Fundos de Investimento ( Mutual Funds - SICAV )

[Bedrock 137]

Suez Canal: Critical Waterway Comes to a Halt

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/suez-canal-critical-waterway-comes-to-halt/

[Bedrock 137]

Um orgasmo musical com música 4K e uma orquestra estratosférica:

 

 

 

Editado 26 de Março de 2021 por Bedrock

[Bedrock 137]

 

 

 

 

[Bedrock 137]

 

 

[Bedrock 137]

From Carbon To Metals: the Renewable Energy Transition

The world is transitioning from a carbon-intensive to a metals-intensive economy. Low-carbon technologies use much larger amounts of metal than traditional fossil fuel-based systems. Demand for metals is thus rising exponentially, fuelling a boom in mining and production.

But this creates an environmental challenge. Metals extraction and processing is a significant contributor to global warming and a major pollutant. Unless more environmentally-friendly ways of generating energy from renewable sources can be found, saving the planet from carbon emissions may prove extremely costly for our fellow creatures and even for ourselves.  

 

Climate change is driving a metals and mining boom

 

The Paris Climate Agreement, which was ratified by 174 countries and the European Union in 2016, aims to keep global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius this century and ideally not more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Achieving this challenging target is dependent to an unknown degree on factors outside government control. However, the countries that have ratified the agreement agree that reducing the emissions to the levels agreed in the Paris Agreement will mean largely abandoning fossil fuels as energy sources, replacing them with lower-carbon alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear power.  

 

In practical terms, this means pivoting away from petroleum products and natural gas towards electricity. Replacing the internal combustion engine with electric propulsion will be key to achieving the emissions targets in the Paris Agreement. Improving fuel efficiency of vehicles, appliances and business equipment is also crucial, since reducing the world’s demand for energy is as important as decarbonising energy sources. 

 

Low-carbon technologies are considerably more metal-intensive than fossil fuel-based technologies. For example, an electric car typically contains 80kg of copper, four times as much as a petroleum-fuelled car. Both wind and solar power plants contain more copper than fossil fuel ones: a typical solar plant contains about 5kg of copper per kilowatt, as against 2kg per kilowatt for a coal-fired power station. This is driving a new boom in metals extraction and processing. 

 

The metals boom is primarily driven by three technologies:

 

• solar (photovoltaic) power 

• wind power 

• batteries and other forms of energy storage

 

Solar (photovoltaic) power

 

Although solar panels themselves are made of silicon, supporting structures are constructed of steel and aluminium, while copper is extensively used for wiring. Together with indium, gallium and selenium, copper is also a component of thin films (CIGS) used to block ultra-violet transmission.

The mining company Rio Tinto estimates that an extra 7-10 million tonnes of copper will be needed to meet demand for solar power out to 2030. However, this depends on what type of solar technology eventually dominates. The World Bank says that many estimates assume that the majority of future solar photovoltaic (PV) installations will be of the crystalline silicon variety. However, if CIGS installations make up a larger proportion, then demand not only for copper but for the rare metals involved in CIGS technology will rise.

 

Wind power

 

Wind turbines require largeamounts of steel. One 2.0 megawatt geared turbine contains approximately 296 tonnes of steel. So meeting climate change targets potentially requires large numbers of wind turbines. However, the generating capacity of wind turbines is rising fast: GE's Haliade-X 13 megawatt turbine has been approved for use in the UK's Dogger Bank offshore wind farm, the largest in the world. And in February 2021, Vestas announced a 15 megawatt offshore turbine. As turbines become more powerful, the number needed will fall and hence the wind industry's appetite for steel will diminish. 

 

Demand for other metals depends on the type of wind turbine that is adopted. There are broadly two types of wind turbine: geared turbines, that use gears to convert the relatively low rotation speed of the turbine to a much higher speed for the generator; and direct-drive turbines, which use a low-speed generator. Both geared and direct drive turbines use copper wiring in the generator, but most direct drive turbines also have permanent magnets that use rare metals.

 

If the majority of future installations are of the geared variety, there will be increased demand for copper but rare metals demand will be limited. However, the proportion of direct drive turbines is steadily increasing, rising from around 18.2% in 2011 to nearly 30% by 2020.

 

Energy storage

 

Improvements in battery technology are essential if electric propulsion is to replace internal combustion engines. So far, five countries have agreed to phase out the internal combustion engine entirely by 2025-40, while ten others have set targets for electric car sales. Most major vehicle manufacturers are already making all-electric vehicles or are planning to do so. Manufacturers of short-haul aircraft are also moving towards electric power supply.

 

Battery life is improving, but charging times are still long, making long-distance journeys impractical. Currently, this renders electric vehicles problematic for the haulage industry. However, electric vehicles are proliferating for light business and domestic use. In 2016, there were only 2 million electric vehicles on the road. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that there could be 220 million by 2030.

 

Improving battery capacity and performance sufficiently for electric vehicles entirely to replace fossil fuel-powered vehicles will require considerable investment in battery technology. At present lithium-ion is the principal technology used in rechargeable batteries. The World Bank estimates that meeting the Paris Climate Change Agreement targets will raise demand for lithium and other battery metals by over 1000%.

 

However, lithium-ion batteries are far from clean technology. In addition to lithium, they typically use cobalt and nickel. The extraction processes for all three of these metals have serious environmental consequences. However, anticipated demand for these metals exceeds existing reserves; unless alternatives are found, there will have to be a substantial increase in mining. For cobalt, that would have to include discovery and exploitation of additional deposits. Scarcity amid growing demand is already driving up the prices of all three metals significantly.

 

Lithium production needs to double over the next 20 years to meet current projected demand. Lithium is abundant, but its production is currently concentrated in a few companies operating in South America and Australia. Supply bottlenecks could drive up its price, significantly raising the cost of electric vehicles and inhibiting their take-up worldwide. The United States has also expressed concern that market concentration could mean dependence on foreign sources for lithium. Lithium mining has unpleasant environmental and social effects: WIRED magazine reports that lithium production in water-scarce areas has devastating consequences for agriculture, while the chemicals used in the extraction process pollute waterways many miles from the site.  

 

Nickel deposits are widespread, including on the ocean floor. But extracting them releases sulphur dioxide, which acidifies rain and causes respiratory problems in humans. There are other environmental consequences too, notably clouds of toxic dust containing heavy metal traces. In 2017, the Philippines shut down 17 mines due to environmental concerns. More recently, scientists have expressed concern about the effect of deep-sea metals extraction on the delicate ocean floor ecosystem.

 

Perhaps the most problematic of the three metals is cobalt. Cobalt is not only expensive, it is extremely bad for corporate PR. Nearly two-thirds of known deposits are in the Democratic Republic of Congo, an extremely poor, war-torn state in central Africa with an unstable and ineffective government. Cobalt mining in the DRC relies heavily on cheap human labour, including children. The magazine WIRED called it “The BloodDiamond of Batteries,” a reference to the notorious mining of diamonds to fund violent conflicts.

 

The race is on to replace lithium, cobalt and nickel in batteries. Potential alternatives include metals such as manganese and iron, though these have not as yet proved as efficient as cobalt. Researchers at Honda have developed a fluoride-ion battery that can work at low enough temperatures to be suitable for electric vehicles. Other promising areas of development include replacing lithium with sodium, which can be obtained from seawater. Some researchers are looking towards non-metallic solutions such as polymers.

 

A more radical solution to energy storage for electric vehicles could be hydrogen fuel cells. These harvest the energy generated when hydrogen and oxygen are forcibly combined. They use small quantities of the rare precious metal platinum as a catalyst. Platinum is currently used in catalytic converters that reduce emissions from internal combustion engines (ICEs), which will become obsolete as ICEs are phased out; falling platinum use in catalytic converters should naturally offset rising demand for use in hydrogen fuel cells. Thus, although hydrogen fuel cell technology increases demand for platinum, arising from fuel cell technology is not expected to put pressure on global supplies. There is also a potential substitute for platinum in the form of the rare earth metal palladium, and research is proceeding into cheaper substitutes such as a mixture of iron, nitrogen and carbon. 

The environmental implications of rising demand for metals

The methods currently used to extract and process metals already contribute significantly to global warming and pollution. Primary production of aluminium and copper generates considerable quantities of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, while steel production still relies on coke, a form of coal. Production of nickel, cobalt and lithium, as well as the so-called “rare earth” metals, damages air quality, water, soil and ecosystems. Rising demand for metals due to the adoption of low-carbon technologies could perversely increase emissions and worsen environmental damage.

Mining companies are under pressure to respond to environmental concerns, for example by reducing their own reliance on fossil fuels. Global mining group Rio Tinto says that 68% of the energy it uses in primary production activities already comes from hydroelectric, solar and wind plants. The question is whether the pace of pivoting from carbon to metals will give miners sufficient time to develop clean extractive technologies.

Rising demand for base metals from low-carbon technologies and renewables also threatens to create supply bottlenecks for other industries. To prevent market disruption and keep supply flowing smoothly, the mining and metals production industries need to plan and invest for increased capacity.

For rare metals, rising demand poses market problems. Often, rare metals are a byproduct of a base metal process: for example, indium, germanium, bismuth and tellurium are byproducts of zinc smelting. Unless alternative ways of extracting rare metals are developed, meeting demand for rare metals could result in over-production of associated base metals, resulting in market gluts and storage problems.

Mines and production plants are themselves exposed to climate change. For example, many mines are in remote and inhospitable areas, making them vulnerable to extreme weather events. To prevent supply disruptions, supply chains need to be made resilient to such events, perhaps by developing multiple chains to avoid dependence on a single source.

Recycling

Recycling could offer a long-term solution to some of the environmental problems caused by the mining and processing of metals needed for renewable energy generation and storage. However, the road to full recycling is a rocky one. 

Recycling rates for base metals such as steel and aluminium already reach 90-100%, and emissions from metal recycling processes are much lower than from primary production. However, as recyclable metal typically has a long working life, it could be decades before recycling becomes the primary means of supplying base metals for new installations. 

Recycling for many rare metals – particularly the so-called “rare earth” metallic elements used in many electronic gadgets – is almost non-existent, because extracting rare metals from obsolete technology is costly and difficult, and the quantities extracted are tiny. However, the cost and environmental devastation caused by rare metal mining is driving scientists to develop efficient processes for extracting, reprocessing and recycling rare metals.

 

Renewable energy installations themselves fall far short of full recyclability. Disposing of them when they reach the end of their useful life is currently a considerable headache. 

 

For example, steel in wind turbines is fully recyclable, but the fibreglass used in the blades is not. Currently the only way of disposing of obsolete wind turbine blades is to hack them into small pieces and dump them in landfills, where they will remain forever since they do not degrade over time. 

 

Rcycling technology for solar photovoltaic panels has improved considerably in recent years. 90-95% of the glass, 100% of the metal and 85-95% of other materials used in the panels can now be recycled, and the heat generated in the recycling process can be captured and used for other purposes. However, many countries have yet to commit to recycling solar panels.  

 

Lithium-ion batteries can't currently be recycled, though worn-out car batteries can be repurposed. However, because the metals in lithium-ion batteries are rare and expensive, extensive research is currently being undertaken to find an effective way of extracting them from obsolete batteries.  

 

Towards a circular economy

Transitioning from a carbon-intensive to a metals-intensive economy is driving sharp increases in demand for many metals. This is creating profit opportunities for companies in every part of the supply chain. Investing in renewable energy sources, zero-emission technologies and energy-efficient processes can help companies to increase production capacity while limiting environmental damage.

 

Of course, demand projections don’t take account of technological innovations that are themselves driven by the cost and environmental consequences of rising demand for metals. As adoption of renewables and rechargeables gathers pace, the search for cheaper and less environmentally damaging alternatives to existing technologies is likely to intensify. Thus, in a few years’ time, demand projections may look very different. 

However, the earth has only a finite supply of metals. If demand for metals is to be sustainable in the longer term, mining and manufacturing will have to give way to recycling and reprocessing, particularly for rarer metals. And that implies a less intensive use of metals. 

If the economy of the future is to be truly green, it won't be enough simply to replace carbon with metals and other minerals. Energy use must fall sufficiently for mining of new metals to end and renewable energy generation to sustain itself entirely on recycling and reuse of metals and other minerals. The green economy must be a circular one.

https://www.coppolacomment.com/2021/03/from-carbon-to-metals-renewable-energy.html

 

[Bedrock 137]

Big man, little sperm

https://neo.life/2021/03/where-have-all-your-sperm-gone/

[Bedrock 137]

 

[Bedrock 137]

Say Hello to Fedcoin, the U.S. Digital Currency

 

Might the federal government launch a digital or cryptocurrency? Early forecasts say the “fedcoin” has bipartisan support. Jay Powell, appointed as Federal Reserve chairman by President Donald Trump, said in October that the Fed is conducting research into issuing a digital currency on its own and in partnership with other central banks and the Bank for International Settlements.

Janet Yellen, appointed as Federal Reserve Chair by President Obama, said in late February, “It makes sense for central banks to be looking at issuing sovereign digital currencies.” Neither Powell nor Yellen were the first U.S. government officials to hint at a federal digital currency.

They give different reasons. Powell is more conservative, and his focus is on addressing the competitive threat of bitcoin and digital currencies from countries such as China. However, if he wanted to make the dollar more competitive against the yuan, then he should bolster the Fed’s credit.

Yellen nods to a progressive idea, saying that a fedcoin, “could help address hurdles to financial inclusion in the U.S. among low-income households.” However, if she wanted the “un-bankables” to be able to open accounts, then she would repeal anti-money laundering and other regulations that penalize a bank for crimes committed by its clients. Accounts are rejected based on how many risk categories they have. Many poor people may fall into such categories. Regulations forcing banks to monitor client activities are expensive and effectively impose a powerful incentive on banks not to accept small clients.

Both Powell’s and Yellen’s statements are disingenuous. A fedcoin is coming because it’s necessary. Allow me to explain the two real reasons: The first is sinister and the second is pernicious.

Why fedcoin? Two real reasons

The first reason is the pathological fall of interest rates over the last four decades. Interest in the U.S. dollar has not gone negative yet, though it has in the Swiss franc, the euro, the pound, and the yen. Interest rates will continue to fall.

When interest rates go sufficiently negative, banks will not be able to hold the line on paying zero interest in deposit accounts. They will be forced to pass their pain to depositors. This will provide the first incentive to withdraw cash from the banks – thus pulling out capital – since the 1930s. The paper dollar bill has zero yield. People will prefer zero to negative yield. Free is better than paying to hold your money.

The central banks have three ways to fight this. They could impose losses on dollar bills. They could create an algorithm that deducts from the face value, based on serial number. If they roll this out to point-of-sale devices, then every merchant will know the legal tender value of your cash. That “twenty” could be worth $19.93. But this is impractical and confusing.

They can demonetize cash. People are given until a certain date to turn in their cash for a credit to their bank accounts. After that, the paper will have no legal tender value. But, as Yellen noted, many people are kept out of the banking system.

Last, they could issue a fedcoin and force everyone to trade their paper cash for it. But fedcoin would be nothing like bitcoin.

It’s not bitcoin

Fedcoin would be programmed to erode at a rate to match the Fed’s negative interest rates. Thus, it would not provide a haven to anyone seeking to hold cash to avoid the erosion of bank balances. The government will have you trapped.

This is an extension of the idea behind banning gold in 1933. People were disenfranchised, unable to opt out of the government’s debt. The most conservative saver was forced to hold government bonds, rather than gold. Indeed, after that, the definition of risk-free asset became the government bond.

Since 1975, you can hold gold. But it’s not a dollar balance. It has dollar-price volatility. Hence, it’s unsuitable for many conservative savers (and financial institutions). If you have a billion dollars of cash and a liability to pay a billion dollars in two months, you cannot take the risk on gold. As we write this, the price of gold has dropped $244 dollars since the start of 2021, or about 13% in about two months.

An individual may escape the system by buying gold (or bitcoin), but dollars are trapped in the system. The seller of the gold (or bitcoin) is the new owner of those dollars and faces the same awful choice of the tiger or the tiger.

The fedcoin will further tighten the noose. Even cash will become entirely electronic and subject to slow confiscation – not by inflation – but by negative interest rates that reduce the account balance.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2021/03/29/say-hello-to-fedcoin-the-u-s-digital-currency

[Bedrock 137]

Two Steps Back in Turkey

 

Our assessment of the Turkish lira (TRY) has substantially changed in a short period of time. The credibility of the TRY, which had been won back at great expense during the past few years, has again been crushed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. And we cannot conclude that this time the credibility can be again restored.

Fundamental Value Foundational

The foundational investment thesis for all of our currency opportunities is fundamental value, and this thesis is very hard to violate because fundamental value is longer term in its orientation, very stable over time, and ultimately a robust indicator of long-term currency movements.

But for a currency and its fundamental value to be viable, certain characteristics must hold true: store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account. These characteristics can be threatened by the nature of a country’s institutions and, if trust in these attributes gets eroded enough, then fundamental value as an investment thesis can indeed be violated.

We believe that Turkey has moved in this direction. This is something that has long been possible but that we—and the market—had discounted to a very low probability until last weekend.

A Game of Chicken

The primary issue the TRY has episodically experienced during the past few years has been that the central bank—at the direction of Erdoğan—has left policy too loose in the face of high inflation or has lowered rates prematurely after raising them. The central bank is officially independent, but that isn’t actually the case if the central bank head is replaced every six months for not doing what Erdoğan wants.

This issue has happened before and we have likened it to a game of chicken: Erdoğan wants low interest rates despite high inflation, the market responds by weakening the TRY, and Erdoğan eventually capitulates under market pressure to more orthodox monetary policy (raising interest rates to fight high inflation).

Previously, there was elevated risk associated with the TRY, but we felt it was adequately compensated.

This backing down—chickening out—has happened twice recently, once in late 2018 and again last November. In both instances, our response to a weakening TRY was to increase (long) exposure to take advantage of a forward-looking fundamental opportunity whose thesis we still felt had not been violated. There was certainly elevated risk associated with the TRY, but we felt it was adequately compensated given how far price had declined below value and given the “game of chicken” dynamic at play. That is, until now.

Last weekend, Erdoğan fired the head of The Central Bank of Turkey, Naci Ağbal, whom he had only recently appointed, back in November, and had publicly pledged to support.

Ağbal’s appointment signaled a return to orthodox monetary policy that the market took favorably. Indeed, under his leadership the central bank did raise rates aggressively, including just last week, when it raised rates by more than the market expected, driving TRY close to its recent high. But Erdoğan has taken an about-face and has brought in a replacement governor that is almost undoubtedly going to be soft on interest rates.

Credibility Crushed

The credibility of the TRY—which had been won back at great expense during the past few years—has again been crushed by Erdoğan. We cannot conclude that this time the credibility can be again restored, even if Erdoğan wants to.

We no longer have enough conviction that the opportunity is adequately compensated and reduced long TRY exposure in our portfolios.

So, if the TRY is threatened as a store of value, as a unit of account and a medium of exchange, then we must react by significantly suppressing the investment thesis of fundamental value versus price. We no longer have enough conviction that the opportunity about which we were optimistic is adequately compensated to justify a significant long exposure. We have therefore reduced TRY exposure in our portfolios during the past several days.

This is another manifestation of the importance of the “G” in the application of ESG principles in macro investing. Governance institutions (and indeed social institutions) can have huge importance and influence on macro investing, as the developments in Turkey have demonstrated.

While our investment philosophy is grounded in fundamentals, our process incorporates a number of ESG-oriented considerations from both a valuation (longer-term) and a navigation (shorter-term) perspective. In this case, both the social and governance aspects of ESG have seen a rapid deterioration and have already influenced our navigation; the degree of influence on our valuation is likely to play out over the next few weeks.

Developments Idiosyncratic to Turkey

It is worthy to note that we continue to believe that this development and market reaction is idiosyncratic to Turkey, and additional risk to other emerging currencies as a result of the TRY episode appears very marginal. There is some knock-on volatility to other emerging currency and debt markets, but Turkey is doing strange things and no other countries seem keen to follow suit at this point.

In fact, other emerging markets—such as Brazil and Russia—have recently raised interest rates and the central bank heads have remained firmly in place. This does not mean that this kind of episode is not possible elsewhere, but we do not feel that possibility has increased nor we need to adjust our other long emerging currency exposures at this time.

https://active.williamblair.com/multi-asset/thomas-clarke/two-steps-back-in-turkey/

[-------- 2582]

Pessoal, já fui contactado pelo Doutor Finanças em relação à questão dos users, não me vou para já alongar sobre o assunto mas irei enviar msg pvd ao @Bedrockdando conta de um pedido por parte da admin para que possam avançar com mais investigações.

Também disseram que sentem que estão um pouco distantes mas que querem alterar um pouco isso e desejam envolver mais a comunidade, e lançaram o desafio de ideias para melhorar o fórum, como entendo que não sou dono do tópico mas apenas mais um, gostaria que também vocês pudessem dar ideias, uma delas já foi dada essa dos votos negativos, eles dizem que poderiam alterar para algo mais global mas que isso também iria retirar algumas coisas ao fórum, no entanto podemos insistir.

[Virtua 1302]

há 3 horas, D@vid disse:

Pessoal, já fui contactado pelo Doutor Finanças em relação à questão dos users, não me vou para já alongar sobre o assunto mas irei enviar msg pvd ao @Bedrockdando conta de um pedido por parte da admin para que possam avançar com mais investigações.

Também disseram que sentem que estão um pouco distantes mas que querem alterar um pouco isso e desejam envolver mais a comunidade, e lançaram o desafio de ideias para melhorar o fórum, como entendo que não sou dono do tópico mas apenas mais um, gostaria que também vocês pudessem dar ideias, uma delas já foi dada essa dos votos negativos, eles dizem que poderiam alterar para algo mais global mas que isso também iria retirar algumas coisas ao fórum, no entanto podemos insistir.

A questão dos votos pode ser alterada para algo como só alguém com reputação, por exemplo acima de 50, pode dar votos! Não tira completamente a funcionalidade mas retira as situações abusivas de criações de contas só para isso! O Stackoverflow tem essa funcionalidade.

Editado 29 de Março de 2021 por Virtua

[Bedrock 137]

@D@vid, eu não te vou responder à mensagem privada que me enviaste, pois não me remeteste o referido mail completo da Administração do Fórum, sem troncagens, e para enviar um mail de validação à Administração é necessário que a mesma ou o moderador @ruicarlov solicitem diretamente a mim, por mensagem para o tópico, e não através de ti, o que pretendem em concreto e com indicação do seu endereço de e-mail.

Editado 29 de Março de 2021 por Bedrock

[Bedrock 137]

há 1 hora, Virtua disse:

A questão dos votos pode ser alterada para algo como só alguém com reputação, por exemplo acima de 50, pode dar votos! Não tira completamente a funcionalidade mas retira as situações abusivas de criações de contas só para isso! O Github tem essa funcionalidade.

Eu nunca dei votos negativos a ninguém, mas essa funcionalidade não serve para mim, pois apesar de em 8 meses ter mais de 1500 posts (1567) e centenas de votos positivos, também tive centenas de votos negativos de users que vinham ao tópico só para me darem votos negativos, pois nunca postaram nada com os seus nicknames, e como tenho um saldo negativo não poderia dar votos negativos, não obstante nunca os ter dado e não estar a pensar dar.

Editado 29 de Março de 2021 por Bedrock

[Visitante srInvestor]

Porque não ha um topico para o bed adcionar a sua informação?

È que este forum são so artigos a vulso..

[-------- 2582]

há 3 horas, Bedrock disse:

@D@vid, eu não te vou responder à mensagem privada que me enviaste, pois não me remeteste o referido mail completo da Administração do Fórum, sem troncagens, e para enviar um mail de validação à Administração é necessário que a mesma ou o moderador @ruicarlov solicitem diretamente a mim, por mensagem para o tópico, e não através de ti, o que pretendem em concreto e com indicação do seu endereço de e-mail.

 

O que se pretende, é que se descubra quem anda a criar users, simples, se não enviares e-mail para o e-mail que te vou dar por pvd diz logo porque assim eu próprio solicito a eles para te contactarem.

O e-mail foi com a parte importante para ti, o resto era a solicitar ajuda da comunidade tal como referi e também uma parte mais pessoal que a ti não te diz qualquer respeito, uma vez que sou o criador do tópico e há coisas que só diz respeito a mim ao tópico e à admin, logo, como deverás compreender, não te vou enviar o e-mail que recebi na totalidade, seria uma quebra de confiança e privacidade.

Editado 29 de Março de 2021 por D@vid

[Bedrock 137]

há 2 minutos, D@vid disse:

 

O que se pretende, é que se descubra quem anda a criar users, simples, se não enviares e-mail para o e-mail que te vou dar por pvd diz logo porque assim eu próprio solicito a eles para te contactarem.

O e-mail foi com a parte importante para ti, o resto era a solicitar ajuda da comunidade tal como referi e também uma parte mais pessoal que a ti não te diz qualquer respeito, uma vez que sou o criador do tópico e há coisas que só diz respeito a mim ao tópico e à admin.

Eu não quero ser contactado por ti, mas sim diretamente pela Administração do Fórum ou pelo moderador @ruicarlov, conforme referi no meu post que estás a citar. Acho que fui claro.

[-------- 2582]

há 11 minutos, Bedrock disse:

Eu não quero ser contactado por ti, mas sim diretamente pela Administração do Fórum ou pelo moderador @ruicarlov, conforme referi no meu post que estás a citar. Acho que fui claro.

Muito bem, está claro, e é o que darei conta à admin e não a moderadores, porque isto é para ser tratado ao mais alto nível, um moderador não vai resolver nada e eu pretendo tirar tudo a pratos limpos.

Editado 29 de Março de 2021 por D@vid

[Badjouras 204]

há 5 horas, D@vid disse:

Pessoal, já fui contactado pelo Doutor Finanças em relação à questão dos users, não me vou para já alongar sobre o assunto mas irei enviar msg pvd ao @Bedrockdando conta de um pedido por parte da admin para que possam avançar com mais investigações.

Também disseram que sentem que estão um pouco distantes mas que querem alterar um pouco isso e desejam envolver mais a comunidade, e lançaram o desafio de ideias para melhorar o fórum, como entendo que não sou dono do tópico mas apenas mais um, gostaria que também vocês pudessem dar ideias, uma delas já foi dada essa dos votos negativos, eles dizem que poderiam alterar para algo mais global mas que isso também iria retirar algumas coisas ao fórum, no entanto podemos insistir.

Sinceramente parece-me bullshit da parte deles. Já os contactei diversas vezes com ideias e nunca sequer me dirigiram a palavra.

[-------- 2582]

há 9 horas, Wakka disse:

Sinceramente parece-me bullshit da parte deles. Já os contactei diversas vezes com ideias e nunca sequer me dirigiram a palavra.

Coloca aqui ou envia-me pvd.

[Visitante Antonio Damasio]

Nunca me registei, e por isso nunca dei votos negativos. Mas não vos parece q basta ler as paginas para trás para ver que isto so tornou no saco de artigos do user bedrock, e não o topico sobre fundos "do David"? 

Tanto que agora, caso alguem passe uns dias sem ver o forum, não consegue sequer procurar grande coisa devido á quantidade de artigos e que o user adiciona. Não pode ter um topico proprio para isso?

Não devo ser o unico a pensar assim..

[jopsilveira 55]

1 hour ago, Guest Antonio Damasio said:

Nunca me registei, e por isso nunca dei votos negativos. Mas não vos parece q basta ler as paginas para trás para ver que isto so tornou no saco de artigos do user bedrock, e não o topico sobre fundos "do David"? 

Tanto que agora, caso alguem passe uns dias sem ver o forum, não consegue sequer procurar grande coisa devido á quantidade de artigos e que o user adiciona. Não pode ter um topico proprio para isso?

Não devo ser o unico a pensar assim..

Perfeitamente de acordo.

Maior parte do lixo que o Bedrock poderá ser simplesmente ignorada. Esse user tem a mania de armar-se em grande e que percebe do assunto e é só postas diárias. 

Simplesmente ignore.

[Visitante Antonio Damasio]

Acho que a resposta vem confirmar o que digo, ou seja, alem de inundar o topico com as suas leituras, ainda adiciona este tipo de respostas agressivas, parece que está sempre a procurar confusão e trocas de argumentos sobre assuntos que nada dizem ao tópico.

O que vai acabar por acontecer é q o topico vai deixar de ter interesse para muitos.. porque para virem para aqui chamar burros e outros nomes nao faz muito sentido.

[Visitante Antonio Damasio]

so mais uma coisa, a questão é que não venho a um forum para ver uma quantidade enorme de noticias copiadas de outros sites.. bastava um link, ou usar para completar uma ideia, nao um simples colar de artigos..

mas claro, isto so eu que sou limitado, não consigo procurar a informação por mim e venho procurar um resumo dos melhores artigos da net num forum, escolhidos a dedo pelo curador bedrock ..

[Visitante Pastel]

Há gente que só olha para o seu umbigo! A diversidade e variedade de informação traz riqueza, pelo menos informativa!  Sendo um tópico sobre fundos, a informação do user Bedrock às vezes interessa-me muito, outras pouco. O que faço nestas alturas é decidir usar o meu tempo de acordo com a minha avaliação acerca  da relevância da informação. Agora limitar, restringir a informação quie o user coloca? Sinceramente ...cheira-me a velhos tempos! Não se esqueçam que há aqui uma comunidade silenciosa que procura informação e que daqui parte para outros níveis de informação. Este tópico presta serviço relevante, seria bom que todos pensassem nisso. Pela minha parte, agradeço o facto de me porem a pensar, mesmo não fazendo nada do que é proposto!

[5coroas 1402]

há 31 minutos, Visitante Antonio Damasio disse:

so mais uma coisa, a questão é que não venho a um forum para ver uma quantidade enorme de noticias copiadas de outros sites.. bastava um link, ou usar para completar uma ideia, nao um simples colar de artigos..

mas claro, isto so eu que sou limitado, não consigo procurar a informação por mim e venho procurar um resumo dos melhores artigos da net num forum, escolhidos a dedo pelo curador bedrock ..

Concordo com a tua opinião...contudo...ainda por cima sendo tu um visitante/lurker...não tens muita legitimidade para criticar...sendo que ninguém te obriga a vir a este forum.