What is the exchange rate of USD (US Dollar) / HKD (Hong Kong Dollar) on Tuesday June 9, 2020

What is the exchange rate of USD (US Dollar) / HKD (Hong Kong Dollar) on Tuesday June 9, 2020

USD HKD exchange rate

Ready for the mid-market exchange rate of USD (US Dollar) / HKD (Hong Kong Dollar) for Tuesday June 9, 2020?

The current rates for USD (US Dollar) / HKD (Hong Kong Dollar) are available in this article. As a top finance news site the Born2Invest team has analysed the latest forex market data to bring you live information that enables you to make the right forex trading call every day.

Tuesday June 9, 2020 1 USD (US Dollar) is 7.75005 of HKD (Hong Kong Dollar) .

Remember to always trade using a reputable broker. It’s also possible to apply many forex concepts to cryptocurrency trading.

Forex trading is inherently risky and there are countless forex pairs to choose from. The only way to make a profit from forex trading is to understand how the market works. Luckily for you the Born2Invest forex team has collated some forex trading tips to get you started.

Forex trades are always made using currency pairs. Whenever you buy one currency you are selling another. In every pair there is a base currency, for example USD (US Dollar) and a quote currency, which would be HKD (Hong Kong Dollar).

The price of a currency pair represents the amount of quote currency, or HKD (Hong Kong Dollar), that you will need to spend in order to purchase a single unit of USD (US Dollar), the base currency. So using the current example you would need to spend 7.75005 of HKD (Hong Kong Dollar) in order to purchase 1 USD (US Dollar).

Forex pairs can be grouped into three main categories; the majors, the commodity currencies, and the cross currencies:

  • Major currencies are the most commonly traded currencies on the market. Different publications will use different criteria but pretty much every list will include EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/USD, and USD/CHF
  • ll Commodity currencies are currency pairs that are closely linked to commodities such as oil, iron ore, and coal. Common examples include AUD/USD and USD/CAD
  • Cross currencies include all currency pairs that don’t include USD. Examples include EUR/GBP and EUR/JPY.
  • Cryptocurrency trading shares many similarities to forex trading. Specifically the concepts of currency pairs and high price volatility. That being said there are some key differences. Cryptocurrencies don’t operate like fiat currency and many are tied to a project or product. The crypto market is also highly unregulated, which makes it inherently risky compared to trading forex.

    Additionally most cryptocurrency trades happen on exchanges. These are generally unregulated and come with a certain degree of risk that many investors would find unacceptable. One alternative is to trade using a CFD broker which allows crypto pairings, but this means you will not directly own and cryptocurrency you buy.

    Source: born2invest.com

    Chainalysis Backs Two Privacy Coins Despite Mounting Pressure

    Chainalysis Backs Two Privacy Coins Despite Mounting Pressure

    New York-based crypto compliance software Chainalysis recently announced support for two new privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies- Zcash and Dash.

    The move to support privacy coins from Chainalysis comes at a time when most prominent cryptocurrency exchanges are shying away from listing these coins. Privacy coins make it more difficult for exchanges and custodial service providers to follow global anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines.

    However, Chainalysis’s support is different as compared to exchanges. The firm provides blockchain intelligence solutions and aims to find out how to help privacy coins adheres to the risk management requirements considered standard in the financial world. It is working to develop technologies that could help it understand the infrastructure of privacy coins. It will also be useful for law enforcement agencies to use this data to trace transactions.

    The company explained its move in a statement, writing,

    “That’s an oversimplification, in that it misunderstands both the privacy features coins like Dash and Zcash offer and how users actually utilize those features in everyday transactions. Below, we’re going to examine how Dash and Zcash allow investigators and compliance professionals to investigate illicit activity in a way that balances users’ privacy needs with the industry’s compliance needs.”

    There is still no solution for firms like Chainalysis that are looking for a comprehensive solution to trace transactions on privacy-focused networks like Monero, Zcash, and Dash. Strictly regulated exchanges have to adhere to illicit financing and anti-money laundering laws because of which they have to keep away from opening trade markets for coins like Monero, which has a market cap of over $1.2 billion.

    Several exchanges have now started delisting privacy coins to stick with their regulatory policies. For instance, Coinbase, CEX.io, and OKEx Korea have delisted these coins to maintain their regulatory requirements.

    Chainalysis provides a service called Chainalysis Alerts which provides self-calculated vulnerability scores for different transactions based on service, category direct vs indirect exposure, amount, and direction of funds. The alerts are generated when a transaction takes place with a risky counterparty or when it crosses a certain threshold.

    Source: www.cryptovibes.com

    US Officials Allege Student Defrauded Apple as Part of SIM Swap Attack

    US Officials Allege Student Defrauded Apple as Part of SIM Swap Attack

    If Christopher Giancarlo was “Crypto Dad” and Hester Peirce is “Crypto Mom,” will the U.S.’s new top bank regulator become “Crypto Uncle”?

    Brian Brooks, the former Coinbase legal chief, took office as Acting Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) at the end of May, barely two and a half months after being appointed First Deputy at the federal banking agency. In that time he’s already publicly suggested a federal payments charter for fintech companies, asked state and local governments to consider lifting COVID-19 lockdowns to protect the banking system and published a request for public input on how banks look at crypto.

    The first proposal might be Brooks’ most ambitious: creating a federal regulatory framework for tech firms offering some services traditionally offered by banks, something industry advocates have long sought but recognized as politically hazardous. A single federal framework would preempt the 50 different state-level money transmitter licenses that companies, including crypto exchanges, currently have to obtain.

    This state-by-state requirement requires exchanges to roll out services slowly, dependent on the different approvals rather than their technology stacks and scalability. Since the OCC’s founding in 1863, banks under its charge have been allowed to operate across state lines, but nonbanks looking to operate nationally must secure the numerous state licenses. 

    “My job here is not to protect incumbents, and it’s not to preserve the status quo,” Brooks said. “You know, I’m not curating a history museum here. The job I have is to make sure that the bank charter’s flexible enough to maintain a safe, sound, strong American economy and the shape of banking has to be flexible to accommodate.”

    Related: ‘Inherently Borderless’: Acting OCC Chief Talks Crypto, State Licenses and DeFi

    Part of this evolution includes the fact that banks aren’t the only entities providing what were traditionally seen as banking services, he said, noting technology companies like Stripe provide payment and lending services. Banks themselves have been changing as well over the past several decades: There are banks that aren’t “significant depositories,” including trust banks and credit card banks. There are also more entities that operate nationally, rather than just on the state level.

    What future awaits cryptocurrencies?

    Some of his ideas, including the payments charter, stem from this need to keep up with the times, he said. 

    Asked what other areas of crypto the OCC might look into, Brooks mentioned the wild frontiers of decentralized finance (DeFi) and lending as two examples.

    “DeFi is in its real infancy…none of that’s yet scaled, and yet it is the most interesting thing happening in crypto,” he said. “Is it possible to deliver a full suite of financial services by algorithm, without any central ledger keeper?”

    Brooks also said a digital dollar, which he has advocated in the past, is something that should be developed by the government with private entities. 

    A digital dollar issued and maintained solely by the Federal Reserve “misses the promise of the digital dollar” because it would be a centralized token that is not much different from another electronic ledger, he said.

    Brooks’ suggested payments charter would essentially let fintech companies operate under a single national regulatory regime, rather than seek 50 different state-level money transmitter licenses.

    “National platforms are bigger, more stable, more competitive for scale businesses,” he said, adding:

    “And so my thinking on the charter issue is that there are certain kinds of companies that are engaged in inherently borderless activities payments. AI, for example, crypto is an example there…[I]f they’re engaged in the financial business and they’re doing it across state lines, wouldn’t it be important for my agency to create a national license that allows them to do that business on a national basis, subject to the same kinds of supervision that traditional banks are subject to?”

    The OCC’s last attempt at fintech charter was a third rail of sorts. 

    Proposed in 2016, it would have explicitly allowed fintech firms to apply for bank charters and provide direct lending services. The charter was blocked by a number of state regulators, including the New York Department of Financial Services, and remains in legal limbo while it sits before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. At least one federal judge has already ruled against the OCC.

    Brooks anticipates some opposition from state-level regulators if he were to formally pursue a payments charter, and he said at least some of this opposition will come from the fact that states generate revenue by licensing entities.

    “If a state is currently getting paid and all of a sudden there’s a federal agency offering [companies], you know, more consistent supervision across the country, that becomes a threat to their revenue model or a threat to their.. jurisdiction” he said. 

    In Brooks’ view, this shouldn’t be a concern for the states. 

    The U.S. already has had a dual-banking system in place since around the time of the Civil War when the OCC was created, he noted. 

    “There are many, many banks chartered by the states out there because it’s the right business model for what they’re focused on,” he said. “If you’re focused on the local and regional business, it makes sense to have a state charter. If you’re focused on a national business, it probably makes more sense of a national charter, and … I don’t think there’s any tension between those two concepts.”

    Brooks is also interested in seeing how existing banks address crypto and DLT, and whether any of these entities are engaging with or incorporating new tools built on blockchain.

    Last week, the OCC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting feedback on a number of issues, including how crypto and distributed ledger tech interact with the existing banking system. While the notice explicitly excluded feedback on the payments charter, Brooks said he is still looking for comments on that proposal as well. 

    In particular, he expects feedback on what requirements or regulations would be needed to make the charter effective, such as if a company needs access to the Federal Reserve’s payment rails to be able to provide better payment services.

    “My thought is if those companies are doing those services which historically were done by banks, and those companies were having to cobble together the legal structure to operate on, you know, that is a patchwork of state-by-state stuff,” he said. “Maybe what makes more sense is to bring those companies into the supervised banking system.”

    The ANPR was already being developed prior to his arrival at the OCC in mid-March, he said. Crypto companies had previously reached out to the regulator to discuss bank charters, usually with respect to becoming qualified custodians (while there are regulated crypto custodians in the U.S., the vast majority have state trust licenses rather than a federal approval).

    Ultimately, Brooks said he hopes to reform how banks treat crypto companies in the U.S., and help “legitimate” companies access banking relationships. JPMorgan Chase made headlines last month when The Wall Street Journal reported it had provided banking services to Coinbase and Gemini. But in general only a handful of smaller banks have been willing to openly service the sector.

    “I think there is a perception at banks that somehow crypto is a disfavored asset class, and you shouldn’t even provide a payroll account or a corporate deposit account for a company engaging crypto,” he said. “And so what I want to do is make sure that we systematically identify what the impediments are to legitimate companies getting banking relationships, whether it’s corporate banking relationships, whether it is custodial services by banks to crypto companies or otherwise.”

    He stressed that he would only want companies that are fully compliant with regulations. For example, he would support providing banking relationships to stablecoin issuers that “are properly audited, properly reserved and everything else.”

    “We don’t want to see a situation blow up as happened with Tether’s original bank in Puerto Rico,” he said, referring to Noble Bank, which serviced Bitfinex and Tether in 2018 amid questions as to whether the USDT stablecoin was fully backed 1-for-1 with dollars. (Noble Bank listed itself for sale in late 2018 after reportedly losing the stablecoin issuer as a client.)

    While Brooks did not explicitly say or indicate he was hoping to bring crypto mainstream during his time at the OCC, his contemplated actions would appear to make that a goal. 

    Outside strict regulatory updates, he said he’d like to help educate the broader public about crypto.

    “I think there is an education that is required. You know, you’ve heard what the President [of the United States] has said about bitcoin and his skepticism about bitcoin as a store of value equivalent to the dollar. And you know those are concerns many people have,” he said. (President Trump said he was “not a fan” of bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies in a series of tweets last year.)

    Regulatory agencies by and large have the expertise they need around the space, Brooks said. Not just the OCC – the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have also developed a store of expertise. SEC Commissioner Peirce and former CFTC Chairman Giancarlo earned their nicknames after publicly advocating for looser regulatory restrictions around the space.

    However, these agencies are limited in how broadly they can apply their oversight, and are required to apply any actions they take to their mandates as defined by law.

    While Congress could help clarify how crypto is defined in the U.S., it has larger issues to address at the moment.

    “Crypto is too small relative to the magnitude of other things Congress is thinking about right now,” Brooks said. “We’re at a moment of a social justice inflection point in this country. We’re in a moment where we have, you know, a response to a pandemic that has created a macroeconomic crisis for the country. And so the idea that Congress is going to turn its attention to this and pass legislation, that’s not gonna happen anytime soon, which is proper. I mean, they have bigger fish to fry.”

    Still, as new technologies – not just crypto, but fintech firms in general – are already eating into banks’ market share. 

    “I think what some of these fintech companies show is banks today are a little bit like the department stores of 25 years ago. There was a time…if you needed to buy hardware and clothing and you wanted to go out to lunch, you did all of that at Sears. Nobody shops like that anymore,” Brooks said. “Right now, what they want to do is go to a boutique for their clothing. They go to a special hardware store for their hardware and then they go out to lunch somewhere down the street.”

    Fintech firms are the boutiques to major national banks’ department stores, he said, pointing to Stripe and SoFi as two examples.

    Brooks declined to say if he wanted to move beyond being the acting head to become the full-time Comptroller. 

    “It’s up to the president,” he said. 

    Still, Brooks acknowledged that his past relationship with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (Brooks was a vice chairman at Mnuchin’s OneWest Bank) may have played a role in his appointment as First Deputy, and then successor to now-former Comptroller Joseph Otting (another OneWest alum).

    “I can’t speak to what was in [Mnuchin’s] head, but I’ve known him for a long time and have worked with him in a variety of capacities for a long time,” Brooks said. “In my experience in [Washington], for these kinds of jobs it’s generally not about resume line items. It’s more about who you trust and whose judgement you have seen tested in a crisis.”

    Brooks is taking over the OCC at a time of unprecedented financial crisis. 

    The U.S. entered a recession in February, the National Bureau of Economic Research announced Monday, just days after Brooks said prolonged shutdowns could harm banks.

    The acting comptroller said banks were well-capitalized, to the point they would have survived the initial coronavirus crisis even without funding from the Fed and Congress. 

    “This is the strongest the banking system has ever been going into this crisis,” with banks maintaining deep liquidity and remaining well capitalized,” he said. 

    Still, “no matter how many months of a rainy day fund you have, if you run out of months, bad things happen.”

    • A Former Coinbase Lawyer Is About to Become Acting Head of US Bank Regulator
    • US Banking Regulator Suggests Federal Licensing Framework for Crypto Firms

    Source: finance.yahoo.com

    Author: Danny Nelson

    The 7 worst Bitcoin scams

    The 7 worst Bitcoin scams

    When Bitcoin first came along, one of its biggest draws was the use of blockchains to make the currency secure in our digital world. Unfortunately, digital wallets are still open to hacking, and people are still open to scamming — so, so much scamming.

    To get an idea of how bad it can get, let’s take a look at the biggest Bitcoin scams in history, and the often-ridiculous reasons that they happened.


    You may have already heard about Mt. Gox — it’s easily one of the most infamous crashes in Bitcoin history, a tangled knot of mistakes, corruption, and fraud. Back in the early 2010s, Mt. Gox was a Bitcoin exchange based in Tokyo that handled the majority of Bitcoin transactions around the world because people thought it was safe. There were not very many options to buy or sell Bitcoins at the time, and as such, Mt. Gox oversaw more than 70% of all global Bitcoin trades by early 2014.

    Unfortunately, Mt. Gox proved to be anything but secure. Within a few short years, it faced several massive successful hacking attacks, payment processing issues, governmental investigations, and a massive bank run as people tried to withdraw their funds (and found it might not even be possible). It even turned out that a hacker had been leisurely siphoning Bitcoins from the exchange all along.

    Ultimately, Mt. Gox gave up. In a devastating blow to the Bitcoin market, the company filed for bankruptcy and announced that it had lost around 850,000 Bitcoins, worth about $450 million dollars at the time, nearly $8 billion at today’s usual market value. While 200,000 Bitcoins were later rediscovered on the exchange, the price had crashed from $800 to $400 and caused the first-ever Bitcoin market crash.

    Of course, hackers didn’t make away with all of it — in fact, it’s hard to tell just how much money was hacked because of security issues and how much was simply stolen by Mt. Gox representatives. Millions and millions of dollars were lost to fraud, embezzlement, and other illegal acts made by company agents and partners. It will probably be years before we know just how deep the scamming went.

    bitcoin regulation

    One of the worst types of cryptocurrency scams involves a fake ICO (initial coin offering). The equivalent of a company going public, an ICO occurs when a business first starts selling its cryptocurrency.

    Most ICO scams use basic investment fraud, aka, “We promise we’re a super-real and very successful company!” when the company doesn’t actually exist and has no plan to make a profit. More advanced ICO scams may even pretend to be other real cryptocurrency organizations to confuse buyers who are searching online.

    Bitcoin Savings and Trust was even more blatant: It started out as an ICO scam based around a simple Ponzi scheme and then kept on chugging. Unwitting investors were promised amazing returns like 7% per week, and ultimately more than 265,000 Bitcoins were stolen via fraud. The whole Savings and Trust scheme finally collapsed in 2012, and organizer Trendon Shavers was caught up in court battles for years. This eventually led to his imprisonment and a $40 million fine. Too bad the Bitcoins that he stole were worth around $100,000,000 at the time of his sentencing.

    “Wait, Silk Road wasn’t exactly a scam, was it?” you may be wondering, and you would be correct. Silk Road was an infamous black market for trading drugs and other various illegal things on the dark web. Most importantly, it was taken down by the FBI and other law enforcement organizations, which actually helped to cement Bitcoin as a legitimate currency that governments cared about.

    Then things went a bit wrong. Specifically, the government agreed to auction the Bitcoins seized from Silk Road (something that commonly happens to harmless seized goods), so it contacted potential participants to let them know about the auction and ask if they were interested in signing up. Unfortunately, due to a classic “bcc” email mistake, all potential bidders could see everyone the email was sent to. That list was quickly copied, sold, and stolen.

    The result was a wave of scam emails sent to all these people who were already interested in buying Bitcoins. Phishing schemes like this one pretended to be from the government or related agencies, seeking out sensitive financial information that allowed the scammers to steal Bitcoins from those participating. It wasn’t the greatest way to end the Silk Road case.

    The worst scams are those that no one should fall for but somehow work anyway. This happened to Canadian Bitcoins, an exchange that was used to, as you might guess, manage Bitcoins for Canadian investors. Back in 2014, the exchange was expertly hacked, and at least $100,000 dollars worth of Bitcoins were stolen.

    So, where does the scam come in? Well, CB had leased out some space at a Rogers Data Centre for important server hardware, the sort of hardware you could use to hack into the exchange. The data center fell for what might be the oldest scam in the book, right behind, “Hey, what’s that over there!?”

    A hacker sent a message to Rogers Data Centre that (basically) said, “Hello, I am the CEO of Canadian Bitcoins. My name is James Grant. I need all your security codes.” Rogers verified that the CEO of Canadian Bitcoins was indeed named James Grant, then sent the hacker all the security codes they needed. No one ever checked to see if the message had really been from Grant or asked for any kind of confirmation, or, you know, tried to contact Grant through professional channels. You can imagine how displeased investors were when they found out.

    Bitcoin gold was a project designed to create a new form of cryptocurrency that also tapped into the Bitcoin name. That branding trick was a little shady, but nothing was particularly illegal.

    Then, expert scammers built a website called mybtgwallet.co, which offered users a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to generate Bitcoin gold wallets. All they had to do was submit their private keys used to protect their cryptocurrency wallets!

    Needless to say, people shouldn’t have fallen for such an obvious scam, but apparently, the website looked convincing to a lot of buyers. More than $3 million in Bitcoins were stolen by the scammers, along with a number of other cryptocurrencies. Even the creators of Bitcoin gold were roped into the scam and actually endorsed the website on its Twitter account before realizing it was all one big con. Remember, it’s really easy to lie online.

    While the realm of influencers and the validity of the products they are paid to endorse are often controversial, the fallout from the Centra scam was particularly damaging to the overall reputation of cryptocurrency. You might recall that a couple of years ago, DJ Khalid and Floyd Mayweather made several paid endorsements of Centra ICO, which was promoted as a secure method of storing cryptocurrency like Etherium, Ripple, and Bitcoin. Said endorsements allowed Centra to raise $30,000,000 in a matter of weeks and greatly raised the company’s public profile.

    Unfortunately, neither Khalid nor Mayweather declared that these were paid endorsements for an ICO, as required by law. As such, they were forced to pay over $700,000 between them in fines, penalties, and interest to the SEC (neither admitted guilt).

    As if this wasn’t bad enough, the Southern District of New York filed a civil action against Centra’s founders for making false statements about their corporate sponsorship and running a fraudulent ICO. Centra went from boom to bust in a matter of weeks, tarnishing the reputation of cryptocurrency and making the public even more skeptical.

    For any fans of mystery novels and police procedurals, the following may sound like a plot straight out of fiction. The CEO of investment firm QuadrigaCX died in February of 2019 suddenly and without explanation, leaving no one else capable of accessing client funds valued at around $190,000,000. Following the death of the CEO, it was uncovered that the financial records for 2018 showed no evidence of any such fund existing and that QuadrigaCX itself was in dire financial straits.

    In addition, one of the co-founders of QuadrigaCX may have been a convicted con artist going under a false identity. Allegations of money laundering have subsequently emerged, and it turns out the whole exchange was being run by just one developer. While the whole bizarre tale could easily fill an entire article itself, several class action lawsuits have been combined into a single committee comprised of several law firms, and monitors Ernst and Young have been court-appointed to manage any remaining assets.

    Source: www.yahoo.com

    Author: Lindsay Pietroluongo

    What is the exchange rate of USD (US Dollar) / HKD (Hong Kong Dollar) on Tuesday June 9, 2020

    Cryptocurrency exchangesSafety Check: If Crypto Custodian Fails, Clients May Not Get a Full Payout | Crypto Coin Growth
    Cryptocurrency exchangesMorCrypto Coin (MOR) Market Capitalization Hits $10,327.23
    Did the article help? Rate it
    1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
    Add comment

    Get Awesome Reviews

    Coins, exchanges, wallets, crypto games, crypto cards.
    Search for reviews and share your own experience.