#crypto fundamentals

[handweavers]

sorry it's still so funny that crypto and nfts like exploded and died after all that nonsense pyramid scheme scam shit and superbowl ads and bitcoin mining rigs ruining everything including the environment and it was all for nothing, it didn't change the world it didn't revolutionize anything it was all a complete scam and what remains of it still is. like blockchain tech isn't going anywhere it's probably going to exist in some capacity for the foreseeable future and crypto in general still exists (and existed before it became mainstream popular) but the vast majority of nfts, cryptocurrencies, etc are completely and utterly worthless now, shut down services, crashed markets and exchanges, etc. the only sad things are the people left holding the bag whose lives were ruined bc they got sucked into the scam and there's no justice or recompense + the sheer amt of environmental damage caused by this whole thing

[unopenablebox]

important part of my relationship is that my girlfriend isn't subscribed to money stuff, so when we walk to work together i can just describe really good money stuff bits to them

[masterai]

need help

i am really in need of help i am totally broken and jobless lossig all of my finances and relations i really need help i know its some how a shame to ask help in this way but i am really in need of money all of my accounts get blocked i really need help these are some ways to receive money that i share even your little help matters a lot at that time

bitcoin address 19ivJRqVGYCtmnPcv8p1KhJXscw3fqHSjx

etherum address 0xF0426De23A08b8ca53031d394268079fC9cd51b4

litecoin address

ltc1qg8n7jn8ql7z9hylql5yy0yq5n8u8vslgfacgnp

usdt address

TTRhk9DUxVoH2XnQCghxGHLmU4ZjNbNEDy

please help me share this as much as possible i really need help at that time

[kentonralphtoews]

Crypto didn’t crash because it’s broken.

It crashed because liquidity dried up globally.

That hit all risk assets — not just crypto.

Now liquidity is returning.

And that shift is why markets are starting to rise again.

[darkexacademy]

Mastering Crypto Fundamental Analysis and Support & Resistance Strategies

At Darkex Academy, we empower traders with in-depth knowledge of crypto fundamental analysis and support and resistance strategies—two essential pillars for smart decision-making in the digital asset market. Our courses guide you through the fundamentals of evaluating a cryptocurrency's intrinsic value by examining its technology, use case, team, and market potential. Alongside this, we teach how to identify and interpret support and resistance levels in crypto, helping traders anticipate price movements, optimize entry and exit points, and manage risk effectively. Whether you're a beginner or looking to refine your strategy, Darkex Academy equips you with the skills to trade with confidence and precision in the evolving crypto landscape.

[zman1175]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4776519-bitcoin-may-not-have-topped-yet-in-this-cycle#comment-100140866

[crypto28ro]

Nick Szabo: Pionierul Contractelor Inteligente și al Criptografiei în Sistemele Financiare

Nick Szabo este recunoscut ca una dintre cele mai influente personalități în domeniul tehnologiilor digitale, fiind pionierul conceptelor de contracte inteligente și a aplicațiilor criptografice în sistemele financiare. Prin ideile sale inovatoare și prin cercetările aprofundate, Szabo a pus bazele unui domeniu care astăzi stă la baza multor tehnologii blockchain și a revoluționat modul în care…

[fxgyaan]

What I’m about to say here will be controversial but if you pay attention you m ight learn something.

for more join us

https://www.instagram.com/fxgyaan

[marketwizards]

An In-Depth Analysis of Bitcoin's Potential Direction for the Week of January 27–31, 2025

Bitcoin (BTC), the leading cryptocurrency, finds itself at a pivotal juncture as it navigates through the critical week of January 27–31, 2025. With a mix of bullish momentum, technical uncertainties, and macroeconomic influences at play, traders and investors are closely watching key levels to anticipate the cryptocurrency's next move. This essay provides an in-depth analysis of the factors influencing Bitcoin's potential direction for the week, grounded in technical, on-chain, and market sentiment indicators.

Technical Resistance and Support Levels

Bitcoin's price action this week will revolve around several well-defined technical zones that could either catalyze a rally or trigger a deeper correction. The immediate resistance lies at $105,000, a critical psychological barrier that aligns with historical patterns of heightened trader activity. A sustained breakout above this level could ignite a rally toward $120,000, especially if institutional buying intensifies.

On the downside, Bitcoin faces support zones at $100,000 and $94,665. These levels have acted as safety nets during recent price volatility. Should Bitcoin fail to hold above $100,000, selling pressure could accelerate, testing the $92,000–$95,000 range. A breach below these supports may open the door for a deeper correction to $87,000, in line with Elliott Wave analysis.

Mixed On-Chain and Technical Signals

Bitcoin's technical and on-chain indicators paint a complex picture of the market's sentiment and momentum. On the bullish side, moving averages and the Relative Strength Index (RSI) at 66.33 indicate ongoing buying momentum. The RSI's proximity to the overbought zone suggests that while there may be short-term corrections, the broader bullish trend remains intact. Similarly, the Stochastic Oscillator, despite being in the overbought zone, signals potential upward continuation before a more substantial reversal.

Conversely, there are cautionary signs. CryptoQuant's Bitcoin Cycle Indicators (IBCI) point to a "distribution phase," which has historically coincided with market peaks. This raises the risk of a near-term pullback. Elliott Wave analysts from LiteFinance predict a possible decline to $89,107, citing corrective wave patterns, further emphasizing the need for vigilance.

Market Sentiment and Liquidation Events

Market sentiment remains volatile, as reflected in over $36 million in liquidations in the past 24 hours. The balanced ratio of long and short positions underscores trader uncertainty about Bitcoin's short-term trajectory. However, on-chain metrics provide a glimmer of hope. The Market Value to Realized Value (MVRV) ratio for short-term holders, currently at 0.96, suggests Bitcoin is undervalued. This could fuel accumulation among investors, potentially stabilizing prices.

Macro and Institutional Catalysts

Institutional involvement continues to play a decisive role in Bitcoin's price dynamics. Significant inflows into Bitcoin ETFs, such as the $475 million recorded in a single day, highlight growing institutional interest. Additionally, the influx of stablecoin deposits into exchanges signals preparation for potential buy orders, which could provide a buffer against downside pressure.

Seasonal trends, including the Spring Festival effect, have historically been bullish for Bitcoin as retail participation surges during this period. If this trend holds, it may contribute to upward momentum, counteracting bearish signals from technical and on-chain analyses.

Recent Price Action and Key Levels

Bitcoin experienced a sharp sell-off on January 27, briefly dropping below $100,000 for the first time in weeks. Currently, the price is testing the 50-day EMA and the 50% Fibonacci retracement level around $95,000, which historically act as strong support levels. A successful rebound from these levels could reignite bullish momentum, targeting $105,000 and beyond.

Conversely, a failure to hold these supports may trigger a more significant downturn, aligning with Elliott Wave forecasts and distribution phase warnings.

Predicted Direction for the Week

Bitcoin's performance this week is likely to be characterized by short-term volatility, as it oscillates between key support and resistance levels. Several scenarios could unfold:

Bullish Case: A rebound from $95,000–$100,000 could validate upward targets of $105,000 and potentially $120,000, driven by institutional demand and retail participation.

Bearish Case: A breakdown below $95,000 may lead to a retest of $87,000, in line with corrective patterns predicted by Elliott Wave analysis.

Neutral Scenario: Prolonged consolidation within the $95,000–$105,000 range may dominate if neither buyers nor sellers gain decisive control.

Key Levels to Watch

SupportResistance $95,000 (50-day EMA) $105,000 (immediate) $92,000–$94,665 $112,605 (bullish breakout) $87,000 (long-term) $120,000 (psychological)

Conclusion

Bitcoin's direction for the week of January 27–31, 2025, hinges on its ability to navigate critical technical levels amid conflicting signals. While the broader bullish trend appears intact, supported by institutional demand and seasonal factors, bearish warnings from on-chain metrics and technical analyses warrant caution. Traders should prepare for heightened volatility and closely monitor the $95,000–$105,000 range as decisive price thresholds.

By balancing risk and opportunity, market participants can capitalize on potential breakouts while safeguarding against downside risks. Ultimately, Bitcoin's performance this week will reflect the interplay of technical signals, market sentiment, and macroeconomic forces, setting the stage for its next major move.

[scentiaresearch]

for more🔥 #Casperlabs deep dive 🤿 #cryptoresearch #crypto #blockchain

Visit: https://scentia.io

[nigeriabitcoincommunity]

Mastering the Art of Trading Crypto: The Dos and Don'ts

Trading crypto is a phrase that has become synonymous with the rapidly evolving world of cryptocurrency trading. In this article, you can delve into the intricate art of trading digital assets. We focus on how traders can leverage the services of reputable brokers like Exness to maximize their success in the crypto market. If you are ready, we can get started. The Crypto Trading…

[dostoyevsky-official]

The Crypto Plot Against America’s Gold Reserves

The crypto “industry” was one of the biggest spenders in the 2024 election. It practically single-handedly bought a U.S. Senate seat in Ohio, turfing out labor’s most reliable senator, Sherrod Brown, with $40 million in advertising. And it convinced Donald Trump to make a 180 with a big sack of campaign contributions. Back in 2021, Trump said crypto was a “scam,” but now he has his own coin, his media site is in discussions to buy a crypto exchange, and he’s fully bought into the claims that the industry is overregulated.

So now that crypto has bought great political influence, it’s time to cash in. How might this happen? The basic idea is to turn the American government into the biggest crypto bag-holder of all time. If the plan goes through, hundreds of billions of dollars of public assets will be spent or leveraged to buy a million Bitcoins, allowing the tiny minority of Bitcoin moguls to finally cash out their holdings into real money. It would be one of the biggest upward transfers of wealth in world history.

[...] Crypto shill Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) proposes the Treasury issue new gold certificates based on the market price [of American gold reserves], and use the resulting cash—$677 billion at current prices—to buy up Bitcoins. In total, her bill would require the government to buy up 200,000 Bitcoins a year for five years, until a “strategic reserve” of a million would be accumulated.

This is revealing on several levels. The whole ideology of cryptocurrency is that it’s supposed to be outside the alleged corruption of governments or the extant financial system. Instead of transactions taking place on platforms run by Wall Street and regulated by the D.C. swamp, fiercely independent crypto entrepreneurs would build new businesses doing … something … out in a fresh economic Wild West.

So why on earth would buccaneering crypto people want the government scooping up a million Bitcoins—or about 5 percent of all that exist? The reason is obvious: so paper Bitcoin billionaires can cash out their holdings into real money without tanking the market. [...] The fundamental value of Bitcoin is zero. Even by crypto standards, the coin is terrible.

[...] Therefore, for early Bitcoin adopters sitting on vast piles of purely speculative assets, there is a huge structural need to get new suckers into the market. For anyone concerned about the corrosive role of money in politics, think about what this means: The crypto industry spent something on the order of $100 million in this election to install a government that will lure sacrificial lambs to a digital asset slaughterhouse, and make a handful of big Bitcoin hoarders generationally wealthy in the exchange.

[...] No one has deeper pockets than the federal government. No need to directly pick the pockets of suckers looking for a get-rich-quick scheme if you can pick everyone’s pockets indirectly by looting a vast store of treasure held in trust for the American people. It’s a logical end point for a technology whose sole meaningful use case is enabling criminal extortion and money laundering: finally carrying out the bank robber’s dream of draining the value in Fort Knox.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

UK publishers suing Google for $17.4b over rigged ad markets

THIS WEEKEND (June 7–9), I'm in AMHERST, NEW YORK to keynote the 25th Annual Media Ecology Association Convention and accept the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity.

Look, no one wants to kick Big Tech to the curb more than I do, but, also: it's good that Google indexes the news so people can find it, and it's good that Facebook provides forums where people can talk about the news.

It's not news if you can't find it. It's not news if you can't talk about it. We don't call information you can't find or discuss "news" – we call it "secrets."

And yet, the most popular – and widely deployed – anti-Big Tech tactic promulgated by the news industry and supported by many of my fellow trustbusters is premised on making Big Tech pay to index the news and/or provide a forum to discuss news articles. These "news bargaining codes" (or, less charitably, "link taxes") have been mooted or introduced in the EU, France, Spain, Australia, and Canada. There are proposals to introduce these in the US (through the JCPA) and in California (the CJPA).

These US bills are probably dead on arrival, for reasons that can be easily understood by the Canadian experience with them. After Canada introduced Bill C-18 – its own news bargaining code – Meta did exactly what it had done in many other places where this had been tried: blocked all news from Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and other Meta properties.

This has been a disaster for the news industry and a disaster for Canadians' ability to discuss the news. Oh, it makes Meta look like assholes, too, but Meta is the poster child for "too big to care" and is palpably indifferent to the PR costs of this boycott.

Frustrated lawmakers are now trying to figure out what to do next. The most common proposal is to order Meta to carry the news. Canadians should be worried about this, because the next government will almost certainly be helmed by the far-right conspiratorialist culture warrior Pierre Poilievre, who will doubtless use this power to order Facebook to platform "news sites" to give prominence to Canada's rotten bushel of crypto-fascist (and openly fascist) "news" sites.

Americans should worry about this too. A Donald Trump 2028 presidency combined with a must-carry rule for news would see Trump's cabinet appointees deciding what is (and is not) news, and ordering large social media platforms to cram the Daily Caller (or, you know, the Daily Stormer) into our eyeballs.

But there's another, more fundamental reason that must-carry is incompatible with the American system: the First Amendment. The government simply can't issue a blanket legal order to platforms requiring them to carry certain speech. They can strongly encourage it. A court can order limited compelled speech (say, a retraction following a finding of libel). Under emergency conditions, the government might be able to compel the transmission of urgent messages. But there's just no way the First Amendment can be squared with a blanket, ongoing order issued by the government to communications platforms requiring them to reproduce, and make available, everything published by some collection of their favorite news outlets.

This might also be illegal in Canada, but it's harder to be definitive. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in 1982, and Canada's Supreme Court is still figuring out what it means. Section Two of the Charter enshrines a free expression right, but it's worded in less absolute terms than the First Amendment, and that's deliberate. During the debate over the wording of the Charter, Canadian scholars and policymakers specifically invoked problems with First Amendment absolutism and tried to chart a middle course between strong protections for free expression and problems with the First Amendment's brook-no-exceptions language.

So maybe Canada's Supreme Court would find a must-carry order to Meta to be a violation of the Charter, but it's hard to say for sure. The Charter is both young and ambiguous, so it's harder to be definitive about what it would say about this hypothetical. But when it comes to the US and the First Amendment, that's categorically untrue. The US Constitution is centuries older than the Canadian Charter, and the First Amendment is extremely definitive, and there are reams of precedent interpreting it. The JPCA and CJPA are totally incompatible with the US Constitution. Passing them isn't as silly as passing a law declaring that Pi equals three or that water isn't wet, but it's in the neighborhood.

But all that isn't to say that the news industry shouldn't be attacking Big Tech. Far from it. Big Tech compulsively steals from the news!

But what Big Tech steals from the news isn't content.

It's money.

Big Tech steals money from the news. Take social media: when a news outlet invests in building a subscriber base on a social media platform, they're giving that platform a stick to beat them with. The more subscribers you have on social media, the more you'll be willing to pay to reach those subscribers, and the more incentive there is for the platform to suppress the reach of your articles unless you pay to "boost" your content.

This is plainly fraudulent. When I sign up to follow a news outlet on a social media site, I'm telling the platform to show me the things the news outlet publishes. When the platform uses that subscription as the basis for a blackmail plot, holding my desire to read the news to ransom, they are breaking their implied promise to me to show me the things I asked to see:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-need-end-end-web

This is stealing money from the news. It's the definition of an "unfair method of competition." Article 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act gives the FTC the power to step in and ban this practice, and they should:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

Big Tech also steals money from the news via the App Tax: the 30% rake that the mobile OS duopoly (Apple/Google) requires for every in-app purchase (Apple/Google also have policies that punish app vendors who take you to the web to make payments without paying the App Tax). 30% out of every subscriber dollar sent via an app is highway robbery! By contrast, the hyperconcentrated, price-gouging payment processing cartel charges 2-5% – about a tenth of the Big Tech tax. This is Big Tech stealing money from the news:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-must-open-app-stores

Finally, Big Tech steals money by monopolizing the ad market. The Google-Meta ad duopoly takes 51% out of every ad-dollar spent. The historic share going to advertising "intermediaries" is 10-15%. In other words, Google/Meta cornered the market on ads and then tripled the bite they were taking out of publishers' advertising revenue. They even have an illegal, collusive arrangement to rig this market, codenamed "Jedi Blue":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

There's two ways to unrig the ad market, and we should do both of them.

First, we should trustbust both Google and Meta and force them to sell off parts of their advertising businesses. Currently, both Google and Meta operate a "full stack" of ad services. They have an arm that represents advertisers buying space for ads. Another arm represents publishers selling space to advertisers. A third arm operates the marketplace where these sales take place. All three arms collect fees. On top of that: Google/Meta are both publishers and advertisers, competing with their own customers!

This is as if you were in court for a divorce and you discovered that the same lawyer representing your soon-to-be ex was also representing you…while serving as the judge…and trying to match with you both on Tinder. It shouldn't surprise you if at the end of that divorce, the court ruled that the family home should go to the lawyer.

So yeah, we should break up ad-tech:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-shatter-ad-tech

Also: we should ban surveillance advertising. Surveillance advertising gives ad-tech companies a permanent advantage over publishers. Ad-tech will always know more about readers' behavior than publishers do, because Big Tech engages in continuous, highly invasive surveillance of every internet user in the world. Surveillance ads perform a little better than "content-based ads" (ads sold based on the content of a web-page, not the behavior of the person looking at the page), but publishers will always know more about their content than ad-tech does. That means that even if content-based ads command a slightly lower price than surveillance ads, a much larger share of that payment will go to publishers:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

Banning surveillance advertising isn't just good business, it's good politics. The potential coalition for banning surveillance ads is everyone who is harmed by commercial surveillance. That's a coalition that's orders of magnitude larger than the pool of people who merely care about fairness in the ad/news industries. It's everyone who's worried about their grandparents being brainwashed on Facebook, or their teens becoming anorexic because of Instagram. It includes people angry about deepfake porn, and people angry about Black Lives Matter protesters' identities being handed to the cops by Google (see also: Jan 6 insurrectionists).

It also includes everyone who discovers that they're paying higher prices because a vendor is using surveillance data to determine how much they'll pay – like when McDonald's raises the price of your "meal deal" on your payday, based on the assumption that you will spend more when your bank account is at its highest monthly level:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/05/your-price-named/#privacy-first-again

Attacking Big Tech for stealing money is much smarter than pretending that the problem is Big Tech stealing content. We want Big Tech to make the news easy to find and discuss. We just want them to stop pocketing 30 cents out of every subscriber dollar and 51 cents out of ever ad dollar, and ransoming subscribers' social media subscriptions to extort publishers.

And there's amazing news on this front: a consortium of UK web-publishers called Ad Tech Collective Action has just triumphed in a high-stakes proceeding, and can now go ahead with a suit against Google, seeking damages of GBP13.6b ($17.4b) for the rigged ad-tech market:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/17-bln-uk-adtech-lawsuit-against-google-can-go-ahead-tribunal-rules-2024-06-05/

The ruling, from the Competition Appeal Tribunal, paves the way for a frontal assault on the thing Big Tech actually steals from publishers: money, not content.

This is exactly what publishing should be doing. Targeting the method by which tech steals from the news is a benefit to all kinds of news organizations, including the independent, journalist-owned publishers that are doing the best news work today. These independents do not have the same interests as corporate news, which is dominated by hedge funds and private equity raiders, who have spent decades buying up and hollowing out news outlets, and blaming the resulting decline in readership and profits on Craiglist.

You can read more about Big Finance's raid on the news in Margot Susca's Hedged: How Private Investment Funds Helped Destroy American Newspapers and Undermine Democracy:

https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p087561

You can also watch/listen to Adam Conover's excellent interview with Susca:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N21YfWy0-bA

Frankly, the looters and billionaires who bought and gutted our great papers are no more interested in the health of the news industry or democracy than Big Tech is. We should care about the news and the workers who produce the news, not the profits of the hedge-funds that own the news. An assault on Big Tech's monetary theft levels the playing field, making it easier for news workers and indies to compete directly with financialized news outlets and billionaire playthings, by letting indies keep more of every ad-dollar and more of every subscriber-dollar – and to reach their subscribers without paying ransom to social media.

Ending monetary theft – rather than licensing news search and discussion – is something that workers are far more interested in than their bosses. Any time you see workers and their bosses on the same side as a fight against Big Tech, you should look more closely. Bosses are not on their workers' side. If bosses get more money out of Big Tech, they will not share those gains with workers unless someone forces them to.

That's where antitrust comes in. Antitrust is designed to strike at power, and enforcers have broad authority to blunt the power of corporate juggernauts. Remember Article 5 of the FTC Act, the one that lets the FTC block "unfair methods of competition?" FTC Chair Lina Khan has proposed using it to regulate training AI, specifically to craft rules that address the labor and privacy issues with AI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mh8Z5pcJpg

This is an approach that can put creative workers where they belong, in a coalition with other workers, rather than with their bosses. The copyright approach to curbing AI training is beloved of the same media companies that are eagerly screwing their workers. If we manage to make copyright – a transferrable right that a worker can be forced to turn over their employer – into the system that regulates AI training, it won't stop training. It'll just trigger every entertainment company changing their boilerplate contract so that creative workers have to sign over their AI rights or be shown the door:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand

Then those same entertainment and news companies will train AI models and try to fire most of their workers and slash the pay of the remainder using those models' output. Using copyright to regulate AI training makes changes to who gets to benefit from workers' misery, shifting some of our stolen wages from AI companies to entertainment companies. But it won't stop them from ruining our lives.

By contrast, focusing on actual labor rights – say, through an FTCA 5 rulemaking – has the potential to protect those rights from all parties, and puts us on the same side as call-center workers, train drivers, radiologists and anyone else whose wages are being targeted by AI companies and their customers.

Policy fights are a recurring monkey's paw nightmare in which we try to do something to fight corruption and bullying, only to be outmaneuvered by corrupt bullies. Making good policy is no guarantee of a good outcome, but it sure helps – and good policy starts with targeting the thing you want to fix. If we're worried that news is being financially starved by Big Tech, then we should go after the money, not the links.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/06/stealing-money-not-content/#content-free

[ohnoitstbskyen]

So, considering what's going on with Riot right now, do you think Arcane Season 2 got caught up in all of this restructuring?

Yes and no. Arcane season 2 is part of the reason for the restructuring.

As I understand it, internally at Riot, after Arcane was a huge (and more importantly: prestigious!) success, the decision was made to basically hand the entirety of the game's lore and story over to the Entertainment division within Riot. These are the people in large part responsible for projects like Arcane, K/DA, Heartsteel, that animated series China got, all that sort of thing.

The writers at Riot were basically told to flat out stop producing new content and lore for the game - that's why there's BEEN no new story content for League for over a year - because everything was going to be consolidated under the Entertainment division from now on. This is why Riot started talking about "One Runeterra" and "Arcane is going to be canon" and so on.

The success of Arcane convinced executives that what League of Legends needs is a singular cohesive brand with its most successful public property leading the charge, Arcane is going to be the gateway drug, the hook on the end of the line that brings new players and new paying customers into the exciting world of the League of Legends multimedia IP universe!

Nevermind that Arcane's story and worldbuilding is fundamentally incompatible with >checks notes< the overwhelming majority of Runeterra as it exists and enormous compromises would have to be made to either the world of Runeterra or Arcane itself to make it work. Arcane is the big shiny prestigious mainstream Emmy-award winning project that every executive wants to put their name next to, and like companies Pivoting To Video in 2015 because Facebook showed them inflated viewership stats, Riot Games is Pivoting To Arcane. It's better than them pivoting to crypto and NFTs, at least, although I know for a fact that high ranking people at Riot tried to make that happen too.

Now, the primary cause for all of these games industry layoffs is that interest rates aren't zero anymore. Borrowing money isn't free, the curve of constant growth has ever so slightly slowed, taking on debt is becoming a little tiny bit more risky than it was previously, and corporations are responding to this with massive rounds of layoffs and constriction to show "financial responsibility" and prove to shareholders that they are prioritizing core growth strategies and blah blah blah etc. They're also trying to kneecap the growing labor movement in the games industry and exert downwards pressure on wages, but the interest rates seem to have been the main thing.

In Riot's particular case, a secondary reason is they want to pivot the focus of the company to support their One Runeterra pipe dream, so a lot of the people who got fired at Riot are writers, artists, creative leads and sometimes extremely senior and successful staff who are now surplus to requirements. This is also why Riot shut down Riot Forge in the same round of layoffs - can't have a bunch of talented indie devs going off making video games that don't adhere to the new One Runeterra policy. What if someone played Mageseeker and got confused how there can be mages all over Demacia but somehow there are no mages in Arcane's Piltover and Zaun. That's a plot hole! People write snarky articles about that sort of thing. It turns off new consumers! What if Cinema Sins makes a video making fun of it?!?

So yeah. A bunch of cocaine-addled fame hungry executive vultures at Riot are absolutely gagging on their own d*cks to put their name next to Arcane related projects, and since they were going to be screwing hundreds of people out of their careers, healthcare, and in some cases their fucking visa status anyway, it seems to have presented a nice opportunity to clear the board for their latest Visionary Scheme for the company IP.

That is as I understand the situation, anyway. I'm a bitter old man and most of what I hear is second hand and anonymous gossip through my social networks, take what I say with a grain of salt, but I've followed this company for (oh god) twelve years now and I have developed a tragically keen understanding of how its executive class operates.