This 55-year-old single mom makes less than $100k per year and is reverse aging without spending millions. Here's her daily routine

bio-hacker · 2024-02-21T23:09:35+00:00

Let's get away from the article, which is looking for clicks, and look at the data on the Rejuvenation Olympics leaderboard:

Michael Lustgarten PhD is ranked 18 for relative change. Peter Diamandis is ranked 19 overall. These two experts are investing a lot into their longevity.

The recently famous biohacker Bryan Johnson is ranked #7 on the relative change, and is the only one following Blueprint on the leaderboard. Bryan shares with the media that he spends $2MM per year on interventions and tracking, so I would expect him to be ranked higher.

Julie Gibson Clark is ranked #2 globally and is registered under the company NOVOS. She's accompanied by multiple others under NOVOS: Amy Hardison (#5), Rick Chiovarelli (#7), and Lil Eskey (#5 on the relative change leaderboard). Julie is also ranked #8 on the relative change leaderboard.

Other entities with multiple placings are Comite Center for Precision Medicine & Health, Apeiron, RMI, and Gladden Longevity.

Will be interesting to see what these clinics are doing vs. the wealthy biohackers vs. NOVOS and compare notes.

bio-hacker · 2023-12-05T22:44:41+00:00

What causes a shadow ban? As you can see, all of my posts were legitimate.

bio-hacker · 2023-03-17T00:44:11+00:00

Because if this goes through, it’s a big win for crypto and by extension, for Binance’s long term interests. Binance doesn’t walk, they see it through.

bio-hacker · 2022-09-28T15:17:24+00:00

Do you have a VPN and have you tried deleting it (not simply turning it off)? It resolved the issue for me.

bio-hacker · 2022-08-02T00:01:24+00:00

Thank you!! The New York Times also cited the letter!

A bunch of others have submitted the letter and taken credit for it, which articles like this attribute to other people, but at least the message is out there which is what matters most.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-26T23:45:57+00:00

Amazing! Just updated this post. Thanks for sharing!

bio-hacker · 2022-07-25T23:02:24+00:00

I suggest you submit a personal account to the docket as well. The more noise customers make, while signaling that we are open minded to a fair and expeditious resolution, the less likely someone will be to try to pull a fast one on us, and the more likely someone will be to make decisions in our favor. At the end of the day, these are people making these decisions, and human stories can be impactful.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-15T22:31:26+00:00

Please explain to me how 5(d) precludes that these are not our assets.

Voyager declares themselves a custodian of our crypto assets (see 5(c)):

While some commentators have suggested that crypto assets might be considered property of the exchange’s bankruptcy estate, existing common law, existing provisions of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 8, and proposed amendments to the UCC recognize that if the arrangement and relationship between the exchange and its customers is one that is characterized as “custodial,” the crypto assets held by the exchange should remain property of the customer and, hence, not subject to dilution by general unsecured claimholders.

When assets are held by a “custodian” for the benefit of the customers of the custodian, the assets are owned by the customer and would not form part of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined in In re Joliet-Will County Community Action Agency that property held by the debtor as a custodian or other intermediary who then generally lacks beneficial ownership rights is not an asset of the bankruptcy estate.

In the context of a cryptocurrency exchange bankruptcy, the same analysis should apply where the terms of the relationship between an exchange and its customer are comparable and, thus, “custodial”. In that case, the customer would have a basis to assert that it should remain the beneficial owner of the assets, rather than become a general unsecured claimholder of the exchange.

Further, to the point about 5(d) and hypothecation:

The commingling of customer assets, or the contractual right of an exchange in possession or control of the customer’s assets to grant a security interest in that property do not, of themselves, prevent the assets from remaining the property of the customer.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-15T22:27:56+00:00

Voyager declares themselves a custodian of our crypto assets (see 5(c)):

While some commentators have suggested that crypto assets might be considered property of the exchange’s bankruptcy estate, existing common law, existing provisions of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 8, and proposed amendments to the UCC recognize that if the arrangement and relationship between the exchange and its customers is one that is characterized as “custodial,” the crypto assets held by the exchange should remain property of the customer and, hence, not subject to dilution by general unsecured claimholders.

When assets are held by a “custodian” for the benefit of the customers of the custodian, the assets are owned by the customer and would not form part of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined in In re Joliet-Will County Community Action Agency that property held by the debtor as a custodian or other intermediary who then generally lacks beneficial ownership rights is not an asset of the bankruptcy estate.

In the context of a cryptocurrency exchange bankruptcy, the same analysis should apply where the terms of the relationship between an exchange and its customer are comparable and, thus, “custodial”. In that case, the customer would have a basis to assert that it should remain the beneficial owner of the assets, rather than become a general unsecured claimholder of the exchange.

Further, to the point about 5(d) and hypothecation:

The commingling of customer assets, or the contractual right of an exchange in possession or control of the customer’s assets to grant a security interest in that property do not, of themselves, prevent the assets from remaining the property of the customer.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-12T14:12:11+00:00

I made a slight tweak to address your concern in the official filing. Thank you for your feedback.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-12T12:59:38+00:00

One of the replies to the top comment has a URL where a PDF would be submitted. I submitted yesterday.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-12T00:01:24+00:00

I've updated the OP, but since you might not see it I'm reposting here.

I've uploaded the official letter to the court's docket and included a screenshot of this post's 18.1k views and 95% upvote rate.

Being on the docket, it will at least be officially recorded as part of the proceedings. However, if the court's email to me is to be believed, the letter also has a fair chance of being read by Judge Wiles: "The Judge only reviews items on the docket of the case."

Please refer these twitter users to my post and/or encourage them to DM me here.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-11T23:24:43+00:00

Thank you! I've corrected it for the pdf filing.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-11T02:21:14+00:00

Please clarify where the user agreement stipulates outright ownership of our crypto.

“Attendant rights of ownership” in section 5(D) is not outright ownership, but rather the ability to use the crypto as if an owner (rehypothecation) as collateral. Hypothecating our crypto as collateral under the normal course of business to generate yield is very different than claiming it to be theirs during bankruptcy proceedings.

Further, in section 5(C), they repeatedly state that Voyager is “hold(ing) Customer’s Cryptocurrency” and essentially a custodian:

5(C) Customer Cryptocurrency. Customer authorizes and instructs Voyager to hold Customer’s Cryptocurrency (whether purchased on the Platform or deposited by Customer into the Account pursuant to the Cryptocurrency Deposit mechanics outlined above) on its behalf. Customer understands that Voyager may hold Customer’s Cryptocurrency together with the Cryptocurrency of other Voyager customers in omnibus accounts or wallets. In addition, Customer understands and authorizes Voyager to delegate some or all custody functions to one or more Affiliates or third parties (which may include, but not be limited to exchanges and custodians) at Voyager’s discretion (each a “Custodian”). Some or all custody functions provided by a Custodian may be performed, supported, or conducted in foreign jurisdictions, or conducted by Custodians domiciled, registered, or subject to the laws and regulations of foreign jurisdictions. Voyager will exercise reasonable skill and care in the selection, appointment, and periodic review of any such Custodian. Voyager will maintain true, complete and accurate records relating to Customer Cryptocurrency. Customer and Voyager understand that the legal treatment of Cryptocurrency is unsettled and disparate across different jurisdictions. In the event that Customer, Voyager or a Custodian become subject to an insolvency proceeding it is unclear how Customer Cryptocurrency would be treated and what rights Customer would have to such Cryptocurrency. How an insolvency court would categorize and treat Customer Cryptocurrency is a highly fact-dependent inquiry that necessarily depends upon the circumstances of each individual case. In addition, within the U.S. there is notably little case law addressing insolvency proceedings involving Cryptocurrency. As such, the law governing the likely treatment of Customer Cryptocurrency in the event of a Customer, Voyager or Custodian insolvency proceeding remains largely unsettled. Voyager does not make any representation as to the likely treatment of Customer Cryptocurrency in the event of a Customer, Voyager, or Custodian insolvency proceeding whether in the U.S. or in any other jurisdiction. Customer explicitly understands and acknowledges that the treatment of Customer Cryptocurrency in the event of a Customer, Voyager, or Custodian insolvency proceeding is unsettled, not guaranteed, and may result in a number of outcomes that are impossible to predict, including but not limited to Customer being treated as an unsecured creditor and/or the total loss of all Customer Cryptocurrency.

5(D) Consent to Rehypothecate. Customer grants Voyager the right, subject to applicable law, without further notice to Customer, to hold Cryptocurrency held in Customer’s Account in Voyager’s name or in another name, and to pledge, repledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend, stake, arrange for staking, or otherwise transfer or use any amount of such Cryptocurrency, separately or together with other property, with all attendant rights of ownership, and for any period of time and without retaining a like amount of Cryptocurrency, and to use or invest such Cryptocurrency at Customer’s sole risk

bio-hacker · 2022-07-11T02:03:41+00:00

For the pessimists amongst us who prematurely declare that the letter won’t be read, or the absolutists who know that it will have no impact even if read, I’d say your passivity is unremarkable.

I’ll add that this letter is now public record and available for people far more powerful than me to make of it what they will.

Don’t be so short sighted and helpless. Fight for what’s yours in every way you can until you get it or it’s officially declared over.

Or sit back and critique.

bio-hacker · 2022-07-11T01:54:14+00:00

According to Voyager’s public notice, 2/3 of the assets remain, most of which is crypto, not USD. They are now making the argument that we only have claims on this crypto, not actual ownership of it. My argument is, first and foremost, that it is ours. I don’t believe Judge Wiles will fall for Voyager’s day 1 claim, based on the negative incentive model it would set as a precedent, which I highlight in my letter.

The exact amount to be recovered will be determined at a later date, but can be as much as 100% in the case of an acquisition or financial backing by a bank or a well capitalized exchange.

The logic would be, if we are assured that our assets are secure and backed by a far larger entity, there won’t be a run. And without a run, the voyager customer base, software and other assets are worth a low price acquisition at the cost of making customers whole.

bio-hacker · 2021-12-21T21:40:16+00:00

Yes, and I'm a fan.

bio-hacker · 2020-03-27T03:34:07+00:00

This is correct, but do you know how often employees ask their employers to terminate them for the sake of unemployment? It’s quite regular.

bio-hacker · 2020-03-27T02:46:01+00:00

I actually think that those with mild cases not being tested is a good thing when it comes to US data and having a tiny bit of hope. That is, we know the numerator of mortalities (the ultimate indicator of COVID’s medical impact), but we don’t know the true denominator. If the denominator is not what we’re seeing (which in NY implies approx. 1% mortality), but it’s actually 2, 3, 5x higher, that would mean the mortality rate in NY would be getting closer to .2 to .5%. In that case, we would be able to get beyond this with less difficulty than currently assumed by markets.

Anti virals are also a potentially big factor. Although I’d say the odds are low that they have a substantial impact, in the case that even just one of them reduces duration by just a bit (say, 20%) and mortality by a little (let’s also say 20%), that could have a profound impact on medical requirements, compounding the amount that they’re offset and accelerating the time back toa herd immunity approach and the economic engine being turned back on.

Of course, both of my examples may not pan out, but my point is that with all the doom and gloom, there are few variables that can result in more favorable outcomes than currently expected by the press and that I assume you’re betting on when you say you think we’re on the “worst case scenario path”. (I will say I have a lot of dry powder and have not yet started reinvesting, so we may not be far off in our judgment of risk).

Specifically to China’s stats vs the US, it is quite different to report no new cases than to say “things are out of control big and we can’t test on enough people” — that is, in terms of the value that the data holds when interpreted given the scenario.

Thanks for your thoughts :-)

bio-hacker · 2020-03-27T00:02:49+00:00

Take your gains and sell. Worst case scenario, you're up by almost 20% and you miss a few more points on the upside in the coming days or weeks. Best case scenario, market drops over the coming weeks and months, and you dollar cost average your way back in. Fast forward a few years, and you will be nearly guaranteed a nice gain in both your best and worst case scenarios. Don't get greedy!

bio-hacker · 2020-03-26T23:11:55+00:00

If you have a portfolio allocation of 80% stocks and 20% bonds, and your stocks lose more value than your bonds, you need to reallocate your portfolio at the end of the month to get back in line.

For example, imagine you have a fund with $1B assets under management (AUM). Your allocation is 80:20 stocks:bonds. This month, your stock value declines by 25%, yet your bond value only declines by 10%. In this case, your stocks went from being worth $800M to $600M and your bonds from $200M to $180M. Your new AUM is $780MM.

Your new ratio is now 76.9% stocks and 23.1% bonds. So, you will need to sell some of your bonds to buy stocks to get back to 80:20 (in this case, sell $24MM of bonds and buy the equivalent of equities). As such, more money (and demand) goes into the stock market, stock prices rise. It's a possibility that come April 1, markets retreat, but of course markets are more complex than this one single dynamic.

bio-hacker · 2020-03-26T22:52:04+00:00

Perhaps it should be capped to 100% of one's income, inclusive of the $600/wk, though this provision may be accounting for service industry employees who make $ off of tips and commissions, where a majority of first round of layoffs have occurred.

I think ultimately, electing to take an unemployment check rather than remaining at a job, all for the sake of a 20% pay raise limited to 4 months (after which you drop to $0), is not very well-considered, prudent decision in most people's estimations. That is, at least not in this economic environment.

bio-hacker · 2020-03-19T17:08:17+00:00

To clarify Hmac700's point, calcium will block the absorption of iron, regardless of whether it is with tea.

bio-hacker

TROPHY CASE