Liquidity: A Beginner's Guide

           Some call it the future (Hockett, Forbes) and some, the “solution (Nakamoto, Bitcoin founder).” The fledgling word, cryptocurrency, cascades the news and has settled as the “it-girl” in every tech-savvy block. Desirable as it is, it has successfully seduced young and ambitious investors and entrepreneurs into a game, where a handful won millions, whereas the majority, stumbled downhill. Cryptocurrency remains controversial, with descriptions like “scam (Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan)” and “worthless (Warren Buffett, investor),” insulting the value it brings upon the era. Thus, it has become crucial for not just investors and entrepreneurs, but also the everyday people to clear the air, define its strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately realize that this “it-girl” is also just a developing teenage kid, a work in progress, yet something worth looking out for.

 Before jumping into the cryptocurrency world, it is crucial to understand what it bases upon: liquidity. Thus, we walk you through the steps of what liquidity is, what the problem of liquidity in cryptocurrency is, then suggest a few solutions to such problems.

1.     What is liquidity?

Liquidity is a degree to which an asset can be converted into an expected amount of value. A perfectly liquid currency does not affect the stability of the general asset, and the converted amount maintains its full value. Within the cryptocurrency world, assets are converted between one coin to another or coin to cash and vice versa. Liquidity is crucial, as traditional financial firms do not keep assets as idle cash, but rather distribute parts as investment, deposit, funds, or securities.

Markets prefer high liquidity; High liquidity indicates vibrance and confidence in the market which ultimately provides predictable, quick and easy trade. Cash is currently the most liquid asset, yet it comes with various problems. Thus, the blockchain technology aims to achieve such perfect liquidity.

Many factors affect liquidity, including trading volume, participating population, number of exchanges, and acceptance within society. Trading volume is one of the most important factors; It is the total amount of coins that have been transacted in the exchanges. Large trade volumes allow fair trade. Such stability roots from basic economics of the invisible hand.

Say Columbus first brought spices to Korea. People love it because it’s new and weird, so people from Jeonju come and buy it for hundreds of dollars. After a while, there’s enough supply and the craze declines. Now only those who are interested in it will trade it for a fair price. Thus, a large trade volume allows individuals to finalize on a equilibrium price that lowers arbitrage and ultimately allows fair trade. The same applies for cryptocurrency. Within a small population, the craze peaked in 2017, where people invested for reasons of curiosity and hope. The abnormal surge is yet to settle, but the more people correctly understand, regulate, and utilize the cryptocurrency, the more stable and liquid it will become.

There are two types of measures for this liquidity:

·       24h Volume: This volume measures the coins that have been traded in the last 24-hours’ time frame.  

·       Market Capitalization: This volume measures the aggregate value of a security. In cryptocurrency, market cap is calculated by multiplying the circulating supply of tokens by the current price.  

Participant population also affects liquidity. When trading through blockchains like Bitcoin, an additional block is added on the blockchain to prove an irreversible payment. Also, when miners solve blocks by mining, they need confirmation by peers in order to fairly obtain the Bitcoin. Usually, Bitcoin processes between 10-15 minutes, and transactions between $1,000 to $10,000 need three confirmations from peer nodes (Buy Bitcoin Worldwide). Therefore, having many nodes that serve to solve and confirm transactions results in swift transaction.

Number of exchanges is also one of the big factors that affect liquidity. Exchanges are businesses that allow cryptocurrency users to trade one from another, including conventional fiat money or other digital currencies. Number of exchanges parallel to how widely it is accepted within the society. Currently, large corporates such as Microsoft, Expedia, and Bloomberg accept the usage of bitcoins. Thus, more and more people are able to access the currency on a daily basis.

2.     What is the problem with liquidity in crypto?

 Liquid assets, as mentioned above, must retain its original value. Many of the factors take away from cryptocurrencies’ full liquidity. Volatility is the foremost deducting point. Value of the asset is easily inflated or manipulated, as the participating population is small. Software hacks and operational failures aggravate the situation, as users lose large amounts of trust. Even if the time consuming transactions are successful, fees are sometimes irregularly high, as a few monopolistic exchanges overprice their services. Because of the overall confusion, new investors hesitate to set foot in the field at all.

Cryptocurrency faces ongoing problems without a definite direction. The government proposes that it would invest and make regulations if there are more funds, information and companies circulating the field. Investors and companies also hesitate to explore, as they have seen a sharp downfall of cryptocurrency. The two parties remain in a stalemate.

3.     What are some solutions for liquidity issues?

 Solutions relate back to liquidity. Currently, liquidity is divided, as many payments and platforms operate as an individual entity. Consequently, their pool of money and transaction partners are limited, limiting the overall supply and liquidity. Therefore, Companies should work together to build larger pools by using means like business merging, integration or acquiring. Further, less corporate limitations polish user experience. For example, certain tokens require the purchase of BTC and ETH in order to exchange. Inconvenient restrictions and complexities drive away users, even if the product is innovative. Finally, governmental regulations and interference are crucial. Governments should take initiatives in investing into the newborn technology and allow investors to follow the exciting venture.

4.     Conclusion

 Once we dive into the details of cryptocurrency,  we realize its endless potentials, yet at the same time, recognize that it is a work in progress. Liquidity becomes the foremost key to the existing problems within cryptocurrency. Achieving this liquidity will become a remaining goal for us to work on.

Works Cited

Hockett, Robert. “Money's Past Is Crypto's Future.” Forbes 10 dec 2018. Print

Montag, Ali. “Warren Buffett Explains One Thing People Still Don’t Understand about Bitcoin.” CNBC May 1, 2018

Nakamoto, Satoshi. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” October 21, 2008

Monaghan, Angela. “Bitcoin is a Fraud that will Blow up, says JP Morgan Boss.” The Guardian. September 13, 2017

Blockchain, Bitcoin Wallet Users (March 4, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/my-wallet-n-users

Buy Bitcoin Worldwide, Bitcoin Confirmations (March 5, 2019) Retrieved from https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/confirmations/.

Ethics Upon Remembering and The Act of Killing : An Anlysis

Trauma, by definition, is a deeply distressing experience, which sometimes leads to long-term neurosis. Such term has been one specifically belonging to the victim, as we perceive from remnants of war, conflict, and violence. Hence, we mostly see the victims of sexual abuse haunted by the happening, rather than the abusers. However, Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary, “The Act of Killing” has challenged the bias by humanizing the perpetrator, shifting the ownership of trauma, and questioning the ethics upon forgiving.

For a short recap, “The Act of Killing” is a two hour long documentary released in 2012 focusing on the perpetrators that participated in the Indonesian mass killing of 1965 to 1966. The perpetrators were gangsters like Anwar Congo, paramilitary organization Pancasila Youth, the government, and the press. Victims were neo-communists, Chinese, and left-wing extremists. Under the name of protecting the nation from communism, but with the intention to kill any that got in the way of corruption, perpetrators did not hesitate, nor hide to kill millions of people. Thus, the abnormal became normal; Politicians bribed for votes, governors demanded money on the spot, and gangsters roamed free. There are more that astounds the audience; even to this day, some are basically helpless without any alternate status quo to escape nor correct the situation; some genuinely revere the “saviors” that have saved the country from the “evil” communists; and yet some are indifferent to the situation.

Even after the release of the documentary, the norms have stayed the same. Indonesia’s government and education permeates with vestiges of anti-communist propaganda. Most of the primary and secondary schools are run by the government, and the curriculums are heavily influenced by authoritarian traditions. Thus, from a young age, students receive biased education favoring the government and their acts. The groundless deeds, over a long time, become ones excusable acts by invincible superiors. Therefore citizens cannot think of any other means to fathom the situation nor have the will or power to change the system. Because they are taken away the option to critically assess the situation, people fall into a vicious cycle to halt progress.

Despite the hopeless situation, how does Oppenheimer portray Anwar to the audience in the documentary to ultimately humanize him? Much of the success relies on the recognizable and empathetic narratives slowly outlined throughout the documentary. We are involuntarily exposed to a series of scenes that depict him as an ordinary and vulnerable human being. He sits his grandchildren on his laps, takes care of injured ducks, dances around to trip, and even slightly repents his actions towards the end of the documentary. Anwar displays slight hints of trauma when he is seen having nightmares of victims and avoids the killing site before he had filmed the documentary. Even further, the audience becomes to notice that Anwar’s trauma is the reenacting documentary itself. Trauma is best recognized when the person cannot distinguish past and present time within the trauma. Because he conflates the two, he is unable to perceive it as a memory. Therefore, he distances himself from his crimes and turns them into performances of a hyper realistic act. Thus, the process of creating the documentary, and watching the process of doing so is the means of withdrawal, “acting out,” or “performative regenerating as if it were fully present rather than one represented in memory. (La Capra, 716)” The documentary offers an alternative interpretation: Anwar’s  seemingly ignorant acts may be actually his means of seeking ways to relieve the trauma he is going through.

Anwar’s disclosure of trauma shows how the perpetrators, who, most of the times, are characterized as singularly merciless, bizarre, and psychotic, are placed into narrative. We thus situate them inside the normal realms of history and understandings to illuminate a slight possibility of the perpetrators also being human and even the victims of tradition, norms, violence, and pressure. As a result, the documentary allows a slice of trauma’s ownership to be tossed over from the victims to the perpetrators. We thus realize how it is crucial to separate trauma from the victimhood, and deconstruct the polarized possession of the term.

Then is such shift of possession necessary? Restoring memory and attaining testimony are core pillars within memory studies, and the same applies to the perpetrators. Reconstituting a “thou (Laub)” for not just Anwar but also the citizens of Indonesia allows true reconciliation. Only such reparation can further facilitate correcting collective memory and ultimately bring proper justice to all parties. It has almost been fifty years since the massacre. Human rights associations, activists, and NGOs have tried intervening to restore such justice, but there has not been much progress. To this day, much of the authorities remains the same, with bribery, corruption, and violence permeating the country. Much amendments are to be made.

Then is a sincere apology for the shift in possession ethical? The question is a complex one: yes, but also at the same time, no. For the audience, the perpetrators’ trauma should not be belittled, as doing so would be condoning the act of “competitive memory. (Rothberg)” Such position leads to dangers of treating memories as mere events, rather than ones that continue in today, thus become shortcuts to weigh one over another. Objectifying the memory thus becomes to offend victims and, as theorized in this essay, even the perpetrators of the event. On the other hand, perpetrators must also understand that those who they have victimized are also going through trauma because of their once shameful actions. Thus, they should not over empathize because most victims do not have positive feelings for the perpetrators. Therefore, only when both parties act accordingly will the shift in possession become ethical, thus return justice upon both sides.

Finally, after the shift of ownership and a sincere apology, are perpetrators forgiven? Ethics upon perpetrators are complex, but must be defined as forgiven yet unethical for a few reasons. First, Anwar was not penalized. In the documentary, other than being uncomfortable with his acts, Anwar did not take full responsibility for the killings. The government nor international courts have punished him, and he continues to roam free untouched. Punishing a crime is a convention humans have built the society upon, and Anwar’s actions should be the last to be immune from it. Further, allowing forgiveness may incur collateral damage, in that it may permit a second chance to everyone. The goal of punishment is to prevent crime in the first place and protect the innocent from offense that they do not deserve. Therefore, ethics must become the social safety net and disallow further misfortune.

        Although severely controversial in its content and directing, “The Act of Killing” is remarkable in that it disputes common perception, opens up possibilities of the perpetrators’ traumas, and questions the verity of ethics. It shook much of my pre-established conventions in that I could also be living a life where people in the future or other nations may perceive as unethical. This led me to think about the strife around the world and within Korea, including income distribution inequality, over-competition within Korean education, and extreme feminism. However, it also prompts further doubts in that these strife may be perceived as problematic only because of the values that we have constructed as of now. In other words, they may not be perceived as the same if the values themselves have been fallacious. Therefore, we continue to question and stay critical to the society, as the documentary successfully conveys.

LaCapra, Dominick. Trauma, Absence, Loss, University of Chicago Press, 1999

Laub, Dori. Truth and Testimony Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991

Rothberg, Michael. Multidirectional Memory, Stanford Unversity Press, 2009

Dori Laub : A Short Precis

   Dori Laub’s "Truth and Testimony: The Process and the Struggle" shows how trauma, undeniably one of the most devastating human creation, is ironically only resolvable within and by humans. Such paradox is best illustrated in his quote, “The survivors did not only need to survive so that they could tell their stories; they also needed to tell the stories in order to survive.” The irony augments as the traumatized are frustrated by physical disabilities, the event’s inexplicability, guilt, or mere alteration of the memory. Witnesses of trauma also are unable to objectively articulate the event, and while others are exterminated to prevent the sharing of their perspective. Trauma abolishes both its history and the people's identities, yet still burdens with responsibility and indoctrinated guilt. 

   Trauma must be examined in lines with the theory of diffusion of responsibility,which states that people become less responsible for an action in the presence of others. However, the theory only deals with action and justification, not the consequences. The murder of Kitty Genovese can be described as the apotheosis of diffusion of responsibility as 38 witnesses spread their responsibilities to take no action when Genovese was raped and stabbed for over two hours. However, rarely questioned is the potential for trauma to befall on the witnesses. The theory of diffusion of responsibility and Laub’s description of trauma thus contradict in the presence of collective responsibility; Responsibility diffuses within a group, yet those traumatized from it are borne with an overwhelming sense of guilt and perplexion. The traumatized must rely on imperfect vocalization to rid such burden, or “make and break the promise: the promise of testimony as a realization” that the traumatized is, in fact, not at fault.

Act of Killing : A Short Precis

The Act of Killing (2002) is the first documentary in Indonesian language about the Indonesian mass killing in 1965 to 1966. It follows Anwar, Pancasila Youth, and members of the death squad that killed over one million under the purpose of the nation’s security. Victims were neo-communists and left-wing extremists, or namely “those who wanted to destroy our country (Indonesia).” As Anwar glamorizes his murders into a Western-influenced film, he inadvertently unveils the full range of corruption and crime permeating within the government, media, tradition, and norms.

Notably, he quotes, “We have too much democracy. Things were better under the military dictatorship,” thus “conflates absence and loss (707)[i],” as theorized by La Capra. He mistakes the absence of a perfect nation as something that is lost, thus tries to regain it by searching for a reason behind the loss. The communist Indonesians therefore became the scapegoat and the victims of the massacre.

Further, when asked if he feels responsible for the truth, he answers, “Why focus on killing the communists? Americans killed the Indians.” Such comparison of crime becomes a moral hazard as he tries to justify his actions by competing one trauma to another. Thus it becomes dangerous as it avoids any responsibility and even attempts to alleviate his acts.

The confrontational documentary provoked complete confusion in that it merged perpetrator with victim and evil with good, ultimately leading me to question the verity of ethics. Thus, when he comments, “War crimes are defined by the winners. I’m a winner, so I can make my own definition,” we are left powerless, only left to sympathize the fates of the victims.

Where Do You Stand?

What’s Truly Behind the Park Geun Hye - Choi Soon Sil Gate

Youjung Kwon

Kwon1996@gmail.com

 

   With the phrase “impeachment” having dominated each and every Korean portal web site, and with president Park’s approval rate simultaneously plummeting to the lowest 4 % (Nov. 25th, Gallup International), Korean citizens have altogether turned against the government with candle lights held aloft. Only did we expect there be situations like this in the movies, but when it did happen in reality, we were left confused, defenseless, and enraged. The denouement would usually be the following: a charming young fellow, preferably a lawyer, comes along to challenge the corrupted and rectify the problems. However, it was different in reality. Literally everyone, notwithstanding religion, political stance, or any kind of rank or proximity that may have divided us, came together to protest, with students in the lead. Peaceful, organized, and tidy, citizens swarmed around city halls all over Korea every Friday, hoping for it to be over.

 

   It all started on September, 2016 when Han KyuRe and TV ChoSun, two of the major presses in Korea, reported that Choi Soon Sil, a new face and a longtime friend of Park, had been inaugurated to both the MIR foundation and K Sports foundation. These special interest groups had received 7 million dollars (80 million won, Donga News) from the Federation of Korean Industries, and it was definitely not normal. The fishy situation earned the media’s attention in no time, outlining the daunting authoritative corruption to be exposed upon us. On October 19th, JTBC had reported the leak of Blue House’s classified documents to Choi, morphing a simple authoritative corruption into a nationally illicit misconduct. As a result of tireless investigation, JTBC obtained Choi’s PC tablet, which contained a total of 44 nationally classified documents Choi had prior access to, editing them as she wanted. Intensified allegations of Choi’s influence on state affairs pressured Park into conceding her faults in front of Korean citizens.

 

   As bizarre and chaotic as it sounds, we are inclined to cloud the issue, misplacing our interpretations of the situation by criticizing Choi’s facial features and private life, in order to mock the group of people that have deceived us. However, we must stay perceptive during this time and observe what is truly behind the Park – Choi Gate. It would be oblivious to perceive the situation merely as a solitary and unprecedented case of the president being Rasputin-ized by a cultish group of Choi’s.

 

   One of the main consequences of the Park - Choi Gate is the downfall of the authority and prestige of the president. It is true that Park had previously been undergoing illegal stem cell procedures for aesthetic purposes and had also sent Choi as deputy to prescribe IVNT ringer, tonic, vitamin injections and Viagra. As stem cells have been controversial for over 11 years for its ethics, stability, and utility, and as external use of injections outside the hospital is illegal, Park did not abide by the law. However, let alone these misdeeds, it does not end here. These faults have intensified by the sinking of the ferry Sewol accident of March 16th, 2014, as Park failed to take action for 7 hours while 295 high school students were drowning. Neither the National Security Administration and the secretary office, both of who keep track of and meet with the president at all times, confessed they do not know what she was doing in the hours. Incertitude, without any clarifications from her, accumulated upon one another, leading to accusations that she was pampering herself with stem cell injections and beauty care during the 7 hours. The president, who we gave the responsibility to protect us from fear, became the very person who generated it, making the position as president futile

 

   Park - Choi Gate also completely shattered the trust we had for the government, doubtful as to wonder if the shards of credence could ever mend back. As mentioned earlier, the president’s approval rate has tumbled to its lowest of 4%, consisting of people in their 40s only. In other words, the 2030 generation, those who will and are currently steering the faith of Korea, constituting 45.6% (2016) of the electorate population, do not support the president. The fact that the president we had chosen was merely a figurehead, conspiring against her supporters, augmented our distrust.

 

   In a broader vantage, Park - Choi Gate elicit the vulnerability of Korea’s enterprise system. With a few words, Yoora Chung, the daughter of Choi, could easily exploit the minister of Ministry of Culture, lawyers, and Ewha Women’s University’s president to acquire an illicit admission to the school. Further, Choi has succeeded in embezzling daunting amounts of money from internationally renowned corporations, including Samsung, LG, and Hyundai. This extreme squad has achieved, unsuspectedly, a carte-blanche authority over Korea. Exigent demands for social reform among government-corporate ties, elite class privileges, and unrestricted presidential authorities must be responded to.

 

   The final, but certainly not the last problem the scandal engenders, is not solely restricted to Korea but engenders consecutive damage upon international relationships. It is undoubtedly problematic for the Blue House’s classified documents to have been leaked to an outsider. However, what puts Korea in more danger is what this act ensues: a collapse in international reputation and commerce reliability. In other words, Korea, a country with an 88.1% dependence on trade (GNI, Gross National Income to trade), is bound to be avoided as a trade partner. No country appreciates risky business.

 

   As a result of these four major problems, the impeachment Bill of Park was proposed on December 3rd and was approved 6 days later with majority vote of the National Assembly (234/299). As a follow up, Park is suspended from exercising power until the impeachment is adjudicated by the Constitutional Court. If 6 out of the 9 judges approve in 60 days, Park is officially impeached, and the next president would be elected through an election. If not, Park is back in the game.

 

   This bizarre incident of the president severely exploiting her supporters with seemingly omnipotent corps is an infringement on a whole new level. This has not only been a shameless undermining of the primary principle Korea had been constructed upon, but also a denial of the brief yet rich and vivid history and values of Korea. Despite Park’s faults, Park has, for a total of two minutes, apologized to the public of partial faults, but was unable to genuinely console the wounded public. Park, Choi, and the other few are the only people who know the truth.

 

   By the time you have read this article, there will have been more disclosures, presumably surprising ones, of the truth. Although, as of now, we do not know the results of the impeachment, there is one thing we have learned through this long, long fight: the duty of youth is to challenge the corrupted. Every nation gets the government it deserves, and Korea now deserves a transparent, benevolent, and charismatic leader to pull us out of the swamps. So don’t boo. Vote!