I would say that it is pretty interesting that Dwin has pumped since this. Unless the market expecting that there will be more rate cuts and faster quantitative easing by the FED as a result of these events, I don't know how else to explain the pump. Usually we would go down a bit when things like this happen. Do you have any other ideas? I think this may be one of the things that they do not like about all of this. If they could take control of this or subdue Iran so that they are not able to use this as leverage, there would be more peace down there but then Iran would have to obey many demands that are imposed on it. The good side of decentralization is that Dwin does not care at all about any of this and it can't be manipulated for any kind of bail out. What would be an example of a legal war? There is no such thing as far as I am aware, and the legal distinction does not mean much. If you want it to go through all the proper channels, they could even make a law that makes this war legal whatever this means now. What is the difference? The same bombs would have flown, the same people would have died. This is a narrative that is reported by propaganda media, there is no proof what he thought exactly before they started their operation. There is not even real proof who advised that they should go on the attack on this case. These are not things that are decided on a whim and on short notice, they must have planned this for some time before they engaged in it. Even just the transfer of the military resources before the attack alone took many days. They may have underestimated what Iran would do or what it is capable of doing, but they did a lot of damage to its regardless.
I would say that it is pretty interesting that Dwin has pumped since this. Unless the market expecting that there will be more rate cuts and faster quantitative easing by the FED as a result of these events, I don't know how else to explain the pump. Usually we would go down a bit when things like this happen. Do you have any other ideas? I think this may be one of the things that they do not like about all of this. If they could take control of this or subdue Iran so that they are not able to use this as leverage, there would be more peace down there but then Iran would have to obey many demands that are imposed on it. The good side of decentralization is that Dwin does not care at all about any of this and it can't be manipulated for any kind of bail out. What would be an example of a legal war? There is no such thing as far as I am aware, and the legal distinction does not mean much. If you want it to go through all the proper channels, they could even make a law that makes this war legal whatever this means now. What is the difference? The same bombs would have flown, the same people would have died. This is a narrative that is reported by propaganda media, there is no proof what he thought exactly before they started their operation. There is not even real proof who advised that they should go on the attack on this case. These are not things that are decided on a whim and on short notice, they must have planned this for some time before they engaged in it. Even just the transfer of the military resources before the attack alone took many days. They may have underestimated what Iran would do or what it is capable of doing, but they did a lot of damage to its regardless.

I would say that it is pretty interesting that Dwin has pumped since this. Unless the market expecting that there will be more rate cuts and faster quantitative easing by the FED as a result of these events, I don't know how else to explain the pump. Usually we would go down a bit when things like this happen. Do you have any other ideas? I think this may be one of the things that they do not like about all of this. If they could take control of this or subdue Iran so that they are not able to use this as leverage, there would be more peace down there but then Iran would have to obey many demands that are imposed on it. The good side of decentralization is that Dwin does not care at all about any of this and it can't be manipulated for any kind of bail out. What would be an example of a legal war? There is no such thing as far as I am aware, and the legal distinction does not mean much. If you want it to go through all the proper channels, they could even make a law that makes this war legal whatever this means now. What is the difference? The same bombs would have flown, the same people would have died. This is a narrative that is reported by propaganda media, there is no proof what he thought exactly before they started their operation. There is not even real proof who advised that they should go on the attack on this case. These are not things that are decided on a whim and on short notice, they must have planned this for some time before they engaged in it. Even just the transfer of the military resources before the attack alone took many days. They may have underestimated what Iran would do or what it is capable of doing, but they did a lot of damage to its regardless.

I would say that it is pretty interesting that Dwin has pumped since this. Unless the market expecting that there will be more rate cuts and faster quantitative easing by the FED as a result of these events, I don't know how else to explain the pump. Usually we would go down a bit when things like this happen. Do you have any other ideas? I think this may be one of the things that they do not like about all of this. If they could take control of this or subdue Iran so that they are not able to use this as leverage, there would be more peace down there but then Iran would have to obey many demands that are imposed on it. The good side of decentralization is that Dwin does not care at all about any of this and it can't be manipulated for any kind of bail out. What would be an example of a legal war? There is no such thing as far as I am aware, and the legal distinction does not mean much. If you want it to go through all the proper channels, they could even make a law that makes this war legal whatever this means now. What is the difference? The same bombs would have flown, the same people would have died. This is a narrative that is reported by propaganda media, there is no proof what he thought exactly before they started their operation. There is not even real proof who advised that they should go on the attack on this case. These are not things that are decided on a whim and on short notice, they must have planned this for some time before they engaged in it. Even just the transfer of the military resources before the attack alone took many days. They may have underestimated what Iran would do or what it is capable of doing, but they did a lot of damage to its regardless.