A frustrated casino developer on the island of Tinian has launched an online petition aimed at convincing the government to cut the red tape holding back its project.

On February 3, Bridge Investment Group (BIG) started a petition on Change.org, seeking support for its construction of a resort casino on Tinian, which is part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The petition has to date garnered 208 signatures, leaving it 292 short of its goal.

BIG was granted conditional gaming license approval by the Tinian Casino Gaming Control Commission (TCGCC) eons ago, yet the planned $130m Titanic-themed Tinian Ocean Resort and Casino has yet to set sail (metaphorically speaking), and BIG is putting at least some of the blame on government officials who aren’t clear on the definition of “port-related activities.”

BIG is building its casino in and around an area near Tinian Harbor’s commercial ports. The first phase of BIG’s construction is a ferry terminal from which the majority of the resort’s guests are expected to arrive, given what BIG calls “the lack of consistent flights to Tinian.” BIG’s petition notes that the terminal will provide roll-on/roll-off vehicles services that will benefit all of Tinian’s residents.

With Bitcoin looking more and more stable around $1,000 a coin, we may be getting closer to a tipping point where cryptocurrency becomes a legitimate challenge to the monopoly governments now enjoy over the money supply. A closer look at the reason for bitcoin’s value reveals that it is replete with positive feedback loops. These positive feedback loops are the trademarks of tipping points.

Let’s start with a simple Economics 101 way to look at the price of bitcoin, and that is to see privacy as a scarce commodity with its own supply and demand. By privacy I do not mean privacy from other people, who are not able to see your credit card statements anyway. I mean privacy from governments who can see everything electronically that you do. Bitcoin provides a certain level of privacy from governments, and while not perfect, it is still much better than electronic payments of government fiat currency. If the supply of privacy goes down or the demand for privacy goes up, all other things being equal the price of bitcoin will tend to rise.

What is bitcoin’s competition in supplying privacy? Physical cash. The biggest supply of privacy comes from physical cash payments, not bitcoin. But physical cash is quickly being phased out by governments. We’re seeing it in India where rupee restrictions have wreaked havoc on people’s lives, especially farmers without bank accounts, disrupting the food supply and causing serious hardship in poorer areas. Shows how much government supposedly cares for the poor. Take out one drug dealer by fighting cash, and take out 10,000 poor people along with him. Collateral damage. It’s all for the greater good. We’re seeing it in Europe where cash payments in France for example have been limited to €1,000. Rumor has it that next it’s all about the Benjamins with the $100 bill on the chopping block.

The war on cash is a war not on crime but on tax evasion, in other words privacy from government. As physical cash becomes more scarce, the privacy that bitcoin can provide becomes more scarce and therefore more valuable. And herein lay the first of several positive feedback loops inherent in the price of bitcoin. Governments restrict cash in order to restrict privacy and collect more taxes from their subjects. This in itself creates a higher demand for privacy because the restriction of cash means more taxes are collected. In this way, the war on cash both restricts the privacy supply and increases the demand for that privacy, squeezing the bitcoin price higher from both directions in a loop that feeds on itself.

With Bitcoin looking more and more stable around $1,000 a coin, we may be getting closer to a tipping point where cryptocurrency becomes a legitimate challenge to the monopoly governments now enjoy over the money supply. A closer look at the reason for bitcoin’s value reveals that it is replete with positive feedback loops. These positive feedback loops are the trademarks of tipping points.

Let’s start with a simple Economics 101 way to look at the price of bitcoin, and that is to see privacy as a scarce commodity with its own supply and demand. By privacy I do not mean privacy from other people, who are not able to see your credit card statements anyway. I mean privacy from governments who can see everything electronically that you do. Bitcoin provides a certain level of privacy from governments, and while not perfect, it is still much better than electronic payments of government fiat currency. If the supply of privacy goes down or the demand for privacy goes up, all other things being equal the price of bitcoin will tend to rise.

What is bitcoin’s competition in supplying privacy? Physical cash. The biggest supply of privacy comes from physical cash payments, not bitcoin. But physical cash is quickly being phased out by governments. We’re seeing it in India where rupee restrictions have wreaked havoc on people’s lives, especially farmers without bank accounts, disrupting the food supply and causing serious hardship in poorer areas. Shows how much government supposedly cares for the poor. Take out one drug dealer by fighting cash, and take out 10,000 poor people along with him. Collateral damage. It’s all for the greater good. We’re seeing it in Europe where cash payments in France for example have been limited to €1,000. Rumor has it that next it’s all about the Benjamins with the $100 bill on the chopping block.

The war on cash is a war not on crime but on tax evasion, in other words privacy from government. As physical cash becomes more scarce, the privacy that bitcoin can provide becomes more scarce and therefore more valuable. And herein lay the first of several positive feedback loops inherent in the price of bitcoin. Governments restrict cash in order to restrict privacy and collect more taxes from their subjects. This in itself creates a higher demand for privacy because the restriction of cash means more taxes are collected. In this way, the war on cash both restricts the privacy supply and increases the demand for that privacy, squeezing the bitcoin price higher from both directions in a loop that feeds on itself.

The majority of Macau casino workers support retaining designated smoking lounges on the gaming floor, according to the results of a new industry-funded study.

The study, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Macau, queried over 14,300 casino employees, representing around 13.4% of all casino staff. Of these participants, 73% work in the casinos’ gaming areas, where they are most likely to come into contact with customers’ smoking.

Study participants were asked which one of three options they preferred: the option of a full smoking ban, which the Macau government is currently mulling, earned a 40% score.

Allowing smoking in only the specially ventilated airport-style lounges that casinos have erected on their mass gaming floors was the most popular option at 47%. The status quo, in which smoking is permitted in both the main floor lounges and in VIP gaming areas, was the least-favored option, preferred by only 13% of participants.

The majority of Macau casino workers support retaining designated smoking lounges on the gaming floor, according to the results of a new industry-funded study.

The study, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Macau, queried over 14,300 casino employees, representing around 13.4% of all casino staff. Of these participants, 73% work in the casinos’ gaming areas, where they are most likely to come into contact with customers’ smoking.

Study participants were asked which one of three options they preferred: the option of a full smoking ban, which the Macau government is currently mulling, earned a 40% score.

Allowing smoking in only the specially ventilated airport-style lounges that casinos have erected on their mass gaming floors was the most popular option at 47%. The status quo, in which smoking is permitted in both the main floor lounges and in VIP gaming areas, was the least-favored option, preferred by only 13% of participants.

Americans lost the most amount of money gambling in 2016 but Australians retained their crown as the highest per capita gambling losers.

The Economist recently posted the latest year-end estimates by H2 Gambling Capital for gambling spending by both countries and individuals. The US led all countries with just under $117b in gambling losses, defined as stakes minus payouts, excluding expenses. The numbers don’t take into account illegal gambling, such as sports betting outside Nevada.

Runner-up gambling loser China could barely manage half the US total at $62.4b, and that’s counting contributions from Macau and Hong Kong. China had long been tipped to eventually surpass the US until Beijing began its corruption crackdown in 2014, which led to annual gambling losses shrinking in 2015, the first such occurrence since H2 Gambling Capital began compiling the stats in 2003.

Japan ranked third on the country list with $24.1b thanks to its pachinko industry, with the rest of the top-10 consisting of Italy ($19b), Australia ($18.3b), Britain ($18b), Canada ($12.4b), Germany ($11.2b), France ($10.4b) and Spain ($8.9b).

Stockholm-based online gambling operator Mr Green credited expansion outside its core Nordic markets for boosting its Q4 2016 numbers.

Figures released last week showed Mr Green’s revenue rising nearly 32% to SEK 265m (US $29.6m) in the three months ending December 31, while earnings rose 10% to SEK 32m.

However, Q4 net income fell 15.4% to SEK 14.2m due to costs of services rising 61%, while marketing costs were up 27.8% and personnel costs rose one-third. The cost spikes were attributed to the company’s regional growth and expanded product offering, which included new sportsbook and live casino offerings.

But Q4’s expenses also included a charge of SEK 8.4m stemming from “a case of fraud linked to a security defect in a specific third-party payment solution.” Mr Green said the security defect was corrected at the end of the quarter.

Stockholm-based online gambling operator Mr Green credited expansion outside its core Nordic markets for boosting its Q4 2016 numbers.

Figures released last week showed Mr Green’s revenue rising nearly 32% to SEK 265m (US $29.6m) in the three months ending December 31, while earnings rose 10% to SEK 32m.

However, Q4 net income fell 15.4% to SEK 14.2m due to costs of services rising 61%, while marketing costs were up 27.8% and personnel costs rose one-third. The cost spikes were attributed to the company’s regional growth and expanded product offering, which included new sportsbook and live casino offerings.

But Q4’s expenses also included a charge of SEK 8.4m stemming from “a case of fraud linked to a security defect in a specific third-party payment solution.” Mr Green said the security defect was corrected at the end of the quarter.

Stockholm-based online gambling operator Mr Green credited expansion outside its core Nordic markets for boosting its Q4 2016 numbers.

Figures released last week showed Mr Green’s revenue rising nearly 32% to SEK 265m (US $29.6m) in the three months ending December 31, while earnings rose 10% to SEK 32m.

However, Q4 net income fell 15.4% to SEK 14.2m due to costs of services rising 61%, while marketing costs were up 27.8% and personnel costs rose one-third. The cost spikes were attributed to the company’s regional growth and expanded product offering, which included new sportsbook and live casino offerings.

But Q4’s expenses also included a charge of SEK 8.4m stemming from “a case of fraud linked to a security defect in a specific third-party payment solution.” Mr Green said the security defect was corrected at the end of the quarter.