> almost anyone get get authorization to sell naked puts in the US market
Your broker is on the hook if you default. This means collateral requirements and risk limits. For example, see TD Ameritrade's rules [1]. These rules are filed with and reviewed by various regulators.
> Margin only handles the expected volatility of an instrument, not the tail risk
This sentence doesn't make sense.
The Federal Reserve's Regulation T limits initial margin to 50% [2]. If you have $10 of cash, you can't buy more than $20 of securities. This limits your losses to twice your principal, which margin lenders are supposed to ensure you can afford (via suitability checks).
This rule is part of why brokers won't accept deposits from credit cards. It's also why they ask you for information on your net worth, income, et cetera. There are further controls in place to make it difficult to e.g. take out a line on your home and use it to buy securities. None of these safeguards exist with cryptos.
Yes initial margin on a stock purchase for reg-t will be 50% and then reduce later to around 25%. The broker will be on the hook to their counter party, but you are now required to pay your broker. So a worse case situation is normally 4 to 1 leverage.
That is for stocks, with options the margin call can grow to a value quickly where a retail investor cannot afford it ever.
Edit: Looking at td margin schedule shows they'll require 20% in a reg-t account, so only 5 to 1 leverage at least. Still can risk $5k and owe 20k to your broker.
And yet anyone can buy 3x leveraged ETF/ETNs and not understand how the products are structured.
Some of those products, due to the structure, will always lose value over time as the futures used to replicate them are normally in contango.
So some financial products where they will always drift to zero are fine, but investments in companies that have a chance to profit aren't allowed.
You can create a company that has ludicrously limited opportunities to return its capital, and sell those to the public. You simply have to comply with the SEC's registration and disclosure rules --- in particular, you have to publish quarterly audited financials confirming your limited prospects.
That is the difference between the "3x leveraged ETF" and the "company that has a chance at profit" in your example, not some weird value judgement the SEC is making.
Except comcast has datacaps for total transfer per month.
I don't use comcast so I do not personally know if they charge for excessive data usage, but I know cox does.
Besides the point of potential cost, why should a user who is paying for the service subsidize comcast. They are not getting a discount for offering the wifi to customers.
Well, if it weren't I would connect everything I own to that guest access point and bypass my cap completely. Or perhaps the speed of that connection is very slow. But then it wouldn't be much use to other customers either.
When you connect to an 'xfinitywifi' SSID, you have to authenticate with your comcast credentials. The usage is then tracked as yours, not whose-ever hotspot you hit.
This works and you can do it today. You actually can get faster than your current service plan (assuming you aren't at the top-tier already) if you have a linux router you can set up for dual-wan.
Last I played with it, I could get an additional 35-40mbps or so out of a typical 100/25 comcast connection in my area.
> Except comcast has datacaps for total transfer per month.
For you. Not the public wifi network that is served before it hits your LAN. This is what I meant by my original post - there are tons of misconceptions on this.
Your ratelimit is not effected either, at least not any more than your neighbors do who exist on the same headend as you.
> why should a user who is paying for the service subsidize comcast.
How is it subsidizing Comcast again? I just don't see this point - the only possible way you are subsidizing it is with increased spectrum usage (which is a valid point) and perhaps additional power usage - but we're talking pennies per year if it's even measureable.
Tower space? This sort of product wouldn't exist without it.
I think it's confusion on where customers think or feel the demarc is. The ethernet port on the modem is your demarc, not the cable entering your house. If Comcast did something to alter and/or impact traffic after
> They are not getting a discount for offering the wifi to customers.
Of course they are? You get access to everyone else running the same AP in their homes, so when I travel I don't have to worry much about broadband access. It's especially great at airbnbs with broken internet - I can simply use the neighbors xfinity AP. It's actually an incredibly consumer-friendly thing we used to speculate on in the late 90's and early 00's when wifi was just starting to become a thing.
I do agree it should be something you can toggle in a user interface, but turning it off should remove your access from the xfinity wifi pool. I also completely understand why it's not optional - due to the ignorance shown in the thread. Most consumers think that me torrenting on the Xfinititywifi AP is somehow impacting their data cap and/or throughput. It's not, and even highly technical people continue to perpetuate this myth.
I'm about as anti comcast as they come - but this is one of the better more consumer friendly things any ISP has done, much less Comcast.
The funny thing is a state level actor can spend <0.01% of their defense budget to take control of >51% of the network.
That isn't even accounting for the fact they can knock others off the bitcoin network easily. If you have 10,000TH/s but cannot communicate with the network, that hash rate means nothing. DDoS or bad BGP routes, doesn't matter when the nodes have no way to talk.
The US has largest defense budget by far, and .01% would be less than $100 million, right? Could you really create enough mining capacity for that to take over the network?
Better question: by the time Bitcoin gets to the point that a government feels threatened enough to do this, will they be able to? And how will other governments respond? Will they start mining too so that no one government controls the network?
Margin only handles the expected volatility of an instrument, not the tail risk.