CONTACT US

About jackadmin

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far jackadmin has created 23 blog entries.

Google’s misleading and deceptive conduct

Google’s misleading and deceptive conduct on Australian consumers leads to a $60 million penalty Recently, the Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) in their case against Google for breaching Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by misleading Android phone users into believing Google was not collecting personal location data of its users through the Android operating system.  In August 2022, the Court handed down their judgment ordering Google to pay $60 million in penalties over misleading Android users on the collection of their personal location data. Facts on the ACCC -v- Google Case –  This case began in 2019 when the ACCC brought a case against Google alleging that the tech giant had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct with Android phone users. Google was allegedly making false and misleading representations to Android phone users regarding the collection, storage and use of customers' personal location data. The false and misleading representation revolved around two settings within the Android operating system - the 'Web & App Activity' and 'Location History'.  The ACCC’s main argument was that users who saw the ‘Location History’ setting turned off, would believe that Google would not be able to collect their personal location data. However, the ‘Web & App Activity’ setting also allowed Google to collect personal location data even after the ‘Location History’ setting was turned off.  The ACCC argued that users were misled by Google into believing that ‘Location History’ was the only setting that influenced the collection of personal data. In addition to this, users were misled by Google’s lack of representation regarding the collection of personal location data through the ‘Web & App’ setting.  The Court held that the information represented by Google to Android phone users was insufficient to properly notify them of the collection of their personal location data. Therefore, Google’s conduct amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to these main groups:  Users with heightened concerns about their data security that were misled by Google's 'Privacy and Terms' policy;  Users who turned off their ‘Location History’ were misled into believing that this was the only setting that allowed for the collection of personal location data; and  Users who were misled by Google's 'Privacy and Terms' policies representation of the 'Web & App' setting regarding the collection of personal location data. Importance of the Court’s Decision –  After the judgment in the Google case, the ACCC Chair, Gina Cass-Gottlied, made the following statement:  “This significant penalty imposed by the Court today sends a strong message to digital platforms and other businesses, large and small, that they must not mislead consumers about how their data is being collected and used.” It is clear that the Court’s decision provides guidance on what information needs to be presented by companies on data collection to ensure that consumers are not misled and shows that there needs to be a level of transparency between companies and consumers regarding data collection. The Court determined that [...]

2022-09-05T15:56:54+10:00September 5th, 2022|Commercial & Corporate|

Who gets the family fur-baby?

In Australia, 90% of households have had a pet at some stage in their life, and with more pets than humans in Australia, we are often asked by our clients during their family law matters, ‘who gets to keep the pet’? Separating couples may find it easy to distribute household items such as the television and the pull-out sofa, however, when it comes to Brutus, the family chihuahua, or Snowballs, the cat, it’s not as straightforward. Who gets the pet in a custody dispute? Even though we refer to our animals as ‘fur babies’, pets, pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”), are considered property in Australia. Therefore, you cannot have a ‘custody dispute’ over your family pet. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (“Family Court”) does not have jurisdiction to make shared custody orders over a pet, such as imposing shared time and responsibility between the parties.   Accordingly, pets, like any other property such as your Lord of the Rings DVD set, or the family jet ski, are disclosable and part of the property pool, which will be distributed between the parties either by consent or court order in a disputed matter. Ordinarily, pets are not considered a significant asset in the property pool, and an Application for Property Orders are not made solely in relation to a dispute over a pet, unless the animal is of a significant monetary value. Nevertheless, disputes over the family pets can often cause heartache. Time Limitations If you are married, you have 12 months after the date of your divorce to commence an Application for Property Orders in the Family Court (if you are unable to settle the matter beforehand). If you are in a de-facto relationship, you have two (2) years to file an application from the date of separation (if you are unable to settle your de facto property matters beforehand). In both circumstances, the court may allow an application to be brought out of time, seeking leave to file your Initiating Application for Property Orders, however, you may be subject to adverse costs orders for filing out of time. Ordinarily, an Initiating Application for Property Orders is made after the parties have attempted to negotiate the disputed issues themselves and/or via their own independent legal representatives, failing which pre-action procedure requires parties to mediate, except if exempted from mediation, prior to an application being filed with the Family Court. The Family Law Act 1975 provides for a 5 Step test for property adjustment/division between married spouses and de facto partners, which is as follows: Would it be just and equitable to adjust the property between the parties; What is the property pool (assets minus liabilities) and financial resources of the parties; What are the contributions, including financial and non-financial, and homemaker and parenting duties, to the relationship; What are the future needs of the parties; and Based on the above what would be a just and equitable property division for the parties. [...]

2022-09-05T15:56:28+10:00September 5th, 2022|Family Law|

Organ Donations in Australia

Organ donations and transplants are far more important than you would think. Currently, only one in three Australians are registered to donate their organs and tissue after death, despite 69% believing that registering is important. This belief is very much founded as there are currently around 1,750 Australians on the waitlist for an organ transplant and 13,000 additional people on dialysis who need a kidney transplant. The wait-time for recipients on the waitlist varies in Australia between six months and four years, sometimes even longer. Despite this, a significant number of individuals believe that it is too difficult to become a donor or the process to become one takes too long. However, almost anyone in Australia can donate their organs and tissue, and it is not a complicated process.  Walk to End the Wait Initiative –  Gordon Rutty or Gordo to most people, is a passionate local Gold Coast resident who wants to raise awareness on the organ donation process in Australia. To increase awareness for organ donation in Australia, Gordo is participating in the "Walk to End the Wait" where he will walk 42 Kilometres for 14 Days, and in “The Orange Ball”, which will be held on Friday, 7 October 2022.  When asked about why he was passionate about this particular cause, Gordo stated that:  “Children with transplants have often experienced significant interruption to their schooling, sporting, and social life. They have missed out on team sports and the benefits of physical activity and sport. Transplant Australia helps these kids adapt to a life with a transplant and to focus on their physical wellbeing. At the World Transplant Games, they can meet other children who have a shared lived experience. Many of them get to take home a medal for ‘show and tell’. Your support will provide subsidies for up to 50 transplant children and their families from around Australia. The money will help them with registration, accommodation, travel, and uniform expenses to represent Australia.” These fundraising efforts are to celebrate children with transplants and their renewed life at the 2023 World Transplant Games in Perth.  For more information on Gordo’s mission, you can visit The Walk to end the wait webpage and the Gordon Rutty homepage. How to become a donor  In Australia, a person with capacity to make decisions for themselves can choose to donate their organs and tissue after death as long as they are over 18 and have recorded their consent with the Australian Organ Donation Register (AODR). However, if you are 16 or 17, you have the option to record your intentions to donate your organs and tissue with the AODR upon your death.  For more information on how to become an organ donor, you can visit The Australian Organ Donor Registry. When organs and tissue can be donated –  Deceased Donor –  For an organ and tissue donation to validly occur, it is essential that the deceased has legally died (i.e., brain death or cardiac death).  To be classified [...]

2022-09-05T15:55:55+10:00September 5th, 2022|Wills & Estates|

Covid-19 Vaccine Claim Scheme

The Australian Government has implemented the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme (COVID-19 Scheme) to enable individuals who have received a Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved vaccine to obtain compensation for related adverse reactions. Eligibility Claimants that received the following TGA approved vaccines: Vaxevria (AstraZeneca), Comirnaty (Pfizer), Spikevax (Moderna), or Nuvaxoid (Novavax) can make a claim under the scheme. To be eligible for the COVID-19 scheme, the claimants must experience one or more of the following clinical conditions: AstraZeneca: Anaphylactic reaction, Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, Capillary leak syndrome, Demyelinating disorders including Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), Thrombocytopenia (including immune Thrombocytopenia). Pfizer or Moderna: Anaphylactic reaction, myocarditis, pericarditis. Novavax: anaphylactic reaction. Lodging a Claim For a claim to be made under the Covid-19 scheme, the claimant will need to show proof that: they were admitted to hospital; how the claim account was calculated; and proof to support the amount being claimed. Several documents will need to be completed to make a claim under the scheme. These documents include: the COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme application; the COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme medical report; and the COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme expenses form. It is worth nothing that a claim can be made on behalf of someone else, if; you have their power of attorney, you are their legal guardian or administrator, or need to act for them because they cannot act for themselves. To do this, you will need to complete the Authorising a person or organisation to act on your behalf – COVID-19 form with your application. If granted, you must register the court order with Services Australia by taking the original document to a service centre or post a certified copy of the document to Services Australia. After completion, the documents above must be submitted using a Medicare online account through the myGov website or by using the Express plus Medicare mobile app. Compensation Schedule 1 of the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme highlights compensation payable to a person who has lodged and succeeded in their claim. Schedule 1 provides compensation under the following heads: Out of pocket expenses; Lost earnings; Gratuitous Care; and Pain and Suffering. Compensation will vary on a case-to-case basis. Factors that will dictate compensation are things like relationship status, number of dependents, etc. To give an example on how the compensation can be paid; If a deceased vaccine recipient had two children at the time of their death (a child aged 7 and a child aged 11), and the recipient was not legally married to any person (or not the de facto partner of any person) the lump sum compensation payment would be $696,023, calculated as $644,640 plus $33,601 for a child under 8, and $17,782 for a child under 12. Compensation payable under the COVID-19 scheme can vary due to an array of factors. Processing Time Processing times also vary per application. Claims that exceed $20,000 may take longer to assess because Service Australia will need to consult with independent third parties (i.e. medical experts or legal experts). If further [...]

2022-08-25T12:27:13+10:00August 25th, 2022|COVID-19|

Beware of the DPN’s!

Whilst we may have seen the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with the slowing of protectional measures, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) have increased their recovery efforts with respect to outstanding tax liabilities and collecting the debt. The ATO have confirmed that as at 30 June 2021, an outstanding debt of $55 billion was owing by fellow taxpayers. In recovering the outstanding debt, it is anticipated that a wave of Director Penalty Notices (DPN) are to be issued by the ATO. What is a DPN? A Director Penalty Notice (DPN) is a formal notice issued by the ATO upon company directors to recover a company’s unpaid Pay As You Go (PAYG) Tax, GST and Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC). The DPN regime was introduced to give the ATO the power to make company directors personably liable for certain unpaid company tax debts. DPN’s compel a company directors to comply with the notice, failing which a penalty will be imposed upon directors personally. Therefore, it is important that directors understand the operation of the regime so that steps can be taken to avoid personal liability. Types of DPN’s Upon the ATO issuing DPN’s, there are two (2) types of DPN’s of which the ATO may typically seek to impose upon company directors, namely: Non-lockdown DPN: issued to a company director for PAYG, GST or SGC which is not paid by the due date but where the company has lodged its Business Activity Statement (BAS) and Instalment Activity Statements (IAS) within 3 months of the due date and SGC within one month and 28 days after the relevant quarter. Lockdown DPN: issued for unpaid PAYG, GST and SGC where a company is late lodging its BAS and IAS, being longer than 3 months after the due date and SGC longer than one month and 28 days after the end of the quarter during which the contribution relates to. For a director to avoid personal liability, the director will have to undertake one of the following steps within 21 days of receiving the DPN: Non-lockdown DPN: 3.1 pay the outstanding debt owed; 3.2 appoint a Small Business Restructuring Practitioner (SBRP); or 3.3 arrange for the company to enter into a form of administration (such as voluntary administration, liquidation, or another form of external administration). Lockdown DPN: the only way for this type of DPN to be remitted or cancelled is by paying the debt in full. Defences There are limited defences available to company directors in failing to comply with a DPN, namely: Illness/Incapacity: where a company director was not undertaking an active part in the company during the relevant time; All reasonable steps: where the company director has complied and taken all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the DPN; and SGC: where a company director has adopted the reasonable due care and skill in relation to the SGC payable under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. Key Takeaways Ensure all lodgements (eg: BAS, IAS, SGC) are submitted within 3 months [...]

2022-08-25T12:19:43+10:00August 25th, 2022|Commercial & Corporate|

Whiplash injury

What is a whiplash injury and what symptoms to look out for? Complaints of neck injury from sudden stopping events pre-dates the motor vehicle and started with railroad / train incidents.  The first terminology for the neck injury / pain complaint was “railway spine”. The common cause in modern times is the rear end motor vehicle accident, where the neck is subject to sudden (and unanticipated) movements back, forwards and then stopped at seatbelt.  This creates large stresses to the neck structures, given the head weight and quick speed of movement.  Research shows whiplash can occur with side and front on collisions too. Symptoms Most often pain is felt in the neck, closely associated with headaches.  Within 24 hours pain can be felt in the shoulder girdle and nerve symptoms down the arms.  Look out for these symptoms: You should always consult medical practitioner following any accident where you feel severe or prolonged pain.  Here is a graphic of things not to ignore: Treatment Following medical advice throughout your recovery is key.  Here is an extract from spine-health.com on self-treatment and assisted treatment options: Self-Care for Whiplash If whiplash symptoms are mild to moderate, some self-care options typically include: Rest. While it is good to stay active if possible, it also makes sense to take things easier the first few days. If a certain motion or activity exacerbates the neck pain, then avoid or limit that movement until the neck has more time to heal.  Ice and/or heat. In the first couple days following a whiplash injury, applying ice can reduce pain and swelling in the neck. During this time window, the ice or cold packs can temporarily close small blood vessels and prevent a worsening of the swelling. Then ice or heat can be applied alternately a few days after the injury has occurred.  See Heat Therapy Cold Therapy Over-the-counter (OTC) medications. Some common OTC pain relievers include acetaminophen (Tylenol) [in Australia we call this paracetamol] and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as Advil, Aleve, and Motrin. Acetaminophen can block pain receptors, and NSAIDs reduce inflammation. Despite being readily available at the store, it is important to carefully read the OTC label and follow its directions. See Medications for Back Pain and Neck Pain In the past, some doctors advised whiplash patients to wear a cervical collar to immobilize the neck in the beginning, but this advice oftentimes made the problem worse. Immobilization allowed the neck muscles to weaken and become more problematic for the cervical spine. See Cervical Spine Anatomy and Neck Pain Medical Care for Whiplash If whiplash pain or related symptoms are severe and/or do not seem to be going away, medical care should be sought. Some combination of the following treatments could be used: Physical therapy. A treatment program run by a trained physical therapist or qualified health professional can help improve the neck’s strength and flexibility, which [...]

2022-08-25T11:48:53+10:00August 22nd, 2022|Personal Injury|

Cardinal George Pell and Vicarious liability of the Church

Cardinal George Pell and Vicarious liability of the Church  *Trigger Warning: This article discusses child sexual assault, suicide, and contains descriptive information about sexual assault. This may be sensitive for some readers. If you are at risk or have been a victim of sexual assault, we suggest that you contact the National Sexual Assault, Family & Domestic Violence Counselling at (1800 737 732 / www.1800respect.org.au) or your local support services.* Introduction –  The case against Cardinal George Pell (Pell) and the Catholic Church (Church) has become one of the most highly publicised cases involving child sexual abuse in Australia. Following the criminal conviction being quashed, a civil action has been launched by the father of a deceased choirboy who made the allegations against Pell. The father has filed an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Pell and the Archdiocese of Melbourne.    Background –  In 2018, a jury found that Pell had sexually abused two choirboys in the 1990s while stationed at St. Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne. Pell, the former Vatican treasurer, became the most senior Catholic figure ever to be jailed for such crimes.  In 2020, two years after his conviction, the High Court of Australia overturned Pell’s convictions in their judgement. The High Court discussed the idea of “compounding improbabilities” and whether the evidence presented before the Court demanded a result other than conviction. In their decision, the High Court unanimously found that there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted and that the jury should have entertained a doubt as to Pell’s guilt. Therefore, the Court ordered an acquittal and quashed Pell’s original conviction.  In 2014, one of Pell’s alleged victims died of a drug overdose. The victim’s father has now brought a personal injury action against both Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne for “damages of nervous shock” and “mental injuries” after learning of his son’s sexual abuse. The claim also states that the Archdiocese of Melbourne was negligent in their lack of action, which resulted in injuries, damages, and loss. The victim’s father is claiming that Pell was the direct cause of his “mental injuries” because it is reasonably foreseeable that he would suffer from nervous shock after learning that his son had been allegedly abused. The claim also alleges that the Church breached its duty of care owed to the victim’s father.  The victim’s father is seeking general damages, special damages, and compensation for “past loss of earning capacity and past and future medical and like expenses”.  The Ellis Defence –  Since such cases started to emerge in Australia, the Catholic Church has essentially been protected from civil liability for criminal offences committed by members of the clergy because it is an unincorporated association. A decision made by the New South Wales Court of Appeals in 2007 (Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church v Ellis & Anor [2007] NSWCA 117) clarified that the Church held its assets (i.e., its property portfolio) in a protected trust, meaning [...]

2022-08-16T13:32:50+10:00August 16th, 2022|Personal Injury|

Franchising Law Latest: Mercedes Benz Class Action

Franchising Law Latest: Mercedes Benz Class Action Since amendments made to the Franchising Code of Conduct in 2015, the introduction of the obligation to act in good faith has been a hot topic in the franchising sector.  The Class Action In one of the larger cases on good faith in recent years, a $650million class action has commenced in the Federal Court by 38 out of 55 Mercedes Benz auto dealers against their franchisor.  According to media reports, the franchisees allege that their manufacturer failed to act in good faith by changing its business model to move franchisees to a sales commission arrangement, eliminating dealer pricing flexibility and other revenue opportunities. There are also allegations of unconscionable conduct in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.  The franchisees are seeking compensation, alleging that the profitability and capital value of their businesses has been adversely impacted by the change.     According to Mercedes Benz, the new model improves customer experience with the brand and provides greater access to data for after sales service. It is also being rolled out worldwide by the brand.  What is good faith? Franchisors and franchisees must act in good faith in all their dealings with each other. There isn't a definition of "good faith", so it's determined on a case-by-case basis. It includes acting honestly in dealings with each other, not acting arbitrarily, and cooperating to achieve the purpose of the Franchise Agreement. Essentially, franchisors and franchisees must act reasonably and must not engage in bullying behaviour.   Importantly, good faith doesn't restrict either the franchisee or franchisor from acting in their own genuine commercial interests. Takeaways  The team at Salerno Law are following this case carefully. Its outcome will be significant for Australian franchising law. We will be posting further updates on this case once the court delivers their judgment.  At Salerno Law, we are experienced in acting for both franchisors and franchisees in all aspects of franchising law. If you have any queries, please get in contact with our team.  By Luke McKavanagh  Luke has specialised in franchising law since his admission into practice and has acted for a diverse range of franchisors and franchisees of a variety of franchise systems. He is an active member of the Queensland Law Society Franchising Law Committee where he keeps on the forefront of the latest developments in laws affecting franchising, and contributes towards submissions to government on topical issues facing the franchising industry. DISCLAIMER: This article is only meant to give you general information and should not be relied on as legal advice. Speak to one of our lawyers for more information.  Our Services With a franchise sector that is arguably the most heavily regulated in the world, you need a specialist lawyer who knows how to navigate Australian franchising laws.​ Our team have advised franchisors from the initial set-up stage through to established systems, as well as acting for franchisees and master franchisees of a variety of franchise systems. After taking the time to understand your business, [...]

2022-08-16T12:13:12+10:00August 16th, 2022|Franchising|

Christmas comes early for the ACCC: Labor Government set to deliver on its promise concerning unfair contract penalties

Christmas comes early for the ACCC: Labor Government set to deliver on its promise concerning unfair contract penalties The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is about to receive a gift it has been wanting to be delivered straight to small businesses in the form of protective legislation making unfair contract terms illegal. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (Ombudsman) first confirmed on 26 July 2022 that the Albanese Government would deliver this gift on the back of its election commitment to introduce penalties for unfair contract terms in standard form small business contracts. Since 2018, the ACCC has been calling for reforms of the current unfair contracts regime as it looks to address the regime’s fundamental shortcomings and grant itself with the ability to enforce these laws. Just as Santa would need his reindeers to deliver gifts, the ACCC looks to ride its sleigh with the Albanese Government towing it to deliver the reform to the small business sector. The Current Legislation Currently, under section 23 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) (ACL), unfair contract terms law applies to a term in a ‘small business contract’ if: at least one party to the contract is a ‘small business’; and the contract is a ‘standard form contract’; and the contract is for, amongst other things, a financial product or services (such as business loans, credit cards, insurance cover or broker agreements), or a contract for supply of doos or services or the grant of an interest in land; and the contract was entered into or renewed on or after 12 November 2016, or a term in an existing contract was varied on or after 12 November 2016. Unfair Contract Term A term of a contract (but not the entire contract itself) will be unfair if it: would cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract; and is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger party who would be advantaged by the term; and  would cause detriment to the weaker party if applied or relied upon.  All three elements must be present for a term to be unfair, and subsequently void. The regime allows the entire contract to continue unless it is unable to operate without the unfair term. Small Business Contract A contract is a ‘small business contract’ if: at least one party to the contract is a ‘small business’ – that is, a business that employs fewer than 20 people at the time the contract is signed (including casual employees employed on a regular or systematic basis); and the upfront price payable under the contract does not exceed $300,000 (or, if the contract is for more than 12 months, $1 million). Upfront price includes payments, fees and charges payable over the life of the contract. For example, a lease would include all rent payable for the term of the lease, and a franchise agreement would include both [...]

2022-08-18T13:52:20+10:00August 16th, 2022|Commercial & Corporate|

AUSTRALIAN CRYPTO BUSINESSES – THE “BULLS” AND THE “BEARS”

AUSTRALIAN CRYPTO BUSINESSES – THE “BULLS” AND THE “BEARS” With the recent collapses of cryptocurrency businesses like Terra Luna, Celsius, Voyager and Three Arrows Capital, is this a strong indication of a long term “crypto bear market” and what crypto-businesses in Australia are most vulnerable?  BUT FIRST, WHAT IS A CRYPTO “BEAR MARKET”? Bear markets are generally defined as a period where supply is greater than demand, confidence in the market is low, and prices are falling (or in some instances collapsing). Pessimistic investors who believe prices will continue to fall are colloquially, referred to as “bears”. The reverse of this is effectively, and colloquially, known as a “bull”. That is, optimistic investors who believe prices will rise.  Unlike ordinary stocks trading on a stock exchange, the crypto market differs in the sense that a dip of anywhere between five percent and thirty percent (and sometimes significantly more) can occur on any given day, without any obvious macroeconomic factors taking place. It can just as quickly “moon” – this is when there is a sudden surge in the market to the upside.  So now that we have briefly outlined the meaning of a “bear market” in the context of the cryptocurrency markets, let’s have a look at which businesses are particularly vulnerable. WHAT BUSINESSES IN AUSTRALIA ARE MOST VULNERABLE?  Salerno Law has identified the following businesses as particularly vulnerable: digital currency exchanges, which includes centralised digital currency exchanges (CEXs) and decentralised cryptocurrency exchanges (DEXs);  decentralised applications (Dapps) that utilise tokens as part of their governance structure;  businesses looking to raise funds as part of an initial coin offering (ICOs), initial decentralised exchange offerings (IDOs), seed round funding for a crypto project, including start-ups and decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs);  investors (both retail and institutional) and conventional businesses who have been affected by their declining investments, loan defaults and the corollary effects thereof;  stake pool or node operators and “miners” that facilitate blockchain transactions and maintain distributed ledgers in return for “mining” and other rewards or incentives. THE RISE OF DECENTRALISED FINANCE (DEFI) The rise of DeFi and lending platforms in the last two years has made for some very interesting financial news. The yields offered by some of these DeFi platforms can start from ten percent and in some cases reach over one hundred percent. Prior to the collapse of Celsius in early 2022, it was offering yields of up to eighteen percent on deposited crypto assets. Terra Luna (Luna) and the demand for its stable coin - Terra USD, was driven primarily because of a savings protocol called Anchor on Luna’s blockchain. Luna promised twenty percent in annual percentage yield. Luna’s value eventually plummeted from over $100 USD per Luna, to less than $0.005 in several days.  Whilst many crypto assets have significantly declined since the “bull market” of 2021, there are a number that still hold significant value. Even with a sixty percent dip (and some a bit more) in the value of several “blue chip” assets, the [...]

2022-08-16T12:09:36+10:00August 16th, 2022|Cryptocurrency|
Go to Top