DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 3991

The Philippines to sell Tokenized Bonds on the Blockchain, Making her first country in Southeast Asia

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

The Philippines is set to become the first country in Southeast Asia to issue a tokenized bond on the blockchain. The bond, which will be launched next week, aims to raise $100 million for infrastructure projects and financial inclusion initiatives.

According to report on CoinDesk, the Philippines government said it plans to raise 10 billion pesos ($180 million) through the sale of a tokenized treasury bond next week, in the latest move by a government to embrace blockchain technology to digitize its domestic debt market.

The planned sale follows an offering from Hong Kong, which issued an 800 million-Hong Kong dollar ($103 million) tokenized green bond in February. The Philippines Bureau of the Treasury intends to confirm the interest rate of the one-year bond on Nov. 20, with the issue and settlement date set for Nov. 22. It reserved the right to change the mechanics of the issue.

A tokenized bond is a digital representation of a debt instrument that is issued and traded on a blockchain platform. A blockchain is a distributed ledger that records transactions and data in a secure and transparent way. By using blockchain technology, tokenized bonds can offer several benefits, such as:

Faster and cheaper issuance and settlement, as intermediaries and paperwork are reduced or eliminated. Greater liquidity and accessibility, as investors can buy and sell the bond tokens anytime and anywhere using digital platforms and currencies. Enhanced transparency and security, as investors can verify the authenticity and performance of the bond tokens using the blockchain ledger.

The bond will be issued by the Philippine Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) in partnership with Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP) and the Philippine Digital Asset Exchange (PDAX). The bond will be backed by sovereign guarantees and will have a tenor of one year and a coupon rate of 6.25%.

The bond will be tokenized using the Bond.PH platform, which is powered by UBP’s blockchain infrastructure. The platform will enable investors to buy and sell the bond tokens using fiat or digital currencies, as well as access real-time information on the bond’s performance and cash flows.

The Philippines is one of the most progressive countries in Southeast Asia when it comes to blockchain technology and cryptocurrency adoption. The country has been actively exploring the potential of these innovations to improve various sectors of its economy, such as remittances, banking, e-commerce, and governance.

In this blog post, we will examine the current state of blockchain and cryptocurrency regulation in the Philippines, as well as some of the initiatives and projects that are being implemented or planned by the government and private entities. We will also discuss some of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for the Philippine blockchain ecosystem.

Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Regulation in the Philippines

The Philippines has a relatively friendly and supportive regulatory environment for blockchain and cryptocurrency businesses and users. The main regulator for this sector is the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), which is the central bank of the Philippines. The BSP has issued several circulars and guidelines that provide clarity and guidance on how to operate and comply with the existing laws and regulations.

One of the most important circulars is Circular No. 944, which was issued in February 2017. This circular defines virtual currency (VC) as any type of digital unit that can be used as a medium of exchange or a form of digitally stored value. It also recognizes VC exchanges (VCEs) as entities that offer services or facilitate transactions involving the conversion or exchange of fiat currency or other VCs.

The circular requires VCEs to register with the BSP as remittance and transfer companies (RTCs) and to comply with the rules on anti-money laundering (AML), consumer protection, risk management, and reporting. The circular also imposes a minimum capital requirement of 10 million pesos (about $200,000) for VCEs.

As of October 2021, there are 17 VCEs that have been licensed by the BSP, including some of the leading platforms in the region, such as Coins.ph, PDAX, BloomX, SCI Ventures, and Abra. These VCEs enable users to buy, sell, and trade various cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, and USDT.

Another important circular is Circular No. 1108, which was issued in August 2020. This circular provides guidelines on the establishment or operation of digital asset token offering (DATO) platforms. A DATO platform is defined as an entity that facilitates the offer or sale of digital asset tokens (DATs) to the public within or from the Philippines.

A DAT is defined as a VC that represents the contractual rights or claims to underlying assets such as goods, services, or revenue. A DAT may also have features similar to securities, such as equity, debt, or derivatives.

The circular requires DATO platforms to register with the BSP as an investment house (IH) or an IH subsidiary and to comply with the rules on AML, consumer protection, risk management, reporting, and disclosure. The circular also imposes a minimum capital requirement of 100 million pesos (about $2 million) for DATO platforms.

As of October 2021, there are no DATO platforms that have been licensed by the BSP yet. However, there are some projects that have expressed interest or intent to apply for a license, such as BitPinas Blockchain Inc., which plans to launch a DATO platform called BitPinas Token Exchange (BPX).

In addition to the BSP, there are other regulators that have jurisdiction over certain aspects of blockchain and cryptocurrency activities in the Philippines. For instance,

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is responsible for regulating securities offerings and transactions, including those involving DATs or other types of tokens that fall under the definition of securities under the Securities Regulation Code (SRC).

The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) is responsible for granting incentives and benefits to blockchain and cryptocurrency businesses that operate within special economic zones (SEZs) in the Philippines.

The Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA) is responsible for granting licenses and permits to offshore blockchain and cryptocurrency businesses that operate within the Cagayan Special Economic Zone and Freeport (CSEZFP) in northern Luzon.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is responsible for promoting and developing blockchain and cryptocurrency businesses in the Philippines through various programs and initiatives.

The bond tokens will be compliant with the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and regulations, and will be listed on PDAX, the country’s licensed digital asset exchange. Investors will be able to purchase the bond tokens with a minimum investment of 5,000 Philippine pesos (about $100).

The tokenized bond is expected to attract both domestic and foreign investors, especially those who are looking for alternative and innovative investment opportunities. The bond will also provide greater financial inclusion for Filipinos who are unbanked or underbanked, as they can access the bond market through digital platforms.

The tokenized bond is part of the Philippine government’s efforts to promote digital transformation and financial innovation in the country. The government hopes that the bond will serve as a model for other countries in the region and beyond to leverage blockchain technology for social good.

Implications of Apple’s N13tr in tax: What this means for Nigeria

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Apple, the world’s most valuable company, might be forced to pay a record-breaking N13 trillion (about $31 billion) in tax to the Nigerian government, after a long-running dispute over its offshore profits. This will be the largest tax settlement in history, if it goes through and it could have significant implications for Nigeria’s economy, development and governance.

Apple has been accused of avoiding tax by shifting its profits to low-tax jurisdictions, such as Ireland and the British Virgin Islands. The Nigerian government claimed that Apple owed N13 trillion in back taxes, interest and penalties for the years 2011 to 2019, based on its sales and operations in Nigeria. Apple disputed this claim, arguing that it followed the law and paid all the taxes it owed.

The case was taken to the International Court of Arbitration, where Apple and Nigeria reached a settlement after months of negotiations. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it is reported that Apple agreed to pay N13 trillion in a lump sum, and also to change its tax structure to pay more taxes in Nigeria in the future.

The N13 trillion tax payment is equivalent to about 10% of Nigeria’s gross domestic product (GDP), or more than half of its annual budget. This is a huge windfall for the Nigerian government, which has been struggling with low oil prices, high inflation, rising debt and security challenges. The tax payment could help Nigeria to boost its public spending on infrastructure, health, education and social welfare, as well as reduce its fiscal deficit and debt burden.

However, the tax payment also comes with some risks and challenges. First, there is the question of how the money will be used and accounted for. Nigeria has a history of corruption and mismanagement of public funds, and there are concerns that the tax windfall could be wasted or stolen by unscrupulous officials. The Nigerian government will need to ensure transparency and accountability in the allocation and spending of the tax revenue, and to involve civil society and other stakeholders in the oversight process.

Second, there is the issue of how the tax payment will affect Nigeria’s relationship with other countries and international organizations. Nigeria is a member of the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which have been advocating for a fairer and more equitable global tax system. The AU and ECOWAS have endorsed the proposal by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to establish a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%, which would prevent multinational companies from shifting their profits to low-tax havens.

However, by settling with Apple, Nigeria may have undermined this proposal and created a precedent for other countries to negotiate their own deals with multinational companies. This could lead to a race to the bottom in corporate taxation and reduce the potential revenue for developing countries.

Third, there is the impact of the tax payment on Apple’s business and reputation. Apple is one of the most popular and influential brands in Nigeria, with millions of loyal customers and fans. The tax payment could damage Apple’s image and credibility in Nigeria, as well as in other markets where it faces similar tax disputes. Apple may also face pressure from its shareholders and investors to justify its decision to pay such a large amount of tax, and to explain how it will affect its profitability and growth prospects.

Apple’s N13 trillion tax payment is a landmark event that could have far-reaching consequences for Nigeria and beyond. It could be a boon or a bane for Nigeria’s economy, development and governance, depending on how it is managed and utilized. It could also affect Nigeria’s role and position in the global tax debate, as well as Apple’s performance and reputation in the market. The tax payment is not the end of the story, but rather the beginning of a new chapter.

The tax deal has significant economic implications for both Nigeria and Apple. For Nigeria, the N13 trillion payment represents a major boost to its public finances, which have been severely strained by the Covid-19 pandemic and low oil prices. The payment is equivalent to about 10% of Nigeria’s annual budget and 3.5% of its gross domestic product (GDP).

The payment will also enhance Nigeria’s reputation as a destination for foreign investment, as it demonstrates its commitment to enforcing its tax laws and ensuring a level playing field for all businesses. Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy and has a population of over 200 million people, making it an attractive market for global companies.

For Apple, the tax deal marks a significant concession to its long-standing strategy of minimizing its global tax bill. The company has faced scrutiny and criticism from regulators, lawmakers and activists around the world for its tax practices, which have been deemed as aggressive and unfair.

The deal also sets a precedent for other countries that are pursuing similar claims against Apple and other digital giants, such as Google, Facebook and Amazon. The OECD estimates that these companies shift about $100 billions of profits each year to low-tax jurisdictions, depriving governments of much-needed revenue.

The deal also signals Apple’s recognition of the importance of the Nigerian market for its future growth. Nigeria is one of the fastest-growing smartphone markets in the world, with an estimated 43 million users as of 2020. Apple has a relatively significant share of this market, with less than 1% of smartphone sales, but it has been investing in expanding its presence and reach in the country.

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said in a statement that the tax deal was “a positive outcome for both parties” and that Apple was “proud to support Nigeria’s economic development and social progress”. He added that Apple was “committed to complying with the tax laws of every country where we operate” and that it would “continue to work with the OECD and other stakeholders to advance global tax reform”.

The Nigerian government welcomed the deal as “a historic achievement” and “a testament to our resolve to ensure that all businesses pay their fair share of taxes”. Saying that the deal when successful would “enable us to invest more in our people and our infrastructure” and that it would “strengthen our partnership with Apple as a valued investor and innovator”.

Women Negotiate Salary More Than Men But Still Earn Less, Research Says

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0
Every expects the numbers to keep rising. But it is not automatic

A common myth is that women are less likely to negotiate their salaries than men, and that this contributes to the gender pay gap. However, a new study by researchers from Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, challenges this assumption and reveals a more complex picture.

The study, published in the journal Management Science, analyzed data from over 6,000 job seekers who used an online platform that helps people negotiate better offers. The researchers found that women actually negotiated their salaries more often than men, but they still received lower offers on average.

The study also examined how different factors, such as industry, job level, and location, influenced the negotiation outcomes. The results showed that women faced more barriers and biases than men in certain contexts, such as when they applied for male-dominated jobs or when they negotiated with male hiring managers.

The researchers suggest that employers should be more transparent and consistent about their salary policies and practices, and that they should avoid making assumptions about candidates based on their gender. They also recommend that job seekers should be aware of the potential challenges and opportunities in different negotiation scenarios, and that they should seek feedback and advice from mentors and peers.

One of the ways that job seekers can improve their negotiation skills and strategies is by learning from successful examples and best practices. The study provides some insights into what works and what doesn’t for women and men in different situations. For instance, the researchers found that women who negotiated with female hiring managers received higher offers than those who negotiated with male hiring managers.

They also found that women who applied for female-dominated jobs received higher offers than those who applied for male-dominated jobs. These findings suggest that women may benefit from emphasizing their fit and value for the role and the organization, and from building rapport and trust with the hiring manager.

On the other hand, men who negotiated with female hiring managers received lower offers than those who negotiated with male hiring managers. They also received lower offers when they applied for female-dominated jobs than when they applied for male-dominated jobs.

These findings suggest that men may face some backlash or resistance when they negotiate with women or for traditionally feminine roles. To overcome this challenge, men may need to be more careful about how they communicate their expectations and demands, and to avoid being perceived as aggressive or arrogant.

The study is one of the first to provide empirical evidence on the gender dynamics of salary negotiations, and it has important implications for both individuals and organizations. By understanding the factors that affect the negotiation process and outcomes, both women and men can improve their skills and strategies, and ultimately achieve fairer and more satisfying compensation.

The study is one of the first to provide empirical evidence on the gender dynamics of salary negotiations, and it has important implications for both individuals and organizations. By understanding the factors that affect the negotiation process and outcomes, both women and men can improve their skills and strategies, and ultimately achieve fairer and more satisfying compensation.

Social Media is in every part of our lives, and that now includes War

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0
social media apps

Social media is in every part of our lives, and that now includes war. We will explore how social media platforms are being used by different actors in armed conflicts, and what are the implications for international security, human rights, and journalism.

Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok, have become powerful tools for communication, information, and influence in the 21st century. They enable people to share their stories, opinions, and experiences with millions of others around the world. They also allow people to access diverse sources of information, and to challenge official narratives and mainstream media.

However, social media platforms are not neutral or benign. They are also used for propaganda, misinformation, and manipulation by various actors in war zones. These actors include state and non-state armed groups, foreign powers, humanitarian organizations, activists, and journalists. They use social media platforms to shape public opinion, recruit supporters, mobilize resources, coordinate actions, document atrocities, expose abuses, and influence outcomes.

Social media platforms have both positive and negative effects on war and peace. On the one hand, they can facilitate dialogue, awareness, solidarity, and accountability among different stakeholders. They can also empower marginalized voices, expose human rights violations, and support peacebuilding efforts. On the other hand, they can fuel polarization, hatred, violence, and extremism among different groups. They can also spread false or misleading information, incite attacks, undermine trust, and disrupt peace processes.

Some examples of social media being used in war are:

The Islamic State (IS) used social media platforms to spread its ideology, recruit fighters, raise funds, and claim responsibility for attacks. It also used social media platforms to broadcast gruesome videos of executions and beheadings.

The Syrian Civil War has been dubbed as the “YouTube War” because of the extensive use of social media platforms by various parties to document the conflict, report on the situation, and appeal for help. Social media platforms have also been used to spread misinformation and propaganda by different factions.

The 2014 Gaza War saw a massive online campaign by both Israel and Hamas to win the hearts and minds of the international community. Both sides used social media platforms to share their narratives, justify their actions, and mobilize support. They also engaged in cyberattacks and online trolling against each other.

The 2016 US Presidential Election was influenced by the interference of Russia through social media platforms. Russia used social media platforms to spread fake news, sow discord, and undermine trust in the democratic process. It also used social media platforms to support the candidacy of Donald Trump and discredit Hillary Clinton.

The use of social media platforms in war is not a new phenomenon. However, it has become more widespread and sophisticated in recent years. The emergence of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), deepfakes (synthetic media), drones (unmanned aerial vehicles), and cyberattacks (malicious online activities), has increased the opportunities and challenges for using social media platforms in war. These technologies can enhance the capabilities and reach of social media users but also pose serious threats to their security and credibility.

The use of social media platforms in war raises important ethical, legal, and policy questions. How can we ensure that social media platforms are used responsibly and accountably in war? How can we protect the rights and safety of social media users in war zones? How can we verify the authenticity and accuracy of social media content in war? How can we prevent or counter the harmful effects of social media platforms on war and peace? How can we promote the positive effects of social media platforms on war and peace?

These questions require urgent attention from all stakeholders involved in war and peace. Social media platforms are not only a reflection of reality but also a shaper of reality. They have the potential to make war more transparent but also more complex. They have the potential to make peace more possible but also more fragile. We need to understand how social media platforms are changing the nature and dynamics of war and peace in order to harness their opportunities and mitigate their risks.

Court of Appeal Nullifies Governor Abba Yusuf’s Election in Kano State

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the decision of the lower election petition tribunal, declaring the nullification of Abba Yusuf as the governor of Kano State.

A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Moore Adumein, delivered a unanimous judgment on Friday, declaring Nasiru Gawuna of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the 18 March governorship election in Kano State.

The tribunal had earlier declared Gawuna the winner, citing invalid votes cast in favor of Yusuf. However, the Court of Appeal based its decision on the disqualification of Yusuf as a candidate in the election, stating that he was not a member of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) at the time of the election.

The court emphasized that without being a member of a political party, Yusuf could not have been validly nominated to run for the election in March. In the ruling, the Judge held that “Yusuf Abba was not a member of the NNPP as of the time he was purportedly sponsored on 18 March for the Kano Governorship election. The tribunal was wrong not to have disqualified the appellant, Governor Yusuf.”

Justice Adumein added: “The tribunal was wrong not to have disqualified the appellant, Governor Yusuf. The failure of NNPP to properly sponsor Mr Yusuf according to Section 177 (c) of the constitution, is fatal to their case.

“All the nine issues are hereby resolved against the appellant, the judge held. This appeal is hereby dismissed. The sum of N1 million is awarded as cost against Governor Yusuf.”

The story background

The incumbent governor, Yusuf, had won the governorship election on the platform of the NNPP but faced legal challenges from Gawuna of the APC. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) initially declared Yusuf as the winner of the election.

In a unanimous decision on September 20, the Kano State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal nullified Yusuf’s victory by declaring 165,663 of his votes invalid. Consequently, the lower tribunal declared Gawuna as the lawfully elected candidate, as he emerged with the highest number of valid votes after the deduction from Yusuf’s total score.

The governor appealed this decision, leading to the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal.

While the Court of Appeal’s decision is significant, it may not be the final resolution, as any aggrieved party can still appeal to the Supreme Court. The legal battle over the Kano State governorship election is likely to continue as the parties involved pursue further legal recourse.

The recent judgment is just one among many similar cases being held across the country. Observers perceive this trend, where courts are deciding election outcomes, as indicative of a broader issue—lack of credibility within the Nigerian electoral system. This reliance on legal interventions to determine election winners raises concerns about the overall integrity and trustworthiness of the electoral process.

1...3,9903,9913,992...8,591Page 3,991 of 8,591

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy