for more info, or ask the larger community at drums.
Udu/Ibo drum solo
Bagpipe
Check your stereotypes, the Great Highland bagpipe associated with marching around in kilts (which is awesome in its own way) is only one of about 100 kinds of bagpipes, from Ireland to India and Sweden down to Libya. The Highland Pipe is loud and piercing, so not really great vocal accompaniment, but among the many other pipes are several which play at an indoor volume and lower pitch.
Among the ones I’d most recommend to someone starting pipes, in terms of affordability (roughly around $400-$500 for basic ones of these three, some bargains come in lower), availability, volume, compactness, versatility, etc. would be the Scottish Smallpipes (quieter and a full octave deeper in pitch than Highland), the Swedish bagpipes, and the German hümmelchen.
More than any other instrument on this list, for bagpipes I urge you to beware "too good to be true" deals. The reason is there is one specific outfit in Pakistan that has been turning out virtually unplayable bagpipes for export for decades, and they're all over Amazon and eBay for $100-200. They are not "well, I'll try a cheapie first and see if I want to get a nice one", they are total garbage, and the company is run by jerks because they could make a serviceable pipe in Pakistan by paying their workers 10% more and instead opt to turn hopeful noobies off piping forever with a "maybe it's a good starter" that's just trash. There are definitely good deals in piping (mainly some innovators working in synthetics, and some craftsmen in Eastern Europe with low costs of living), but the specific Pakistan pipes exported by a certain cynical company are omnipresent and a total waste. But the good news is with the slightest research you can avoid them and get some good starter pipes at reasonable price.
Give those three types of bagpipes (or others too) a listen, see what jumps out at you, drop by Bagpipes to discuss.
"Mingulay Boat Song" on Scottish smallpipes (bellows blown so the piper has breath to sing)
"Polska efter Nedergårds Lars" on Swedish bagpipes
"A Cascarexa" (Galician waltz) on hümmelchen
Electronic Instruments (maybe on your tablet or even phone to be cheap)
I’m sure many of you have seen techno remixes of "Wellerman" and whatnot, so though clearly in history those far post-date the shanty era, they do sound awfully cool (in some cases). So don’t be too shy to lay down some drum and bass lines and sing over them. There are various electronic boxes and knobs you can buy to do so, but these days a lot of what used to be $500 of fancy electronics are now emulated on your phone or tablet. Go mess with the free music apps, or read reviews and pay $10 for a good one, and get some beats going.
If you want to try out a free iOS app that's pretty intuitive for making beats, as a total novice in electronic music I've enjoyed the free phone app Figure.
Korg iKaossilator laying down drum and bass lines

Playboy going public: Porn, Gambling, and Cannabis

NEW INFO 5 Results from share redemption are posted. Less than .2% redeemed. Very bullish as investors are showing extreme confidence in the future of PLBY.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/playboy-mountain-crest-acquisition-corp-120000721.html
NEW INFO 4 Definitive Agreement to purchase 100% of Lovers brand stores announced 2/1.
https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Playboy+%28MCAC%29+Confirms+Deal+to+Acquire+Lovers/17892359.html
NEW INFO 3 I bought more on the dip today. 5081 total. Price rose AH to $12.38 (2.15%)
NEW INFO 2 Here is the full webinar.
https://icrinc.zoom.us/rec/play/9GWKdmOYumjWfZuufW3QXpe_FW_g--qeNbg6PnTjTMbnNTgLmCbWjeRFpQga1iPc-elpGap8dnDv8Zww.yD7DjUwuPmapeEdP?continueMode=true&tk=lEYc4F_FkKlgsmCIs6w0gtGHT2kbgVGbUju3cIRBSjk.DQIAAAAV8NK49xZWdldRM2xNSFNQcTBmcE00UzM3bXh3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&uuid=WN_GKWqbHkeSyuWetJmLFkj4g&_x_zm_rtaid=kR45-uuqRE-L65AxLjpbQw.1611967079119.2c054e3d3f8d8e63339273d9175939ed&_x_zm_rhtaid=866
NEW INFO 1 Live merger webinar with PLBY and MCAC on Friday January 29, 2021 at 12:00 NOON EST link below
https://mcacquisition.com/investor-relations/press-release-details/2021/Playboy-Enterprises-Inc.-and-Mountain-Crest-Acquisition-Corp-Participate-in-SPACInsider-ICR-Webinar-on-January-29th-at-12pm-ET/default.aspx
Playboy going public: Porn, Gambling, and Cannabis
!!!WARNING READING AHEAD!!! TL;DR at the end. It will take some time to sort through all the links and read/watch everything, but you should.
In the next couple weeks, Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp is taking Playboy public. The existing ticker MCAC will become PLBY. Special purpose acquisition companies have taken private companies public in recent months with great success. I believe this will be no exception. Notably, Playboy is profitable and has skyrocketing revenue going into a transformational growth phase.
Porn - First and foremost, let's talk about porn. I know what you guys are thinking. “Porno mags are dead. Why would I want to invest in something like that? I can get porn for free online.” Guess what? You are absolutely right. And that’s exactly why Playboy doesn’t do that anymore. That’s right, they eliminated their print division. And yet they somehow STILL make money from porn that people (see: boomers) pay for on their website through PlayboyTV, Playboy Plus, and iPlayboy. Here’s the thing: Playboy has international, multi-generational name recognition from porn. They have content available in 180 countries. It will be the only publicly traded adult entertainment (porn) company. But that is not where this company is going. It will help support them along the way. You can see every Playboy magazine through iPlayboy if you’re interested. NSFW links below:
https://www.playboy.com/
https://www.playboytv.com/
https://www.playboyplus.com/
https://www.iplayboy.com/
Gambling - Some of you might recognize the Playboy brand from gambling trips to places like Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Cancun, London or Macau. They’ve been in the gambling biz for decades through their casinos, clubs, and licensed gaming products. They see the writing on the wall. COVID is accelerating the transition to digital, application based GAMBLING. That’s right. What we are doing on Robinhood with risky options is gambling, and the only reason regulators might give a shit anymore is because we are making too much money. There may be some restrictions put in place, but gambling from your phone on your couch is not going anywhere. More and more states are allowing things like Draftkings, poker, state ‘lottery” apps, hell - even political betting. Michigan and Virginia just ok’d gambling apps. They won’t be the last. This is all from your couch and any 18 year old with a cracked iphone can access it. Wouldn’t it be cool if Playboy was going to do something like that? They’re already working on it. As per CEO Ben Kohn who we will get to later, “...the company’s casino-style digital gaming products with Scientific Games and Microgaming continue to see significant global growth.” Honestly, I stopped researching Scientific Games' sports betting segment when I saw the word ‘omni-channel’. That told me all I needed to know about it’s success.
“Our SG Sports™ platform is an enhanced, omni-channel solution for online, self-service and retail fixed odds sports betting – from soccer to tennis, basketball, football, baseball, hockey, motor sports, racing and more.”
https://www.scientificgames.com/
https://www.microgaming.co.uk/
“This latter segment has become increasingly enticing for Playboy, and it said last week that it is considering new tie-ups that could include gaming operators like PointsBet and 888Holdings.”
https://calvinayre.com/2020/10/05/business/playboys-gaming-ops-could-get-a-boost-from-spac-purchase/
As per their SEC filing:
“Significant consumer engagement and spend with Playboy-branded gaming properties around the world, including with leading partners such as Microgaming, Scientific Games, and Caesar’s Entertainment, steers our investment in digital gaming, sports betting and other digital offerings to further support our commercial strategy to expand consumer spend with minimal marginal cost, and gain consumer data to inform go-to-market plans across categories.”
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tMDAA1
They are expanding into more areas of gaming/gambling, working with international players in the digital gaming/gambling arena, and a Playboy sportsbook is on the horizon.
https://www.playboy.com/read/the-pleasure-of-playing-with-yourself-mobile-gaming-in-the-covid-era
Cannabis - If you’ve ever read through a Playboy magazine, you know they’ve had a positive relationship with cannabis for many years. As of September 2020, Playboy has made a major shift into the cannabis space. Too good to be true you say? Check their website. Playboy currently sells a range of CBD products. This is a good sign. Federal hemp products, which these most likely are, can be mailed across state lines and most importantly for a company like Playboy, can operate through a traditional banking institution. CBD products are usually the first step towards the cannabis space for large companies. Playboy didn’t make these products themselves meaning they are working with a processor in the cannabis industry. Another good sign for future expansion. What else do they have for sale? Pipes, grinders, ashtrays, rolling trays, joint holders. Hmm. Ok. So it looks like they want to sell some shit. They probably don’t have an active interest in cannabis right? Think again:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/09/24/playboy-gets-serious-about-cannabis-law-reform-advocacy-with-new-partnership-grants/?sh=62f044a65cea
“Taking yet another step into the cannabis space, Playboy will be announcing later on Thursday (September, 2020) that it is launching a cannabis law reform and advocacy campaign in partnership with National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Last Prisoner Project, Marijuana Policy Project, the Veterans Cannabis Project, and the Eaze Momentum Program.”
“According to information procured exclusively, the three-pronged campaign will focus on calling for federal legalization. The program also includes the creation of a mentorship plan, through which the Playboy Foundation will support entrepreneurs from groups that are underrepresented in the industry.” Remember that CEO Kohn from earlier? He wrote this recently:
https://medium.com/naked-open-letters-from-playboy/congress-must-pass-the-more-act-c867c35239ae
Seems like he really wants weed to be legal? Hmm wonder why? The writing's on the wall my friends. Playboy wants into the cannabis industry, they are making steps towards this end, and we have favorable conditions for legislative progress.
Don’t think branding your own cannabis line is profitable or worthwhile? Tell me why these 41 celebrity millionaires and billionaires are dummies. I’ll wait.
https://www.celebstoner.com/news/celebstoner-news/2019/07/12/top-celebrity-cannabis-brands/
Confirmation: I hear you. “This all seems pretty speculative. It would be wildly profitable if they pull this shift off. But how do we really know?” Watch this whole video:
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/playboy-ceo-telling-story-female-154907068.html
Man - this interview just gets my juices flowing. And highlights one of my favorite reasons for this play. They have so many different business avenues from which a catalyst could appear. I think paying attention, holding shares, and options on these staggered announcements over the next year is the way I am going to go about it. "There's definitely been a shift to direct-to-consumer," he (Kohn) said. "About 50 percent of our revenue today is direct-to-consumer, and that will continue to grow going forward.” “Kohn touted Playboy's portfolio of both digital and consumer products, with casino-style gaming, in particular, serving a crucial role under the company's new business model. Playboy also has its sights on the emerging cannabis market, from CBD products to marijuana products geared toward sexual health and pleasure.” "If THC does become legal in the United States, we have developed certain strains to enhance your sex life that we will launch," Kohn said. https://cheddar.com/media/playboy-goes-public-health-gaming-lifestyle-focus Oh? The CEO actually said it? Ok then. “We have developed certain strains…” They’re already working with growers on strains and genetics? Ok. There are several legal cannabis markets for those products right now, international and stateside. I expect Playboy licensed hemp and THC pre-rolls by EOY. Something like this: https://www.etsy.com/listing/842996758/10-playboy-pre-roll-tubes-limited?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=pre+roll+playboy&ref=sr_gallery-1-2&organic_search_click=1 Maintaining cannabis operations can be costly and a regulatory headache. Playboy’s licensing strategy allows them to pick successful, established partners and sidestep traditional barriers to entry. You know what I like about these new markets? They’re expanding. Worldwide. And they are going to be a bigger deal than they already are with or without Playboy. Who thinks weed and gambling are going away? Too many people like that stuff. These are easy markets. And Playboy is early enough to carve out their spot in each. Fuck it, read this too: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimosman/2020/10/20/playboy-could-be-the-king-of-spacs-here-are-three-picks/?sh=2e13dcaa3e05
Numbers: You want numbers? I got numbers. As per the company’s most recent SEC filing:
“For the year ended December 31, 2019, and the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s historical consolidated revenue was $78.1 million and $101.3 million, respectively, historical consolidated net income (loss) was $(23.6) million and $(4.8) million, respectively, and Adjusted EBITDA was $13.1 million and $21.8 million, respectively.”
“In the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Licensing segment contributed $44.2 million in revenue and $31.1 million in net income.”
“In the ninth months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Direct-to-Consumer segment contributed $40.2 million in revenue and net income of $0.1 million.”
“In the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Digital Subscriptions and Content segment contributed $15.4 million in revenue and net income of $7.4 million.”
They are profitable across all three of their current business segments.
“Playboy’s return to the public markets presents a transformed, streamlined and high-growth business. The Company has over $400 million in cash flows contracted through 2029, sexual wellness products available for sale online and in over 10,000 major retail stores in the US, and a growing variety of clothing and branded lifestyle and digital gaming products.”
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tSHCF
Growth: Playboy has massive growth in China and massive growth potential in India. “In China, where Playboy has spent more than 25 years building its business, our licensees have an enormous footprint of nearly 2,500 brick and mortar stores and 1,000 ecommerce stores selling high quality, Playboy-branded men’s casual wear, shoes/footwear, sleepwear, swimwear, formal suits, leather & non-leather goods, sweaters, active wear, and accessories. We have achieved significant growth in China licensing revenues over the past several years in partnership with strong licensees and high-quality manufacturers, and we are planning for increased growth through updates to our men’s fashion lines and expansion into adjacent categories in men’s skincare and grooming, sexual wellness, and women’s fashion, a category where recent launches have been well received.” The men’s market in China is about the same size as the entire population of the United States and European Union combined. Playboy is a leading brand in this market. They are expanding into the women’s market too. Did you know CBD toothpaste is huge in China? China loves CBD products and has hemp fields that dwarf those in the US. If Playboy expands their CBD line China it will be huge. Did you know the gambling money in Macau absolutely puts Las Vegas to shame? Technically, it's illegal on the mainland, but in reality, there is a lot of gambling going on in China. https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/10/19/magic-johnson-and-uncle-buds-cbd-brand-enter-china-via-tmall-partnership/?sh=271776ca411e “In India, Playboy today has a presence through select apparel licensees and hospitality establishments. Consumer research suggests significant growth opportunities in the territory with Playboy’s brand and categories of focus.” “Playboy Enterprises has announced the expansion of its global consumer products business into India as part of a partnership with Jay Jay Iconic Brands, a leading fashion and lifestyle Company in India.” “The Indian market today is dominated by consumers under the age of 35, who represent more than 65 percent of the country’s total population and are driving India’s significant online shopping growth. The Playboy brand’s core values of playfulness and exploration resonate strongly with the expressed desires of today’s younger millennial consumers. For us, Playboy was the perfect fit.” “The Playboy international portfolio has been flourishing for more than 25 years in several South Asian markets such as China and Japan. In particular, it has strategically targeted the millennial and gen-Z audiences across categories such as apparel, footwear, home textiles, eyewear and watches.” https://www.licenseglobal.com/industry-news/playboy-expands-global-footprint-india It looks like they gave COVID the heisman in terms of net damage sustained: “Although Playboy has not suffered any material adverse consequences to date from the COVID-19 pandemic, the business has been impacted both negatively and positively. The remote working and stay-at-home orders resulted in the closure of the London Playboy Club and retail stores of Playboy’s licensees, decreasing licensing revenues in the second quarter, as well as causing supply chain disruption and less efficient product development thereby slowing the launch of new products. However, these negative impacts were offset by an increase in Yandy’s direct-to-consumer sales, which have benefited in part from overall increases in online retail sales so far during the pandemic.” Looks like the positives are long term (Yandy acquisition) and the negatives are temporary (stay-at-home orders).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921006093/tm213766-1_defa14a.htm
This speaks to their ability to maintain a financially solvent company throughout the transition phase to the aforementioned areas. They’d say some fancy shit like “expanded business model to encompass four key revenue streams: Sexual Wellness, Style & Apparel, Gaming & Lifestyle, and Beauty & Grooming.” I hear “we’re just biding our time with these trinkets until those dollar dollar bill y’all markets are fully up and running.” But the truth is these existing revenue streams are profitable, scalable, and rapidly expanding Playboy’s e-commerce segment around the world.
"Even in the face of COVID this year, we've been able to grow EBITDA over 100 percent and revenue over 68 percent, and I expect that to accelerate going into 2021," he said. “Playboy is accelerating its growth in company-owned and branded consumer products in attractive and expanding markets in which it has a proven history of brand affinity and consumer spend.”
Also in the SEC filing, the Time Frame:
“As we detailed in the definitive proxy statement, the SPAC stockholder meeting to vote on the transaction has been set for February 9th, and, subject to stockholder approval and satisfaction of the other closing conditions, we expect to complete the merger and begin trading on NASDAQ under ticker PLBY shortly thereafter,” concluded Kohn.
The Players: Suhail “The Whale” Rizvi (HMFIC), Ben “The Bridge” Kohn (CEO), “lil” Suying Liu & “Big” Dong Liu (Young-gun China gang). I encourage you to look these folks up. The real OG here is Suhail Rizvi. He’s from India originally and Chairman of the Board for the new PLBY company. He was an early investor in Twitter, Square, Facebook and others. His firm, Rizvi Traverse, currently invests in Instacart, Pinterest, Snapchat, Playboy, and SpaceX. Maybe you’ve heard of them. “Rizvi, who owns a sprawling three-home compound in Greenwich, Connecticut, and a 1.65-acre estate in Palm Beach, Florida, near Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, moved to Iowa Falls when he was five. His father was a professor of psychology at Iowa. Along with his older brother Ashraf, a hedge fund manager, Rizvi graduated from Wharton business school.” “Suhail Rizvi: the 47-year-old 'unsocial' social media baron: When Twitter goes public in the coming weeks (2013), one of the biggest winners will be a 47-year-old financier who guards his secrecy so zealously that he employs a person to take down his Wikipedia entry and scrub his photos from the internet. In IPO, Twitter seeks to be 'anti-FB'” “Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia looks like a big Twitter winner. So do the moneyed clients of Jamie Dimon. But as you’ve-got-to-be-joking wealth washed over Twitter on Thursday — a company that didn’t exist eight years ago was worth $31.7 billion after its first day on the stock market — the non-boldface name of the moment is Suhail R. Rizvi. Mr. Rizvi, 47, runs a private investment company that is the largest outside investor in Twitter with a 15.6 percent stake worth $3.8 billion at the end of trading on Thursday (November, 2013). Using a web of connections in the tech industry and in finance, as well as a hearty dose of good timing, he brought many prominent names in at the ground floor, including the Saudi prince and some of JPMorgan’s wealthiest clients.” https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/technology/at-twitter-working-behind-the-scenes-toward-a-billion-dollar-payday.html Y’all like that Arab money? How about a dude that can call up Saudi Princes and convince them to spend? Funniest shit about I read about him: “Rizvi was able to buy only $100 million in Facebook shortly before its IPO, thus limiting his returns, according to people with knowledge of the matter.” Poor guy :(
He should be fine with the 16 million PLBY shares he's going to have though :)
Shuhail also has experience in the entertainment industry. He’s invested in companies like SESAC, ICM, and Summit Entertainment. He’s got Hollywood connections to blast this stuff post-merger. And he’s at least partially responsible for that whole Twilight thing. I’m team Edward btw.
I really like what Suhail has done so far. He’s lurked in the shadows while Kohn is consolidating the company, trimming the fat, making Playboy profitable, and aiming the ship at modern growing markets.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-ipo-rizvi-insight/insight-little-known-hollywood-investor-poised-to-score-with-twitter-ipo-idUSBRE9920VW20131003
Ben “The Bridge” Kohn is an interesting guy. He’s the connection between Rizvi Traverse and Playboy. He’s both CEO of Playboy and was previously Managing Partner at Rizvi Traverse. Ben seems to be the voice of the Playboy-Rizvi partnership, which makes sense with Suhail’s privacy concerns. Kohn said this:
“Today is a very big day for all of us at Playboy and for all our partners globally. I stepped into the CEO role at Playboy in 2017 because I saw the biggest opportunity of my career. Playboy is a brand and platform that could not be replicated today. It has massive global reach, with more than $3B of global consumer spend and products sold in over 180 countries. Our mission – to create a culture where all people can pursue pleasure – is rooted in our 67-year history and creates a clear focus for our business and role we play in people’s lives, providing them with the products, services and experiences that create a lifestyle of pleasure. We are taking this step into the public markets because the committed capital will enable us to accelerate our product development and go-to-market strategies and to more rapidly build our direct to consumer capabilities,” said Ben Kohn, CEO of Playboy.
“Playboy today is a highly profitable commerce business with a total addressable market projected in the trillions of dollars,” Mr. Kohn continued, “We are actively selling into the Sexual Wellness consumer category, projected to be approximately $400 billion in size by 2024, where our recently launched intimacy products have rolled out to more than 10,000 stores at major US retailers in the United States. Combined with our owned & operated ecommerce Sexual Wellness initiatives, the category will contribute more than 40% of our revenue this year. In our Apparel and Beauty categories, our collaborations with high-end fashion brands including Missguided and PacSun are projected to achieve over $50M in retail sales across the US and UK this year, our leading men’s apparel lines in China expanded to nearly 2500 brick and mortar stores and almost 1000 digital stores, and our new men’s and women’s fragrance line recently launched in Europe. In Gaming, our casino-style digital gaming products with Scientific Games and Microgaming continue to see significant global growth. Our product strategy is informed by years of consumer data as we actively expand from a purely licensing model into owning and operating key high-growth product lines focused on driving profitability and consumer lifetime value. We are thrilled about the future of Playboy. Our foundation has been set to drive further growth and margin, and with the committed capital from this transaction and our more than $180M in NOLs, we will take advantage of the opportunity in front of us, building to our goal of $100M of adjusted EBITDA in 2025.”
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005404/en/Playboy-to-Become-a-Public-Company
Also, according to their Form 4s, “Big” Dong Liu and “lil” Suying Liu just loaded up with shares last week. These guys are brothers and seem like the Chinese market connection. They are only 32 & 35 years old. I don’t even know what that means, but it's provocative.
https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1832415.htm
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mountain-crest-acquisition-corp-ii-002600994.html
Y’all like that China money?
“Mr. Liu has been the Chief Financial Officer of Dongguan Zhishang Photoelectric Technology Co., Ltd., a regional designer, manufacturer and distributor of LED lights serving commercial customers throughout Southern China since November 2016, at which time he led a syndicate of investments into the firm. Mr. Liu has since overseen the financials of Dongguan Zhishang as well as provided strategic guidance to its board of directors, advising on operational efficiency and cash flow performance. From March 2010 to October 2016, Mr. Liu was the Head of Finance at Feidiao Electrical Group Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese manufacturer of electrical outlets headquartered in Shanghai and with businesses in the greater China region as well as Europe.”
Dr. Suying Liu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp., commented, “Playboy is a unique and compelling investment opportunity, with one of the world’s largest and most recognized brands, its proven consumer affinity and spend, and its enormous future growth potential in its four product segments and new and existing geographic regions. I am thrilled to be partnering with Ben and his exceptional team to bring his vision to fruition.”
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005404/en/Playboy-to-Become-a-Public-Company
These guys are good. They have a proven track record of success across multiple industries. Connections and money run deep with all of these guys. I don’t think they’re in the game to lose.
I was going to write a couple more paragraphs about why you should have a look at this but really the best thing you can do is read this SEC filing from a couple days ago. It explains the situation in far better detail. Specifically, look to page 137 and read through their strategy. Also, look at their ownership percentages and compensation plans including the stock options and their prices. The financials look great, revenue is up 90% Q3, and it looks like a bright future.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tSHCF
I’m hesitant to attach this because his position seems short term, but I’m going to with a warning because he does hit on some good points (two are below his link) and he’s got a sizable position in this thing (500k+ on margin, I think). I don’t know this guy but he did look at the same publicly available info and make roughly the same prediction, albeit without the in depth gambling or cannabis mention. You can also search reddit for ‘MCAC’ and very few relevant results come up and none of them even come close to really looking at this thing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gOvAd6lebs452hFlWWbxVjQ3VMsjGBkbJeXRwDwIJfM/edit?usp=sharing
“Also, before you people start making claims that Playboy is a “boomer” company, STOP RIGHT THERE. This is not a good argument. Simply put. The only thing that matters is Playboy’s name recognition, not their archaic business model which doesn’t even exist anymore as they have completely repurposed their business.”
“Imagine not buying $MCAC at a 400M valuation lol. Streetwear department is worth 1B alone imo.”
Considering the ridiculous Chinese growth as a lifestyle brand, he’s not wrong.
Current Cultural Significance and Meme Value: A year ago I wouldn’t have included this section but the events from the last several weeks (even going back to tsla) have proven that a company’s ability to meme and/or gain social network popularity can have an effect. Tik-tok, Snapchat, Twitch, Reddit, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter. They all have Playboy stuff on them. Kids in middle and highschool know what Playboy is but will likely never see or touch one of the magazines in person. They’ll have a Playboy hoodie though. Crazy huh? A lot like GME, PLBY would hugely benefit from meme-value stock interest to drive engagement towards their new business model while also building strategic coffers. This interest may not directly and/or significantly move the stock price but can generate significant interest from larger players who will.
Bull Case: The year is 2025. Playboy is now the world leader pleasure brand. They began by offering Playboy licensed gaming products, including gambling products, direct to consumers through existing names. By 2022, demand has skyrocketed and Playboy has designed and released their own gambling platforms. In 2025, they are also a leading cannabis brand in the United States and Canada with proprietary strains and products geared towards sexual wellness. Cannabis was legalized in the US in 2023 when President Biden got glaucoma but had success with cannabis treatment. He personally pushes for cannabis legalization as he steps out of office after his first term. Playboy has also grown their brand in China and India to multi-billion per year markets. The stock goes up from 11ish to 100ish and everyone makes big gains buying somewhere along the way.
Bear Case: The United States does a complete 180 on marijuana and gambling. President Biden overdoses on marijuana in the Lincoln bedroom when his FDs go tits up and he loses a ton of money in his sports book app after the Fighting Blue Hens narrowly lose the National Championship to Bama. Playboy is unable to expand their cannabis and gambling brands but still does well with their worldwide lifestyle brand. They gain and lose some interest in China and India but the markets are too large to ignore them completely. The stock goes up from 11ish to 13ish and everyone makes 15-20% gains.
TL;DR: Successful technology/e-commerce investment firm took over Playboy to turn it into a porn, online gambling/gaming, sports book, cannabis company, worldwide lifestyle brand that promotes sexual wellness, vetern access, women-ownership, minority-ownership, and “pleasure for all”. Does a successful online team reinventing an antiquated physical copy giant sound familiar? No options yet, shares only for now. $11.38 per share at time of writing. My guess? $20 by the end of February. $50 by EOY. This is not financial advice. I am not qualified to give financial advice. I’m just sayin’ I would personally use a Playboy sports book app while smoking a Playboy strain specific joint and it would be cool if they did that. Do your own research. You’d probably want to start here:
WARNING - POTENTIALLY NSFW - SEXY MODELS AHEAD - no actual nudity though
https://s26.q4cdn.com/895475556/files/doc_presentations/Playboy-Craig-Hallum-Conference-Investor-Presentation-11_17_20-compressed.pdf
Or here:
https://www.mcacquisition.com/investor-relations/default.aspx
Jimmy Chill: “Get into any SPAC at $10 or $11 and you are going to make money.”
STL;DR: Buy MCAC. MCAC > PLBY couple weeks. Rocketship. Moon.
Position: 5000 shares. I will buy short, medium, and long-dated calls once available.

What are your thoughts on “new normal”?

Vaccine Landscape

I don't know how much people are following vaccines here and there is the daily COVID thread but I feel like this is its own topic so I feel like it should be written up alone. I follow the developments as closely as I can so I'm writing this in hopes that it will help.
First thing to note is there are a lot of scientists and companies laboring to try to help the world out here. The list is staggering: https://www.biocentury.com/clinical-vaccines-and-therapies
Here I'm just going to address the vaccines most relevant to us in MD.
They are:
PfizeBioNTech
Moderna
J&J
AZ/Oxford
Novavax
We have an EUA for Pfizer's vaccine now and that is the shot that will start to be given Monday or Tuesday in MD. We got an allocation of about 50K of them in the first batch. (https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2020/12/maryland-coronavirus-update-december-8/)
Moderna's review advisory board review for an EUA is on Dec 17th, which if approved likely means Dec 21st for that vaccine to start getting into arms.
The Pfizer data from their EUA and paper (https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577) shows a clear protective break point before day 14. It is reasonable to assume most highly effective vaccines will have this property as well. Thus although these vaccines are two doses (except J&J) they will have an impact within 2 weeks of being given. The second dose is needed to provide more durable protection and to be consistent with the trials. Because of the need for two doses, only 1/2 of the produced vaccine is being shipped out this week. Some have argued one should give all the doses out and rely on just in time manufacturing, but this is just not ethical as there always can be manufacturing problems and the trial protocol requires the two doses.
All of the vaccines above were ordered by the Federal gov. at a level of at least 100 million doses, with options for more.
Moderna's vaccine is being produced by 2 lines in the US one in Boston at Moderna and another in NH by Lonza. Lonza has 3 additional lines being brought up in Switzerland.
Pfizer is producing their vaccine at two plants in the US and one in Belgium I believe and BioNTech has purchased a facility from Novartis AG that may be brought online.
It is important to know that manufacturing targets often miss or slip. The range of vaccine production Moderna has estimated is 500-1000 million a year and Pfizer up to 1.3 billion a year. However since their production is not fully built out yet that rate will not be flat for the year.
The companies have a potential market for 14 billion doses of these products so they have no reason not to scale up as fast as they can to make money and both are doing this for profit.
While Moderna's and Pfizer's vaccines are similar in that they use mRNA to produce a stabilized version of the spike protein of the SARS-COV-2, they use different lipids to enclose the mRNA. This results in different cold storage temperature requirements for the two products with Pfizer's being more challenging than Moderna's. Pfizer's may actually be stable at higher temperatures but if it is they don't know so they are being cautious. Moderna has been around doing mRNA vaccine trials for a while so it may just be they know more about their stability. They also relaxed the temperature requirements late in the game by some study.
Moderna's vaccine design was heavily helped by NIH (in MD).
Of course the FDA approves these products which is in MD.
--------------
Oxford's vaccine has also read out but they presented the information in a way that was confusing. However the FDA bar for EUA was only 50% and the point efficacy for their trial certainly was above this. Had their result read out first they might have had a very different reception.
This vaccine is based on the same spike protein but wild type rather than engineered to be stabilized. This may be the reason for the lower efficacy or it could be something totally different. The stabilization makes the spike look like folding when it binds to the ACE2 receptor on human cells which is the main pathway to infect people.
The vaccine is a replication deficient chimpanzee cold virus. What this means is that people won't have immunity to the viral vector already (not a human virus) and that they have removed the DNA that allows it to replicate and are just using it as a box to take payload code on how to make the spike protein into the cells. Essentially they are just replacing the fragile man made lipid shell and replacing it with a evolved natural shell and swapping DNA for mRNA.
The Serum Institute in India (a major manufacture of vaccines) and others are producing this vaccine. Emergent biosolutions is also making this vaccine in MD.
It is unclear what the road to use of this vaccine in the US might be but they are doing further study of it and collecting more data. If it were used volume of availability might be higher than the two mRNAs. It is still a two dose vaccine.
-----------------
The next vaccine to likely report efficacy will be J&J's vaccine.
The first trial is a 1-dose vaccine and is going to close recruitment this week:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/09/johnson-johnson-cuts-size-of-covid-19-vaccine-study-due-to-prevalence-of-disease-in-u-s/
They reduced the size of the trial from 60,000 to 40,000 because cases are so high in the US they don't need more people than that (the Pfizer trial was about 40K and the Moderna was 30K). They also have to show safety for 2 months for 1/2 of their group to the FDA. If they had continued recruiting that would have taken longer.
The two month bar is before Feb 10th based on recruitment figures. Basically last week in Jan is as soon as this one might be able to apply for an EUA if it works.
It is also a cold virus vector vaccine but this time a human one. Unlike Oxford's though it is on that has been licensed before to vaccinate against Ebola. While that is a fringe use case it was actually licensed which none of the others in this group of 5 have been. Not that an EUA is not a license.
I think this uses the stabilized spike code. Hopefully it will be more effective than Oxford's because of that.
To hedge their bets they started a two dose trial on Nov 15th for this vaccine in case the efficacy with one dose is not high enough. The dosing for this trial is two months between shots so it won't read out until at least April and probably later than that. So in terms of making a difference in the US this vaccine is probably 1 dose or not used.
It like the Oxford vaccine is not hard to distribute/store.
This vaccine is also being manufactured by Emergent BioSolutions in MD!
---------
Novavax a MD company based in Montgomery Co is the last on the list. Their platform is a recombinant protein vaccine.
They infect moth cells with the virus and then harvest the spike protein. They put that protein on a nanoparticle scaffolding and add a compound called an adjuvant that helps you have a strong immune response to the spike proteins.
There is a trial of 15,000 people fully enrolled in the UK and a smaller one in S. Africa (about 2000 mostly to look at HIV positive people).
I'm not sure the US will give an EUA based on an international trial but they might. Just probably after the UK. Novavax was suppose to start a phase 3 trial with 30,000 people in the US for this vaccine in Nov. But they are still ironing out production/quality control concerns with the FDA and their partners Fujifilm in NC.
They hope to start this two dose trial in the US this month. If they do the earliest they could have an EUA based on that trial would probably be March.
This platform while not licensed before is very traditional and the company has a flu vaccine almost to market.
-------------
TL;DR
MD is contributing to almost all of the vaccines in some way, for some in multiple ways.
The best shot at another EUA before Q2 2021 is probably J&J, unless the US will use Novavax's UK trial as the basis for one. Of course they can give an EUA to Oxford if they want, but I think they will wait until J&J reads out before doing that (as it might be better or as good and only requires 1-dose).
Expect manufacturing issues. We will be very lucky if we don't have any.
If there are none and J&J's works well enough there would be enough vaccines for 200 million people by March 31st. (60% of the population). Along with natural infection that likely would be enough to basically end the pandemic in late April.
If J&J and Novavax fail and Oxford is not given an EUA 200 million cannot be reached until summer 2021. (Unless Pfizer really crushes the manufacturing but other places need vaccines too so I don't expect this).
Edit: 12/13/20 @ 9:35 PM
One last thing I should have said is that we cannot expect much change in the dynamics of the pandemic from these for a while.
And be ready for lots and lots of stories that I was vaccinated and I still got sick. If you vaccinate 20 million people with a 95% effective vaccine 1 million of them can still get sick. That's a lot of stories on Facebook or Twitter. Real work effectiveness will be different than the trials and people still should mask and distance until case numbers tumble, even if vaccinated.

MAC's Sangley Point award junked by Cavite gov't (Thursday, Jan 28)

Happy Thursday, Barkada --

The PSE closed down 114 points (!!) to 6864 ▼1.6%.

Thanks to Mark for spotting the terrible spelling error in yesterday's meme. I was trying to fit the "JG Summit prioritized itself over CEB" line in big text, and wondered what I did to get it to fit. I like to think it's out-of-the-box thinking to just drop the "ri" from "prioritized" to make it work.
Shout-out to Chris for emailing to ask about alternatives to COL as an online broker. The short answer (IMHO) is that if you're a trader, you need conditional orders. So, I'm recommending brokers like FMSec and AAA. I'm going to do a whole thing next week on how to set a conditional order to protect your money. Stay tuned!
Shout-out to rga19 for the Reddit award, and to _lucid__ for the positive feedback, and for asking good questions about investing basics
Thanks also to Chip Sillesa @squareh00r, Jing @jinginsg, N @natephife, millenialtrader @millenialtrade3, DonCamoteNorth @wagkamote, and Market Freak @FactYou3000 for all the retweets!
Please forward and share MB with any friends and family that might be interested!

Daily meme | Join MB | Today's email

Top 3 MB indices:

[dead - stock feed probs]

Bottom 3 MB indices:

[dead - stock feed probs]

Main stories covered:

[NEWS] MacroAsia [MAC 5.55 ▲0.36%] has had its Sangley Point International Airport award cancelled... the Province of Cavite, though Governor Remulla’s twitter post (care of Inquirer’s Miguel R. Camus, @miguelrcamusINQ), announced the news yesterday before the market open that the consortium of MAC, owned by Lucio Tan, and China Communications Construction Company (CCCC), owned by the Chinese government, had demonstrated “various deficiencies” in the post-award requirements that caused the Special Selection Committee overseeing the award to recommend its cancellation. Governor Remulla accepted the recommendation late on the 26th. MAC confirmed this in its own disclo. This puts the Sangley Point International Airport project back to square one; Gov. Remulla expects to talk to “any qualified partner” for the project, and hopes to have selected a new bid within 8 months.

MB: For those that have been following, this is just another sketchy chapter in a greasy book of sus characters and odd decisions. Remulla appeared to scare viable bidders away with his awkward (completely unrehearsed?) messaging in the early days of the bidding process, and raised eyebrows by seeming to favor a “Chinese bidder”. The MAC/CCCC unholy union was formed, and won the award as the only bid on the project. Soon after, MAC/CCCC began experiencing funding issues. Then COVID happened, and the consortium sought extension after extension while routinely failing to meet the requirements of the post-award process. Things looked dire when MAC looked to do a fundraise right around the time Philippine Airlines [PAL 6.60 ▲1.54%] was in the news for bleeding money like a slaughtered hog, and didn’t get better when the group asked for a new extension, but this time until regular air travel between China and the Philippines was reestablished. Red flag after red flag. I didn’t even bring up how, in the past couple of months, CCCC was added to a US blacklist of companies that are considered security risks for being under the influence of China’s military. Add the red flag to the pile. This project is massive. Metro Manila is massive. We need several airports to service our mega city. We can’t afford to lose years to this kind of mismanagement.

[UPDATE] Basura stocks bounce; setup for another leg down?... it’ll be another busy day for the Investor Relations departments of all our favorite meme stocks, having to respond to YET ANOTHER pesky “Inquiry of Unusual Price Movement”. I can almost hear the “ka-chook, ka-cheek” of the CTRL+C / CTRL+V used to populate the response with the boilerplate “Our company has no knowledge or information that would cause an unusual price increase”. The only thing the IR OJT needs to do is make sure they aren’t using the template they used yesterday to explain the 30% drop, because, of course, that will say “decrease”. Gotta be careful.

MB: The “rise of retail” is making huge waves in the US right now (just watch streams of CNBC literally having an emotional meltdown about Gamestop and AMC), and in some ways, it might be possible to the the basura stock phenomenon as our own echo of that retail influence in our own market. The angles and levers used on the US markets are entirely different, as traders there are plying the options market to fight against lazy short positions held by institutional accounts. Our market, in contrast, is a long-only market, and we don’t have any kind of derivatives trading whatsoever (our one vanilla ETF doesn’t even qualify). All we can do is “go long”, which means to buy a stock. We can’t “go short” a stock, we can only sell it and have no position. Yet, even so, retail traders have still found ways (it seems) to move certain parts of the market. This isn’t to say that the US situation or the basura phenomenon will “end well”, but it is to say that these kinds of speculative events are likely here to stay (absent some kind of policy change?)

[NEWS] Economist Intelligence Unit (Asia) forecasts widespread vaccination not achieved in PH until Q4 of 2023... the research arm of the Economist magazine said that it defines widespread vaccination as “greater than 60% of the population vaccinated”, and estimated that we would achieve this benchmark just under three years from now, in Q4 of 2023. According to the Economist, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong should get there by the end of this year. Japan and South Korea get there by Q2 of 2022, India by the end of 2022, Indonesia by Q3 of 2023, and then us in the next quarter, alongside Nepal, Bangladesh, Samoa and Tonga. Our ASEAN neighbors, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos, are in the unenviable “2025 and beyond” category.

MB: I don’t have background into the assumptions that form the basis for the estimation; that’s something that is worth some consideration. I hope to do that in the coming days. This kind of feedback should be eye-opening. I’m not claiming that the Economist here has got it right, but I’m also not seeing many other estimations of mass vaccination dates that I can compare against. It deserves more thought. I consider this a starting point, for right or for wrong. Anyone that is making large bets based on the jubilant reopening of society in the near future might want to pause and consider this feedback, as unsolicited and non-confirming as it is, and see if it should cause any adjustments.

MB is written and distributed every trading day. To stay in the loop for daily email delivery, please join the barkada by signing up for the newsletter, or follow me on Twitter.

Join our Barkada here

Read today's full email here

The Storming of the Capitol and the New War on Terror

The recent mob action the Capitol has been described by some of the most powerful news and media organizations in the U.S. as a coup and an insurrection. Many liberals have been quick to take up similar articulations, and have generally been receptive to the idea that what seems to have been mostly a ragtag bunch of conspiracy theorists and hooligans that broke into the Capitol building (with assistance from the Capitol Police) are a real threat to Biden’s confirmation as President and to “our democracy.” This raises questions about the actual threat that these forces posed to the political system of presidential and congressional elections in the U.S., and the nature of this system itself; is it really a democracy for the people?
These questions are all the more important because a broad consensus is emerging among many of the U.S. elite that there is a need to roll out more “counter-terrorism” laws in the wake of this incident, with these laws specifically focused on “domestic terrorism.” A broad section of liberal and self-identified progressive people are supportive of this, with some even going so far as to help the FBI and other law enforcement identify those who marched into the Capitol building. However, much like with the Patriot Act—which was hurriedly passed in the wake of 9/11 and nominally aimed at fighting terrorism—it is clear that these laws will be aimed at broadly suppressing dissent. While politicians are quick to promise that these proposed laws would target “violent extremists” and white supremacist forces, the reality is that many of these measure are indistinguishable from the “anti-rioting” bills that were proposed in states throughout the country during the George Floyd uprisings.
All of this requires that we look closely at the events that occurred as well as the larger political situation in this country. This is all the more important as many of the those now calling for new counter-terrorism laws, who decry the use of violence for political ends, have in fact built their careers on systematic violence and slaughter which dwarfs the scuffles and scraps that occurred at the Capitol. These include people like Joe Biden (who supported the 1994 Crime Bill, the invasion of Iraq, and many other such measures) and Jon Brennan (Obama’s head of the CIA who ran the drone-strike assassination program), as well as many Bush-Era officials who pioneered the Patriot Act, supported the use of torture, and oversaw the genocidal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. When politicians and officials like these—in conjunction with the billionaires who run the Big Tech companies—are presenting themselves as heroic defenders of democracy, and urging us to support new laws and policies which further restrict our rights and civil liberties, it should have us very worried.
Hooliganism by Any Other Name is Still Just Hooliganism
The hysterical and over-the-top reactions to the events at the Capitol show that many Americans are unfamiliar with the nature of coups, despite the fact that the U.S. government has been the architect of some of the most brutal and bloody in modern history. For example, from 1965-1967 the CIA-orchestrated an anti-communist genocide in Indonesia which left several million dead and replaced former anti-colonial leader and bourgeois democratic President Sukarno with the dictator Suharto, who would go on to rule the country for three decades, presiding over the massacre of at least 100,000 people in East Timor in the late 1970s, among other atrocities. Or take the coup in Chile after Salvador Allende won the 1970 presidential election. The U.S. worked with right-wing members of the Chilean military to lead a coup in 1973, which included bombing the Presidential Palace, the execution of Allende, the murder of thousands, and the imprisonment of tens of thousands in the first days of the coup alone.
When compared to these and other coups throughout modern history, the recent events in the Capitol come into better focus. Instead of being a coup or an insurrection—both of which generally involve barricades, armed combat, and a coordinated plan to overthrow the government—the mob at the Capitol more closely resembled the drunken riots that sometime follow after a local sports team losses a major game. A bit of drunken and disorderly conduct, some civil disobedience, a few people hurting themselves or trampling others, some relatively minor property damage, etc. One of the main differences in this case is that this riot occurred in the Capitol building with the tacit blessing of a relatively weak and disorganized president, instead of in the neighborhood around a sports arena.
In a piece written the day after the riot, independent journalist Glenn Greenwald put it well:

One need not dismiss the lamentable actions of yesterday to simultaneously reject efforts to apply terms that are plainly inapplicable: attempted coup, insurrection, sedition. There was zero chance that the few hundred people who breached the Capitol could overthrow the U.S. Government — the most powerful, armed and militarized entity in the world — nor did they try. […] There is a huge difference between, on the one hand, thousands of people shooting their way into the Capitol after a long-planned, coordinated plot with the goal of seizing permanent power, and, on the other, an impulsive and grievance-driven crowd more or less waltzing into the Capitol as the result of strength in numbers and then leaving a few hours later. That the only person shot was a protester killed by an armed agent of the state by itself makes clear how irresponsible these terms are. There are more adjectives besides “fascist treason” and “harmless protest,” enormous space between those two poles. One should not be forced to choose between the two.

While a section of Trump supporters are sympathetic to fascist politics and there were some outright fascists at the riot, it is far from the case that this romp through the Capitol building was an attempt to lead a fascist coup. What’s more it should give many pause many critics of the riot are using the same language to describe the Capitol building as the rioters themselves. Both are calling it the “people’s house.”
This term raises further questions, question about the very nature of the U.S. government itself. If one is willing to accept the idea that the Capitol building is the people’s house—and again, both the rioters and their critics have promoted this idea—then it follows that the present form of society, government, and the overall status-quo is basically just, and that the key thing is to prevent a corrupt and dangerous group from seizing control of this supposed “house of the people.” In the view of the riotous Trump supporters, this danger was Biden and his allies stealing the election and establishing an authoritarian form of government—which they often refer to as “Left wing” fascism—that would steal the power from the people. In the view of the liberals who are now eagerly pushing for the roll-out of new repressive laws, this danger was Trump and his supporters stealing the election and establishing a fascist dictatorship.
The parallel between these two narratives is more than incidental, it reflects an underlying misconception of U.S. society common to the two. It’s helpful to step back and reflect on the nature of the U.S. government and the status quo.
Democracy in the U.S.?
Over the past four years liberal and progressive media have peddled the narrative that Trump and his lackies constitute an existential threat to U.S. democracy. Everyone from major companies like Coca-Cola and Twitter, to George W. Bush himself have lined up behind this idea. Numerous Neocons, Billionaires, and members of the “Intelligence Community,” long reviled by the U.S. left and even liberals, have taken this opportunity to rehabilitate and rebrand themselves as courageous members of the #Resistance, standing up against the supposedly imminent threat of fascism.
However, these supposed freedom fighters are often the same people who have made billions of dollars off of the backs of the poor and working people of this country. They are the architects of the War on Terror, mass surveillance, CIA black sites for torture, the militarization of the police, the system of mass incarceration, and so much more. They are the one who have led the charge of capitalist accumulation in the face of unprecedented ecological destruction and have been more than happy to initiate genocidal foreign wars and sponsor far-right dictators around the world.
These narratives about Trump being an existential threat to “our democracy” have served to distract Americans from the basic fact that this country is not run by the people or for the people. Democracy in the U.S. has never meant the people having real democratic control of society. The so-called “Founding Fathers” envisioned as their model the Roman Republic, which was a slave society in which the vast majority of people were denied basic rights and participation in the political system. While there is no longer slavery in the U.S., and things have changed a bit since the founding of this country, the system of control by a wealthy elite is how the country is run to this very day. With the rise of immense corporate wealth and power combined with a continuous assault on organized resistance and genuine workers unions for decades, democratic privileges and rights are arguably at a low point in America at present.
Of course, it is true that things could always get worse, and we are not yet living in a fascist country or a police state in which the people are stripped of even their most basic rights and civil liberties. However, over the past few decades we have seen one administration after another strip away right after right, and impose new and draconian measures on the people of this country in the name of protecting “our freedom.” The government now spies on all of our phone calls, records every click we make and letter we type on the internet, forces us to be x-rayed every time we get on a plane, tracks our every movement via our cellphones, and more.
These curtailments of rights and civil liberties have been a consistent feature of both Democratic and Republican administration, they are nothing new with Trump. He just continued the decades-long trend in a somewhat more blatant and ham-handed fashion. And looking at the broader picture, in a country where around 80% of people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, we have no real democratic say on the major economic issues of the day. We don’t have the option to vote for better pay and fewer hours, for lower rent and better housing, or for an end to corporate tax breaks—since most major corporations pay nearly no taxes, while working Americans pay around one third of their income in taxes. Working-class workplaces are generally very oppressive, where people have nearly no say in how anything is run, and workers are often forced to endure racism and sexual harassment as part of their daily experiences on the job. Generally, speaking up about these things results in retaliation and a prompt firing, and all the things that come with this (loss of income, risk of homelessness, etc.). So much for democracy.
The situation in the U.S., far from being a democracy by the people and for the people, instead resembles Karl Marx’s famous statement that “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” The political system provides us with little say on much else besides this.
In contrast to the common people, the wealthy and the big corporations have immense influence on policy and politicians. They spend billions of dollars lobbying—a legalized form of bribery—and make massive campaign donations—another legalized form of bribery—to ensure that their interests are looked after from one administration to the next. The standard policy for most big companies is to “hedge their bets” by donating to the campaigns of both parties, and doing so is one way in which they protect their interests regardless of who ends up in office.
The Research Unit on Political Economy—based in India—offered a succinct summary of how decisions are really made in the U.S. political system:

The US ruling classes generally adopt a drawn-out process in the course of which they reconcile and resolve the often conflicting demands of their own various sections. Typically, apart from legislators and the press, a proliferation of research institutes, semi-governmental bodies, and academic forums circulate proposals voicing the case of one or the other lobby (leaving the administration free to deny that they constitute official policy). These proposals elicit objections from other sections, through similar media; other powerful countries too press their interests, directly or indirectly; and the entire discussion, in the light of the strength of the respective interests, helps shape the course of action finally adopted, and helps coalesce the various ruling class sections around it. (This process of course has nothing to do with democratic debate, since the people are excluded as participants, and are included only as a factor to be taken into account.)

In one sense, this system is no democracy at all. The interests and wishes of the vast majority are ignored, or even trampled, by a wealthy and powerful elite, as they debate among themselves on how best to preserve and expand their wealth and power. In another sense, the U.S. can be described as a democracy, but a democracy in which only the rich and powerful have any real say. Sure, the common people have the right to vote, but we only get to vote for one representative or another of the elite.
And in fact, the politicians, these elected officials and supposed lawmakers do very little to actually craft the legislation themselves. For example, the $900 billion coronavirus stimulus bill which was passed this past December was part of a 5,600 page document called the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. The final text of the bill was released at 2pm on December 21, 2020, and voted on two hours later. Even with any army of aides, there is no way that Congresspeople would have been able to read even a tenth of the bill in that time. And yet it was passed into law by a wide margin. This example is not exceptional, in fact it is quite typical of how legislation is written and passed into law in the U.S.
It’s important to be clear about the nature of the U.S. political system if we are to understand the riot at the Capitol, and figure out how to respond to it. Narratives about Trump’s band of hooligans posing an imminent threat to U.S. democracy are doubly misleading. First, the riot that sprawled into the Capitol building was nothing close to a coup attempt or an insurrection. Second, and more importantly, these narratives serve to obscure the true nature of U.S. society, they cover over the fact that this is a country run by and for the rich, in which the poor and oppressed seen both as a source of cheap labor and a potential threat to the powerful.
Over-simplified narratives that have portrayed Trump as an existential threat to the status-quo cover over just how bad the status-quo really is. They also paint numerous oppressors and members of the ruling elite—many of whom have a long history of repressive actions at home and abroad—as courageous heroes, bravely standing up to the threat of fascism. All of this is quite disorienting for activists and movements seeking to bring about positive social change.
Of course, despite the difficult situation in this country things could always get worse. In fact, at present there is a major danger of a significant crackdown on protests, a further erosion of civil liberties, and the continued development of the police state. However, this threat is not primarily due to Trump; instead, cracking down on Trump supporters is being used to justify this new “War on Domestic Terror.” This is worth examining in more detail.
A New War on Terror, This Time at Home
Anyone familiar with the impact of the U.S. war on terror abroad should be terrified by the prospect of the government launching a new “War on Domestic Terror.” While the official target of the War on Terror was those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nearly two-decades later it is clear this policy had a far wider impact. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan destabilized the countries, left millions dead, and U.S. troops remain in both countries to this day. The U.S. also launched a massive drone-strike program which has impacted dozens of countries, created a system of electronic surveillance aimed at spying on everything everyone in the world does online, and has poured trillions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money into expanding the military’s capability to slaughter human beings across the globe.
Given this history, it is particularly important to keep in mind one lesson: it was the common people in places like Iraqi and Afghanistan who suffered the most as a result of the War on Terror. Instead of primarily targeting the architects of 9/11 and their allies, the U.S. government used the War on Terror as a justification to invade and plunder these countries, and to launch a series of devastating military operations around the world to secure the political and economic interests of the U.S. elite and associated multinational corporations. For example, during the U.S. invasion and occupation a huge number of Iraqi civilians were kidnapped off the streets, tortured, and in many cases killed. This was revealed in Seymour Hersh’s reporting on the disgusting and degrading forms of sexual torture done by the U.S. military and intelligence in the Abu Ghraib prison. Whole cities in Iraq were destroyed, reduced to rubble in the name of fighting terrorism and bringing freedom to the people of the country. While the War on Domestic Terror will almost certainly not involve the bombing of cities in the U.S., the brutality with which the original War on Terror was waged is quite concerning, as it shows the ways in which the government has been willing to oppress, arrest, torture, and even slaughter civilians in the name of fighting terrorism. It is woefully naive to assume that the government will hesitate to treat American citizens as enemy combatants, especially given the long-record of domestic repression in this country.
It is particularly striking that many of those who were so critical of the War on Terror are now calling for a new one to be launched within the domestic U.S. The specifics of this new policy are somewhat unclear, as terrorism is already illegal, and there is already domestic surveillance of everyone in the country. However, a look at some of the laws now being proposed across the country can give us a sense of who will be the real target of this policy.
Take for example, the anti-rioting bill proposed by Florida governor Ron DeSantis. This law was original proposed by DeSantis during the George Floyd protests and includes a series of new repressive measures, including preventing people who are arrested during protests deemed to be riots from being released from jail before their first court appearance, and creating new felonies for organizing or participating in a protest that turned violent, potentially even if one did not participate in the violence oneself. What’s more, we saw during the George Floyd protests how police repeatedly instigated violence and then portrayed protesters as violent when they took basic measures to protect themselves. The fact that this bill was first introduced over the summer makes it clear that the main target of such laws is not white supremacist and fascist groups (who the police are generally happy to collaborate with), but rather the masses of people in this country, especially those protesting for progressive social change.
Beyond this one bill in Florida, there series of efforts around the country, including to expand the scope of the federal Anti Riot Act which was created in 1968 in response to mass demonstrations in Washington D.C. against the war in Vietnam. What’s more, Biden has promised to make passing a new law against domestic terrorism a priority in the first 100 days of his presidency. In January, 2020 he sponsored an anti-terrorism bill, which while nominally focused on white supremacist groups, also cited the dangers of “masked Antifa supporters” as well attacks on police officers. During the George Floyd Protests, Biden repeatedly emphasized that he opposed left wing protests that were not peaceful, and stated that he thought “arsonists and anarchists should be prosecuted”.
All of this helps to clarify that even if the Proud Boys and members of other fringe groups are targeted by these new laws in large numbers, the U.S. elite will also use these new laws to go after other groups it sees as a threat to its power and existence. Biden and others' responses to the George Floyd protests showed how concerned the elite are about mass movements against police brutality, white supremacy, and related inequalities. The FBI has already labeled anarchists and “Black Identity Extremists” as major existential threats to the existing U.S. political system, and has devoted significant counter-terrorism resources to monitoring and disrupting the activities of these groups. Much like with the original War on Terror, the actual policy of the new “War on Domestic Terror” will differ significantly from the stated aim.
Biden, his allies, and the U.S. elite are happy to use the riot at the Capitol as a pretext for rolling out a series of new repressive laws. Unfortunately four years of corporate media fear-mongering about Trump’s supposedly imminent plans to establish fascism in the U.S. have left many blind to other dangers. While Trump and his hooligans are dangerous, most the U.S. elite has now lined up behind Joe Biden and they are eager to use this opportunity to push for a massive expansion of their repressive powers to quell an increasingly rebellious population. The liberal left’s fixation on the danger posed by Trump seems to have left them paralyzed, unable to understand or effectively oppose the New War on Terror. Some signs indicate that, at least initially, many are unfortunately eager to support it.
About us: We're the Revolutionary United Front, a revolutionary organization in the U.S. organizing in the Greater Boston, New York, and San Francisco areas. We're working to support and advance various people’s struggles ranging from anti-war, immigrant, and international solidarity.

I'm a bitcoin specialist, and here to argument with you. Bitcoin is the greatest invention in the 21th century.

I understand a lot of you people are pissed off that you "missed the boat," so to speak. Then again, there are 311 people online here, so "so "many of you" is a relatively tiny number.
I myself got into bitcoin late. If I had trusted my guts and bought bitcoins when I first heard of it, no doubt I would be a billionaire by now. All this to say, I understand your frustrations quite well.
We'll start with some of the ideas this sub gets right:
1) DeFi is garbage - this is correct, this entire market is a scam, I have no idea who borrows money using their Eth as collateral for instance, or how they are going to allow you to borrow ETH using your house as a collateral. A lot of it can't or won't work.
2) Eth 2.0 is a scam - this is correct, PoS will kill ether because a lot of miners will just dump their ETH and never think of it again. PoS puts all the power inside the hands of a little "clique" that was lucky enough to receive FREE ether when it started. Also doesn't solve any scaling issue, is riddled with bugs, and won't pay enough to make it worth for small players to be in.
3) The Lightning network is a joke - again, correct. Nobody is going to use that shit. Bitcoin was never designed to be about quick and small payments; if anything, it was designed to be used more like gold. It's been two, three years and no one gives a shit about it, and no one uses it, because it sucks.
4) All bitcoin forks are worthless - correct.
5) Mining bitcoin is now a sinkhole - again, correct. It's just not worth it, in terms of time and efforts, for any small player (i.e. less than a million invested in mining equipment) to mine bitcoins. You are much better off buying stocks and/or investing directly.
Now, for what this sub gets wrong - really, really wrong.
1) Bitcoin is worthless because it's not backed by anything tangible - In order for me to agree with that point, you would have to agree USD, CAD, EUR is all worthless, because those also aren't backed by anything. No, they aren't back by a country's economy, because that country can print as much as they want, and print they do. US printed $800B so far in 2020 ONLY. That's 25% of all USD notes in circulation. And they are not done. Over time, money lost 99.9% of its value.
With that in mind, bitcoin IS backed by something. Those people who buy $2,000 Antminer S19 don't seem to think bitcoin is worthless. People buying cloud mining don't seem to think so either. People buying Bitcoin for $23,000 USD a piece right now certainly aren't making a donation. People who tade bitcoins in Vietnam, Brazil, India, Venezuela etc certainly don't seem to think bitcoin is worthless neither.
Bitcoin has value because it can be traded for very low price ($1.40 to send $165M recently) anywhere on the globe, to anyone, without the need for any third party to authorize the transaction. Take PornHub and how easily Visa/Mastercard blocked them. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? Where two companies can destroy your ability to process payments forever?
Bitcoin also has value because of its limited nature. US Debt has now ballooned to 30T and that's only the public debt, and what we know of. By the end of Corona, I am fairly certain it will be at over 50T. If they can print 20T USD, they can print 200T USD. However, you cannot print bitcoins. At least not any more than are made every ten minutes, and that number is going down.
2) Bitcoin hard cap of 21M is going to sink it eventually
A common misconception I hear here is that bitcoin is doomed because eventually, there will not be any more bitcoins to mine, and miners will not mine bitcoins anymore. Bullshit studies from so-called "pros" (who dismissed bitcoins ever since it hit $1.00) claim that eventually, the hash network will simply die.
The simple counter argument is that transaction fees are going to ensure the network continues working, even after all bitcoins are mined (in 2140, btw). People are going to keep transacting and sending bitcoins; in fact, just look at the mempool and orders coming in.
If mining isn't lucrative some some miners, yes, they will stop, and yes, transactions fees will go up. But people also forget that bitcoin prices will go up over that period. Overall, we will reach an equilibirum between electricity cost, transaction prices and bitcoin price. And again, this is only happening in 2140.
So far, we had 4 of those halvening, and bitcoin has only gone up (and a lot). There is no reason to think otherwise for the next 4 or even 40 halvening.
3) Bitcoin is vulnerable to a 51% attack
Even if someone could reach that level of attack, it wouldn't be worth it to them as they would crash bitcoins, making their investment worthless. A common mistake I hear is that government have the resources to run that kind of attack. But in order to achieve that level, they would need to buy every single bitcoin chip that is made for over a year, and then run them perfectly. Even if earth had that kind of products, there are other companies who need silicon products made.
And even if a party somethow managed to achieve that, there is no guarantee it would kill bitcoin. ETC has survived multiple 51% attack (with much lower hash rate, and an easier algo to hash).
Of course, forks could also be envisioned in the worst-case, catastrophic scenario, but no one really has an incentive to run a 51% attack on bitcoins. Even if they did manage a double spend, bitcoin would crash, making their huge invesment in that 51% attack worthless. Even with the ETC double spend, there simply was a roll back. Exchanges put high number of blocks confirmed to really "confirm" a transaction.
4) Bitcoin will be outlawed by governments.
Even if it is, people can still trade bitcoins person to person. "You fix my fence, I'll give you 100 satoshis," that kind of thing. Of course, government has no intention - or no right, at least in free countries - to outlaw bitcoins. Banks in the US have already attempted to block crypto transactions, people only found workarounds.
5) Too many bitcoisn are lost! Eventually ALL bitcoins will be lost! Already 4M bitcoin lost!
This is by far the dumbest "argument." Even if 99.99% of bitcoins were lost - which is unrealistic - bitcoins are divisible to one satoshi. Right now, a satoshi is worth roughly $0.002. If that many bitcoins were lost, then a satoshi would be valued at $2. That's it.
With that in mind, people aren't exactly losing a lot of bitcoins all the time. Sure, a certain portion are lost in accidents, people dying, forgetting their keys, etc., but trust me, most people watch their bitcoins like hawks. I'd be surprised if, right now, more than 10,000 bitcoins are lost per year (real number is probably way lower). That would be around 1M more bitcoins will be lost in the next 100 years, for a total of roughly 5M bitcoins. We can live with 16M bitcoins
6) Some people have way too much bitcoins! Satoshi has 700,000 - this means he has $14B right now!!!!!!!!!!!
And Bezos has $50B+, Bill Gates $60B+, Warren Buffet...
Your point?
7) Bitcoin is a "le bubble muh tulip ponzi blah blah"
People often misuse terms, and those are no exceptions.
Let's start with the bubble. Tesla right now trades at a $600B valuation (much higher than bitcoin btw). Tesla can print infinite new shares by the way and sell them at a discount; they give their employees free or cheap shares year after year. Tesla barely sells any car at all and barely makes any profit, yet is valued at more than Ford+GM+Volkwagen+Honda+... together. Those are all profitable, established, well-rounded companies, and tesla is valued at more than ALL of them.
I would argue that tesla is a bubble. So, are you going to short the stock (bet it will fall)? I know a few people who shorted tesla when it hit $300 per split. They lose years of profit.
Again, if you look at the stock price, the only conclusion you can come to is that Tesla is a bubble, not backed by anything tangible. No amazing earnings like AAPL, no revenue growth like AMZN, etc. Yet it only ballooned higher. There is no doubt in my mind Tesla will break the $1T market cap soon.
Just because you think something is overpriced, and just because something IS overpriced, doesn't mean it will crash. Sometimes it does, sometimes not.
In this case, bitcoin's total valuation - $450B give or take - is not much higher than Paypal, and I would argue bitcoin is WAY more valuable than Paypal. Paypal is ONE company processing payments, bitcoin is global and independent.
Now as for those accusing Bitcoin of being a Ponzi - a Ponzi happens when you take person A's money, then take person B's money to repay person A, then repay person C's money to repay B, etc. This has nothing to do with bitcoin at all. When you buy bitcoins, you have bitcoins. Something real, and limited. Not even slightly resembling a ponzi.
8) Le bitcoin is doomed!
Yeah, for the 2000 times. I remember when bitcoin crashed from $1,000 to $200, everyone said it was done.
Right.
There, that's it. Feel free to argue or discuss my points. I see a lot of misinformation and I felt it was my duty to counter some of it. It's not just you guys, even a lot of so-called "professional investors" get it totally wrong.
Thanks for reading, take care.

What I wish Phil Harrison would say

can i bet online in india video

A free bet means that the wager can place a bet on the event of his or her choice without risking any money. If it results in a win, the player can keep the profits. Even if you lose, you don't lose real money. Before you plunge into the broad world of online gambling and betting, a safer option is to try your hand at free betting options. How to find free bets. There are lots of betting sites Yes! It is 100% safe. All the major operators are licensed and regulated. This ensures you can bet online in a safely, anonymously and securely. Legally illegal, but you can bet online in India. Betting or gambling is actually prohibited in the majority of India. But there is actually no legislation that creates online betting an illegal activity. Offshore betting firms are evidently utilizing this ‘way out’ to tempt Indians to bet on basically every thing. The Indian Premier League (IPL) tops their checklists right now and also Yes, online betting in India is legal. There are no federal laws in existence that prohibit online betting in India. However, each state in India is allowed to approve its own online betting laws, which means that some Indian states do have more stringent online betting laws than others. There are no federal laws that prohibits online betting in India; A few states have made explicit laws against online betting; There are not any cases on record of Indian players being prosecuted for online betting; So unless you live in a state which explicitly prohibits online gambling, you are free to try out online betting from India. Online Casino and Betting is legal in India. The law does not specifically prohibit online casino or betting. There have been no cases of prosecution towards anyone who participated in online gambling activities. The Public Gambling Act of 1976, renewed 1990 allows offshore casinos to operate in India. Here’s just a few of the benefits that players in India can expect to find when betting online. A wide range of sport types and markets to bet on 24/7 access through mobile betting Legally illegal, but you can bet online in India Betting or gambling is illegal in most of India. But there is no law that makes online betting an illegal activity. In India, you can bet on live horse racing events in live shows called Racing 1 and Sports Kings. Indian gambling lovers can pick a variety of sports betting websites, and one of the most well-known sites is Spin Sports. Hockey Betting. Hockey is a sport played with a puck between two teams consisting of six players. The main objective is to shoot the puck into the goal. The most known Indian Find the best betting guides and depositing tutorials for sports betting in India including Cricket, Football and eSports. Bet Online in India 2021

can i bet online in india top

Watch Champions League online YouTube TV (Free Trial)

A year ago an Indian scammer squirted poo on my shoe! Ever since then I've been trying to capture this scam on camera. I finally did it! The naughty poo-on-s... YOU WILL NEVER FORGET THIS VIDEO. It's to funny for everybody. What is your favourite clip? :) Hope you like our compilation and try to stay serious ,please ... BET Awards Lifetime Achievement Award winner Mary J. Blige performs live with Lil Kim and Method Man in a performance to remember! #BETAwardsSUBSCRIBE to #BE... leave a LIKE as fast as possible• PREVIOUS VID https://youtu.be/tAc4Ul8TL0g• SUBSCRIBE for more videos!: http://bit.ly/VTxH6E• FaZe Clothing & Merchandise - ... Start a Free Trial to watch Champions League on YouTube TV (and cancel anytime). Stream live TV from ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN & popular cable networks. Cloud DVR with no storage limits. 6 accounts per household included. Comment "LIVE" if you're watching this live and comment "REPLAY" if you're watching the replay.💻 Learn My 3-Step System For Making Money Online: https://Joh... 5 Best ELECTRIC BIKES You Can Buy In 2016Dear viewers, Please click the " Bell Button " and select " All " to receive new videos form Latest Tech. Click ⬇️ ... Namaskaar Dosto, is video mein maine aapse Quick money ke baare mein baat ki hai, OpenUpCase.com ek website hai jiski aapne bahut si videos dekhi hongi aur a... Youtube se paisa kaise kamaye : aajkal Online Earn Karna yani make money online bahot popular hai bahot sare aur bahot sare tarike hai online ghar baithe pai... ANNOYING SIREN!!!!!Subscribe For Upcoming NEW Challenges!!!Comment Below If You Made It Or Not!!!Please share and challenge your friends!!!Thanks for watchin...

Legally illegal, but you can bet online in India

can i bet online in india

can i bet online in india - win

How Can I Bet Online In India

How Can I Bet Online In India

How Can I Bet Online In India

How Much Money Can I Make Betting Online In India?

SBOTOP - Betting Site in India — How Much Money Can I Make Betting Online In India?

PAYSAFE VS PAYONEER - Which is the Better Buy?

The Definitive Price and Quality Ranking of 25 British GYW shoe brands (obviously it's not definitive, it's completely subjective, but let's go with it)

Taking up a traditional musical instrument to play sea shanties and sea songs (for total novices or experienced musicians)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Playboy going public: Porn, Gambling, and Cannabis

What are your thoughts on “new normal”?

Vaccine Landscape

MAC's Sangley Point award junked by Cavite gov't (Thursday, Jan 28)

Happy Thursday, Barkada --

The PSE closed down 114 points (!!) to 6864 ▼1.6%.

Daily meme | Join MB | Today's email

Top 3 MB indices:

Bottom 3 MB indices:

Main stories covered:

Join our Barkada here

Read today's full email here

The Storming of the Capitol and the New War on Terror

I'm a bitcoin specialist, and here to argument with you. Bitcoin is the greatest invention in the 21th century.

What I wish Phil Harrison would say

can i bet online in india video

can i bet online in india top

Watch Champions League online YouTube TV (Free Trial)