Only because you are trying to fit the latter into the former. It's a permissioned system (participation if gatekept) that apparently can interface with decentralized systems. Most of the SWIFT type cross border clearing system projects I've seen so far limited themselves to testing for CBDCs only. This one has made a point to test for public blockchains and stablecoins. IMO, that's significant if it ends up getting traction with central banks or TBTF banks (and it's sponsored by DB).
I got my local ISD property tax bill in the mail the other day. They calculated the tax as if Prop 4 had passed and included a paragraph at the end of the bill stating that if Prop 4 does not pass, they will send me a second bill for the extra tax (that is no longer owed if Prop 4 does pass).
Doom on the horizon?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-two-commentators-who-have-been-warning-of-a-market-crash-say-its-now-here-83fe2ee4?rss=1&siteid=rss
GDP and durable goods numbers surprised to the upside. Markets understand this as "higher for longer" = potentially even higher and most likely much longer
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/10/26/deutsche-bank-and-standard-chartered-ventures-test-swift-killer-for-stablecoins-and-cbdcs/
This looks to be the most open project of this type that I've seen so far. It's a permissioned network, so it' going to be limited to central banks and TBTF banks, but the fact that they are building the system to work with stablecoins and all manner of crypto is very interesting.
I believe that is McHenry's call as the Speaker Pro Tem. Of course, he isn't going to unliaterally decide to hold a floor vote. He'll call for one when the caucus (or current nominee) request it.
Use cases for crypto continue to grow:
https://www.vodafone.com/news/technology/vodafone-dab-chainlink-lab-demonstrates-transformation-global-trade-blockchain-innovation
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/10/25/vodafone-chainlink-show-blockchain-can-support-global-trade-processes/
Also... The Finland-Estonia pipeline wasn't the only transmission infrastructure damaged in the area:
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/companies/estonia-has-linked-baltic-cable-pipeline-damages-sweden-says/ar-AA1iIeFB
As discussed earlier in the thread, the fund proposed in Prop 5 already exists. Prop 5 is proposing to rename the existing fund and then allow it to siphon off money from Texas rainy day fund. Are funds purpose built or or all they all slush funds that can be raided and redirected on a whim? If an idea is worthy (ie. increasing funding for the existing fund), why can't the legislature appropriate funds for it directly? What happens when Texas needs that rainy day fund for its intended purpose?
That's what I've done as well and it's why the "scroll to the top" button is only 60% visible. It's still functional, but looks wonky.
Does your scroll to the top button scroll to the top of the page or to just under the main nav menu?