Planet Code4Lib

Weeknote 32 / Mita Williams

This week I've been working on the behind the scene logistics of hiring student IT consultants for the library as well as other projects that are in various stages of un-done-ness. September is approaching so quickly.

The Exchange You Can Trust / David Rosenthal

One of the many ironies about "decentralized, trustless" cryptocurrencies is that they are neither decentralized nor trustless. Since in practice you can neither buy nor sell real goods using them, you need to trust an exchange to convert fiat to cryptocurrency and vice versa. Exchanges range from those you definitely shouldn't trust, such as Binance, through somewhat less sketchy ones such as Kraken (now being investigated for sanctions busting) to Coinbase, which presents itself as a properly regulated, US based exchange that is totally trustworthy.

But recently cracks have been appearing in their façade of respectability, big enough that even the New York Times has noticed. The Humbling of Coinbase by David Yaffe-Bellany and Mike Isaac summarizes the situation:
Coinbase rose to prominence as one of the first major crypto companies, a gateway to the chaotic world of digital assets for amateur investors. But as it has grown from plucky start-up to publicly traded company, its status as an industry leader has been threatened by a series of missteps and a steep decline in the crypto market over the last six months.
Below the fold I probe into some of these cracks.

Trying To Sell Unregistered Securities

Last September David Gerard described the Coinbase Lend fiasco:
Encouraged by BlockFi and now Celsuis’s complete lack of any issues with the authorities, popular crypto exchange Coinbase decided it would get into the crypto lending game too — with Coinbase Lend! Coinbase would make loans, and you could buy a share in the loans. [Coinbase, archive]

As it happens, this is a type of security called a “bond”, and it’s listed in the first page of the Securities Act of 1933.

The SEC sent Coinbase a Wells Notice — the letter they send before prosecuting. Coinbase haven’t put the letter up, but they did say it was the SEC threatening them with prosecution if they went ahead with Lend.

Coinbase’s CEO, Brian Armstrong, posted a Twitter thread about the SEC’s “really sketchy behavior,” and Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal blogged about how “We don’t know why.” [Twitter; Medium]

The responses divided roughly into:
crypto people: darn that SEC and their vicious lack of regulatory clarity!
non-crypto people: it’s clearly a bond, Coinbase can’t possibly be this stupid in real life.
The SEC tweeted a helpful thirty-second video explaining what a bond was. [Twitter]

Doomberg wondered how the Wells Notice could be about Lend, because it hadn’t launched yet — “you don’t get a Wells Notice for something you are considering doing, you get one for deeds you’ve already done.” But Coinbase filed an 8-K about the Wells Notice, saying it was for Lend. [Substack; SEC]

Coinbase insiders dumped a pile of stock the day they received the Wells Notice. Coinbase pointed out that the sale was scheduled in the proper manner — but you’d think a Wells Notice was a sufficiently material event to cancel such a dump. [Twitter; Medium]

Eventually, Coinbase realised that a public company blatantly violating the Securities Act after an SEC warning is probably not a winning move — even if it gets you clout on crypto Twitter. Lend is no longer being offered. The company plans to still argue the point, though. [Coinbase, archive; Twitter]

Fiasco In India

The same week that Coinbase announced their launch in India:
Coinbase got some bad news. A government-backed group issued a statement suggesting that the company would be unable to use a crucial payments platform — a system that was supposed to allow Coinbase customers to convert their rupees into virtual currencies like Bitcoin and Ether. Not long after its grand opening, Coinbase halted much of its trading service in India.
Despite its early start, Coinbase has never had a strong hold over the international market, which is dominated by Binance. The company went into India despite widespread uncertainty about how the government would react, an approach that industry experts considered unwise.

Misleading Customers About Their Funds And Keys

In April David Gerard reported on panic among Coinbase's customers:
In April, the SEC put forward new accounting rules for holding cryptocurrencies on behalf of a customer: you should account these as liabilities. [SEC]

So Coinbase duly stated in their quarterly 10-Q SEC filing that: [SEC]
because custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be the property of a bankruptcy estate, in the event of a bankruptcy, the crypto assets we hold in custody on behalf of our customers could be subject to bankruptcy proceedings and such customers could be treated as our general unsecured creditors.
Not just cryptos on deposit for trading — but cryptographic private keys that customers gave Coinbase to look after, because keeping your keys safe turns out to be super-hard.

Proper banks cannot rifle through the safe deposit boxes to pay their bills — but Coinbase isn’t a bank, it just wants to pretend it’s as safe as one, when it absolutely isn’t.

Coinbase put on its “no risk of bankruptcy” shirt, which promptly raised a lot of questions answered by the shirt. [FT, paywalled; Twitter]
It was clearly news to many Coinbase customers that they were not protected by SIPC, like customers of a real exchange, or FDIC, like customers of a real bank.

"Losing Money Running A Casino"

In the same post Gerard added the wry note:
The 10-Q filing also revealed that Coinbase had somehow managed to lose buckets of money running a casino. Shares in Coinbase fell 23%. [Bloomberg]
Coinbase Sinks After Warning the Slide in Volume to Worsen by Olga Kharif and Yueqi Yang provided more datils:
Coinbase Global Inc. shares tumbled after first-quarter revenue missed estimates and the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange warned that total trading volume in the current quarter will be lower than in the first.

The company’s shares fell about 16% after the close of regular trading. Monthly transacting users fell to 9.2 million, below an estimate of 9.5 million. First-quarter revenue slumped to $1.17 billion, while analysts were expecting revenue of $1.48 billion, according to Bloomberg data.
Coinbase earns the bulk of its revenue from trading fees, and its shares have fallen to all-time lows -- down more than 70% from where they traded when the company went public a year ago.
Note that when the story came out, BTC was trading at $31.5K, a month before Terra/Luna would start the slide to below $20K.

NFT Marketplace Fiasco

Coinbase was late to the NFT bubble:
Coinbase hoped to unveil the marketplace in the first quarter of 2022, Mr. Saxena said in an interview. But it was delayed until late April. By that point, the broader NFT market had cratered: Sales were down more than 80 percent from the fall.

After its release, the marketplace got scathing reviews. In the last week of July, it generated about $24,000 a day in trades; its main competitor, OpenSea, which serves as a kind of eBay for NFTs, generated 600 times that amount.

Tolerating Insider Trading

The next issue arrived with Coinbase Insider Trading Arrest Highlights “Altcoin” Problem by Max Chafkin, who started by explaining Coinbase's notorious "pivot to shitcoins":
Shortly after taking his company public, Armstrong announced that Coinbase would expand the number of coins listed on its service to keep up with investor demand. ... Over the next year, the company would add more than 100 new tokens.
This made a certain amount of sense. Up to that point, Coinbase had been more cautious than competitors, listing only Bitcoin, Ether, and a handful of other well-established tokens. These restrictions had mostly kept its customers from getting wrapped up in the scams, hacks, rug-pulls, and pump-and-dump schemes that have dogged crypto for years. But Coinbase’s restraint created an opportunity for competitors—especially Binance, which offered hundreds of tokens—to gain market share.
How did the pivot work out?
At first, the pivot to shitcoin seemed to work out for Coinbase, which saw its stock price climb in the months that followed as digital asset speculation approached its peak. But in hindsight, one could be forgiven for seeing the move as reckless. Last week, federal prosecutors arrested a former Coinbase product manager, Ishan Wahi, accusing him of insider trading.
In "You Don't Own Web3": A Coinbase Curse and How VCs Sell Crypto to Retail, Fais Khan explained the opportunity for insider trading at Coinbase:
For years, being listed for trading on Coinbase has been the holy grail of crypto - the equivalent of an IPO on Wall Street. And like an IPO, that seems to come up with a “pop” - Messari, a crypto research firm, documented in a report that the average Coinbase listing leads to a 91% gain in 5 days, on average.
Chia Coin
If you knew ahead of time which coins were going to be listed, you could lock in an average 91% gain. The chart shows A16Z-funded Chia Coin, which launched at $669 and four days later hit $1346 for a 100% gain.

And in The Unstoppable Grift: How Coinbase and Binance Helped Turned Web3 into Venture3, Fais Khan explains how these price spikes led Coinbase to list shitcoins:
the average returns on Binance blew Coinbase out of the water - although the difference in the returns was staggering.

And the thing is, I think Coinbase knows that. Because if you look at the direction they took in 2021, they made a sharp turn to not only add a lot more assets, but being first to list coins, even some on the first day.

That seems risky to me. These are coins with tiny floats that may have only been founded as little as a year prior, and now they’re in the hands of tens of millions of retail investors - who the data shows are often less sophisticated than investors in stocks.

Why else does it matter? It’s also clearly the direction all of the industry is going in: exchanges creating huge venture funds and then aggressively listing coins (often that they’ve invested in) faster and faster. All while they shovel tens of billions of dollars into web3 startups to create an “ecosystem” of more coins that they can use to generate trading revenues.
Doubling in four days is quite the ROI, and thus quite the temptation. Not just for A16Z and the other VCs to run List And Dump Schemes, but also insiders:
Prosecutors said that starting last June, Wahi tipped off his brother and a friend about new listings, which allowed them to make about $1.5 million in profit by buying lightly traded cryptocurrencies ahead of new listings.
Chafkin points out that the insider trading wasn't exactly secret:
The incident hardly suggests rigor on Coinbase’s part, however. The alleged insider trading seems to have been first spotted by a crypto influencer, Jordan Fish, who tweets under the pseudonym Cobie (short for Crypto Cobain) and who said he’d been complaining publicly for months about insider trading on Coinbase. That Coinbase investigated his Twitter tip is to the company’s credit. On the other hand, as Cobie put it, “surely Coinbase should have found this before randoms on Twitter did?”
Coffeezilla interviewed Cobie, who pointed out that it was even worse (my transcript):
Cobie: Coinbase has had listings front-running issues for a while. Originally they only listed like Bitcoin and they had this policy like they were only going to list the best of the best. And then as time passed and they got to like the last couple of years, meme stocks became a thing and obviously they went public, they started losing market share. They sort of changed their policy and started listing like real, real, real garbage but at the same time they started having a lot of issues around people buying the garbage they were listing beforehand. Then they published this blog post about how they're going to change all their listing processes so that this stuff cannot happen in the future and they can get better controls around it. And the very next listing, every single coin got front-run once again.
How did Cobie know?:
Cobie: I'm in a little group of like crypto people who like look at interesting blockchain stuff and one sent this Etherscan link and said "hey, has anyone looked into this, I think these things are going to get listed on Coinbase because they all got bought again by a person who front-run successfully last time. Does anyone know what any of these are? Some of them seem like really, really garbage". I think one of them was called "The Food" or something. I looked at the link, I waited for the coins to get added, about 80% of the ones that were bought on this day were added. So then I tweeted the screenshot of everything he purchased and the blog post like a few weeks ago saying we're tightening up our controls just to say like Coinbase is clearly incompetent at these issues, they're unable to stop it. They've just done this whole song and dance about how much they're going to improve the ecosystem and how much they care about like getting these things right and the very next coin listing has been front-run.
Wahi was a Coinbase employee. He was part of the team responsible for listing new coins. He had been front-running for 18 months. Coinbase didn't notice this until Cobie tweeted about it. He was arrested at the airport as he tried to flee to India.

Actually Selling Unregistered Securities

The very same day Allyson Versprille and Lydia Beyoud reported that Coinbase Faces SEC Probe on Crypto Listings; Shares Tumble:
Coinbase Global Inc. is facing a US probe into whether it improperly let Americans trade digital assets that should have been registered as securities, according to three people familiar with the matter. The company’s shares dropped 21%.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s scrutiny of Coinbase has increased since the platform expanded the number of tokens in which it offers trading, said two of the people, who asked not to be named because the inquiry hasn’t been disclosed publicly. The probe by the SEC’s enforcement unit predates the agency’s investigation into an alleged insider trading scheme that led the regulator last week to sue a former Coinbase manager and two other people.
The "digital assets that should have been registered as securities" are the shitcoins to which Coinbase pivoted in an attempt to catch up to Binance.

Forcing Arbitration On Customers

Greg Stohr's Coinbase Asks Supreme Court to Halt Account-Holder Suits shows how Coinbase thinks unhappy customers' disputes should be handled:
Coinbase Global Inc. asked the US Supreme Court to halt two lawsuits by users of the cryptocurrency exchange platform while the company presses appeals that seek to send the cases to arbitration.

In one case, a man says Coinbase should compensate him for $31,000 he lost after he gave remote access to his account to a scammer. In the other, Coinbase is accused of violating California consumer law by holding a $1.2 million Dogecoin sweepstakes without adequately disclosing that entrants didn’t have to buy or sell the cryptocurrency. Both suits seek class action status.

Federal trial judges in both cases rejected Coinbase’s bid to send the disputes to arbitration, which the company says is required under its user agreements.
How likely is it that an arbitrator will rule for the little guy?

Staking Customer's Coins

Yueqi Yang's Coinbase Under SEC Scrutiny Over Its Crypto-Staking Programs reveals:
Coinbase Global Inc. said it’s being probed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission over its staking programs, which allow users to earn rewards for holding certain cryptocurrencies.

The company “has received investigative subpoenas and requests from the SEC for documents and information about certain customer programs, operations and existing and intended future products,” according to a quarterly regulatory filing. The requests relate to Coinbase’s staking programs, asset-listing process, classification of assets and stablecoin products, the company said.
At Coinbase, blockchain-rewards revenue, primarily from staking, accounted for 8.5% of net revenue in the second quarter. It fell 16% sequentially to $68.4 million during the quarter, less than the decline in trading revenue.

And The Result Is

Coinbase Falls After Second-Quarter Revenue Misses Estimates by Olga Kharif and Yueqi Yang reports on the outcome:
Shares of the company, which were first listed last April, dropped about 4% after the close of regular trading. Coinbase has slumped 65% so far this year
Revenue declined to $808.3 million, missing the $854.8 million estimate from analysts polled by Bloomberg. Monthly transacting users dropped to 9 million in the second quarter, a 2% decline from prior quarter.

Coinbase lost $1.1 billion in the three months ended June 30, including a $446 million non-cash impairment charges related to investments and ventures, making it the largest amount since it became a public company.

They're Not Alone

Another example of a supposedly trustworthy US exchange heavily into cryptocurrencies is Robinhood. Robinhood Crypto Unit Fined $30 Million by New York Regulator by Annie Massa reveals that:
Robinhood Markets Inc.’s cryptocurrency arm was fined $30 million by New York’s financial regulator after the brokerage was accused of violating anti-money-laundering and cybersecurity rules.

The unit must enlist an independent consultant to monitor compliance, according to an order filed Tuesday. The firm disclosed last year that it expected to pay the penalty.

The enforcement action by the New York State Department of Financial Services underscores the continued regulatory scrutiny Robinhood faces, even as it pushes a message to investors that it’s taking a “safety first” stance toward digital tokens.

Dispelling the Myth of Library Anxiety and Embracing Academic Discomfort / In the Library, With the Lead Pipe

By Kelleen Maluski and Symphony Bruce

In Brief

Countless articles, essays, studies, and conference presentations have been devoted to library anxiety and defining, analyzing, and reviewing behaviors of our users that are seen as “abnormal” or “counterintuitive” to using our services. However, there is not much critique of library anxiety as a concept and it seems that much of the literature accepts library anxiety as not only a completely true “condition.” In this essay, the authors will problematize the concept of library anxiety by dispelling how library anxiety looks at the symptoms rather than the causes and systems that perpetuate a lack of confidence for users within library spaces. The authors will suggest that the way library anxiety is generally framed by the profession is faulty, as it often assumes that libraries are separate from the rest of the academic experience, neutral, and welcoming instead of regular sites of discrimination and stress. Concepts like anti-deficit thinking, vocational awe, and the recognition that libraries are not neutral will be explored while highlighting their connections to white niceness/politeness and systems of white supremacy within and throughout our profession The authors will show why we as a profession need to reconsider our use of this term and instead think holistically when finding solutions to assist our users and take care of ourselves within this service work. 


Since the introduction of the concept of library anxiety by Constance Mellon in 1986, the term has become ubiquitous within our profession. According to Mellon, library anxiety is a phenomena that impacts students once they enter into an academic library space, making it so “when confronted with the need to gather information in the library for their research paper many students become so anxious that they are unable to approach the problem logically or effectively,” and is constantly used to explain why our users are seemingly unable to accomplish specific tasks or ask for assistance (Mellon, 1986, p.163). This term was further solidified in our profession with the creation of a Library Anxiety Scale (LAS) in 1992 by Sharon Lee Bostick in order to allow academic library workers to “determine if library anxiety exists, and if so, which areas of the library are likely to cause anxiety.” Bostick went on to explain that the instrument could be used as a “diagnostic tool” to assist “administrators in determining which services to fund” (1992, p. 5–6).

However, large issues that have yet to be explored include who decides what is “logical” or “effective,” why we have as a profession deemed specific behaviors that seem to be so prevalent within students “abnormal,” and why we feel the need to phenominize, utilizing a structure that is greatly reliant on the dominant narrative of whiteness, ableism, heteronormativity, elitism, and misogyny (Ettarh, 2018; Leung & López-McKnight, 2020). There is an acknowledgement within academia that learning and engaging with new spaces can bring about discomfort for students in any capacity, which is why positions like academic counselors and student success liaisons in academic departments were created. We know that learning new things, no matter what they are, can be anxiety-inducing and that this is not just something that happens within libraries. This anxiety is a perfectly appropriate response to such an overwhelming amount of new information during one’s academic career. This is why we are concerned that the unexamined use of the term library anxiety as a negative condition and subsequent studies to prove its existence further perpetuate a deficit-thinking approach to identifying student needs without questioning the role of the library procedures and library worker beliefs, values, and actions in producing those feelings. 

History and Background of Library Anxiety and Scale

Mellon’s 1986 study utilized the journal entries and end-of-semester essay writings of first year students in an undergraduate writing course, where students were asked to respond to questions about their experiences using the library for their research, how they felt about those experiences, how their feelings changed, and how they felt about using the library upon the conclusion of the course (p.162). Student responses ranged from surprise about the resources and skills they didn’t know existed, to confusion, to what Mellon coded as anxiety or fear. These reflections led Mellon to wonder “Why didn’t students explain their lack of library skills to their professors?”(1986, p.163) – which she believed was illogical and led to ineffective use of library resources. The answer that Mellon gathered, based on analysis of this reflective student writing (though without having any direct conversations/interviews with the students), is that students felt their behavior was not in line with the abilities of other students, and therefore felt shame. The concerns with such a conclusion are that this creates a monolithic concept of students and how they conduct research and utilize our services and revolves around conclusions of a library researcher and not the students themselves. Mellon’s use of “logical and effective” are subjectively based upon a library professional’s interpretation of student behaviors. 

In this analysis, though, there is little reflection or discussion of the ways in which the librarian or the course professor may have contributed to feelings of inadequacy in their students. Additionally, we get no discussion of the students’ behaviors which are deemed ineffective or illogical. Students are described as “lacking,” with very little analysis on what that could actually mean and why that is the case. 

In 1992, Bostick developed the Library Anxiety Scale (LAS) to measure these “inadequacies” in students. In developing this scale, Bostick attempted to learn more about the demographics of the students studied, gathering data on grade levels, age, and sex in addition to developing questions to rate student’s experiences and feelings about using library resources. It is important to note that the scale does not consider possible discrimination as a source of anxiety as it doesn’t ask for identity markers such as race, ethnicity, dis/ability status, sexual orientation, mental health concerns, socioeconomic background, first generation students, or other historically marginalized communities. The omission of these identity markers suggest an inherent belief that library spaces are inclusive by default and validates the existence of library anxiety in students against that faulty inherent belief. 

The five factors impacting library anxiety have evolved through the years, but have been largely based on Bostick’s (1992) analysis. They are:

  • barriers with staff: students not feeling comfortable or able to approach library staff
  • affective barriers: users’ mental state/feelings impacting their interactions with the library; a lot of this revolves around students feeling they don’t know what the library has
  • comfort with the library: users feeling accepted within the spaces and therefore able to move about them with ease
  • knowledge of the library: users’ understanding of the library and knowing what resources are available
  • mechanical barriers: issues accessing materials due to problems such as internet access, computer availability, broken links, etc. 

According to Bostick, these five factors were decided upon after validation from a group of “experts” working from an original list that was “based on an extensive review of the literature, discussions with university faculty, students, and librarians, and the researcher’s professional experience” (p.47).  Students were then asked to respond to statements based upon these five components (For example, the Staff section included the statement “I don’t like to bother the reference librarian” p. 95). The implication in this study is that library workers know what is the correct behavior or feelings to have in these scenarios and therefore they are able to make judgments about what is creating anxiety in students. What is more, the identification of how the reflections of the students are correlated to concepts of anxiety are also completely subjective. Thus, the very foundation of library anxiety is steeped in perspectives that align with white supremacy, deficit thinking, and dominant narratives within academia as it “translate[s] into common language surrounding library ‘users,’ whose often-assumed homogeneity creates false impressions that individuals interact with and experience libraries in similar ways regardless of their identities” (Floegel & Jackson, 2019, p.413).

In 2004 two more works that expand on the LAS were published, an article by Doris J. Van Kampen and the publication of “Library Anxiety: Theory, Research, and Applications,” edited by Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Qun G. Jiao, and Sharon L. Bostick. However, much like the previous works, these texts provide an emphasis on specific “symptoms” users might present rather than with the causes underlying the problems. These works offer “generalizable intervention procedures” (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004, p.10) – like training library workers to be friendly and kind or library-based instruction – that are counterintuitive to holistic concepts of learning which work to understand that every learner is different. When combined with the 2018 article by Erin L. McAfee, which correlated feelings of shame with the concept of library anxiety, we have to ask, if as a profession we generally believe this shame is “inevitable,” what are we doing to change that? How can we as library workers dismantle the oppressive practices of the spaces that we are embedded within and very much a part of? 

These studies show why we focus more readily on behaviors, symptoms, and our preconceived ideas of what our learners should be doing as opposed to tearing down those walls. Our profession aligns itself with white supremacy (Leung & López-McKnight, 2020), therefore we view the anxiety associated with these constructs as being abnormal.

Deficit Thinking as Central

Much has been written about deficit thinking in both the K-12 education and higher education literature, such as The Evolution of Deficit Thinking (1997), edited by Richard R. Valencia, where he describes how the deficit thinking model “posits that the student who fails in school does so because of internal deficits or deficiencies” (p.2). As Heinback, Mitola, and Rinto (2021) paraphrase, Valencia outlines that deficit thinking is characterized by “blaming the victim, oppression, pseudoscience, temporal changes, educability, and heterodoxy” (p.12). Furthermore, the history of institutionalized deficit thinking – like what is seen in discourse around Black students in Title I K-12 schools – has a basis in racism (Menchaca, 1997). For an excellent mapping of the six characteristics of deficit thinking to academic libraries, see Heinback, Mitola, and Rinto’s (2021) Dismantling Deficit Thinking in Academic Libraries

As described above, the very basis of the concept of library anxiety is the idea that students are in some way deficient – in skills, confidence, understanding of procedures – and that this deficiency is something to be treated, fixed, and attended to. This belief that library workers can fix or cure students of their library anxiety by teaching them to use the resources or to see librarians as inherently helpful and good is an example of a deficit thinking model. Using this framework as the basis of instruction, reference, or library services is harmful to students, as it ignores the many skills and life experiences that students bring with them. And as Heinbach, Paloma Fielder, Mitola, & Pattini (2019) concluded in their study of deficit thinking and transfer students, “Rather than encouraging students to inform the nature of the learning environment, educators attempt to fix them to fit a mold defined by a society rife with inequities such as sexism, racism, ableism, and classism.” Library anxiety, when viewed through the deficit thinking lens, assumes that students are unprepared and set up for failure; and quite frankly, it is offensive to the work of students, their life experiences, and the educators they’ve already learned from. 

Gillian Gremmels’ (2015) critique of Constance Mellon’s work helps to illuminate why the deficit thinking model seems so embedded in the library anxiety theory: 

Where most qualitative projects focus on small numbers of respondents, studied in depth, Mellon used several writing samples from each of hundreds of students, creating a dataset whose scope bears more resemblance to a quantitative study. She maintained great distance between herself and her informants: the English instructors assigned and collected the personal writing samples from students over two years. Mellon did not reveal whether she ever met the students or interacted with them in any way. By masking her own experience and interests and minimizing her interaction with the study participants, she showed how entrenched in the positivist paradigm she remained, even while employing qualitative techniques (Gremmels, p.271)

Gremmels’s critique here is one of research method, showing that Mellon worked from a positivist paradigm that believes reality is “single, tangible, and fragmentable” even though she claimed to work from a naturalist view, which understands realities to be “multiple, constructed and holistic” (Lincoln & Guba as cited in Gremmels, p.271). Mellon analyzed the journal entries of students in writing classes but very likely never talked to the students herself, observed their research processes, or inquired about their strengths. She seemed to believe that what students wrote in the moment, as part of an assignment, represented the totality of their feelings, experiences, and skills. This is quite opposite of the method that Heinbach, Paloma Fielder, Mitola, & Pattini (2019) developed to create a strengths-based review of the research skills of transfer students, which, through survey and interviews, inquired about students’ previous life experiences, their information seeking behaviors, and the transferable skills gained from previous work and schooling. Their study showed a group of students who not only had plenty of library and research skills but were also self-aware and self-sufficient. 

When library instruction is situated as a completely new experience for students with no connection to their prior knowledge, we set students up for feelings of anxiety or fear. We signal to students that their previous knowledge and experience are not enough or are invalid. Instead, we have the opportunity to acknowledge that we can build upon the skills, experiences, and talents they already possess. It is not that our students are deficient, but that our beliefs of students don’t account for their skills or acknowledge that they are learners in the process of learning. 

White Niceness/Supremacy 

One of the reasons why library workers cling to the idea of library anxiety, mostly without questioning the concept, is that this conceptualization places the onus of the problems on students instead of library workers. The possibility that students could be too anxious to use the library or work with a library worker means that there could be something wrong with us, challenging the vocational awe of libraries and library workers as irrefutable. Some library workers feel, “There could not possibly be anything wrong with us because we are so helpful, and the library is a good, comfortable, useful place for everyone.” In addition to this, we equate efforts in trying to assist with supposed library anxiety as going above and beyond, feeding into our profession’s white savior narratives by allowing us to point to our goodness and service mentality, instead of simply addressing the barriers and problems that exist in libraries. 

Since Mellon’s coining of library anxiety, library workers have worked to make their spaces appear warm, inviting, and non-threatening. Library instruction sessions provide introductions to library resources and to students in an effort to say look how nice and helpful we are. But even this emotional labor is not consistently expected of all library workers; women and BIPOC library colleagues bear the brunt of needing to appear happy, accommodating, resourceful, and clear because they are often penalized when they don’t. 

Kawana Bright (2018) showed that women library workers of color often perform high levels of emotional and invisible labor during reference desk interactions. Due to the microaggressions library workers of color face when doing their job, Bright’s study participants reported over-performing niceness or politeness and supporting the needs of students of color at higher rates than their white counterparts. And as Emmelhainz, Pappas, and Seale (2017) found in their content analysis of reference guidelines, niceness is baked into expectations for library workers, usually at the cost of their autonomy and with disregard for their skill. Even with all this niceness, many would argue that library anxiety still seems to exist in our students. 

When embedded in teaching sessions, what Mellon might have called “warmth seminars,” this overt niceness can be contrary to what students experience once they are in the library and navigating it alone. For example, in a 2018 study of African Nova Scotian students’ library anxiety levels and experiences with library workers at a predominantly white institution, “students expressed that about half of their experiences were negative. They interacted with supportive librarians that assisted them with their information needs, but they also interacted with unfriendly and condescending library staff that made them avoid future interactions” (Fraser & Bartlett, p.12). For some students, especially those marginalized, they may be less inclined to ask for assistance not because they are anxious about using the library but because they don’t want to replicate a negative experience they’ve had working with our personnel. 

Furthermore, according to Patricia F. Kapotol’s piece on stereotype threat, Black students may be resistant to asking for help not because of the library anxiety per se, but because they don’t want to appear as if they do not belong. In reality, Kapotol suggests, Black students come to the library, use the resources, and navigate other information sources based upon their prior skills – they just simply wish to avoid the possibility of being judged by the library worker, which is a reasonable feeling considering the discrimination experienced in higher education environments (2014, p.2-3).

At some point, we have to ask how much the nice, helpful library worker cosplay is hurting our relationships with students, especially if they end up having negative interactions anyway. Perhaps our students have the right response to an environment that has convoluted policies and procedures and filled with personnel who commit microaggressions or outright discrimination against them. When we create environments that are so centralized around the idea of “niceness” we continue to perpetuate these cycles of harm because we can hide behind our “good intentions” as opposed to analyzing the true nature of these spaces. We can further use our concepts of professionalism to bolster our authority which in turn allows us to believe our ideas of “how to use a library” are correct and that our role is to fix student behaviors. Confronted with this, it makes perfect sense that some students might not feel comfortable approaching us, speaking up, or sharing their experiences and knowledge with us. 

Symptoms vs Systems 

We have outlined a plethora of components that we see as problematic for utilizing the concept of library anxiety and the LAS, such as not accounting for the fact that all students are different and have different intersecting identities, the fact that the concept phenomizes feelings that seem to be so common, a need to silo the library from the rest of the academic institution, and deficit thinking as central to the development of library anxiety. However, one of the key issues with library anxiety is its insistence on diagnosing and addressing “symptoms” instead of focusing on the systems or systemic problems at play. 

The studies and discussions of library anxiety based upon the LAS often use the more broad contributing key factors of staff, resources, technology, reference, and policies and procedures (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004) which were largely chosen and identified by library “experts.” The LAS sections are categorized by how library workers interact with the library, instead of how library users might label their own use of our resources. While most LAS literature does include focus groups, surveys, and pre- and post-tests of students, these methodologies are used to further diagnose an expected anxiety instead of building mutually beneficial feedback loops that actually address student needs. This approach is problematic for two reasons. First, the emphasis is on assessing students as opposed to asking them what they need and already know means we “neglect the possibility of sharing experience outside of what we seek and expect to find” (Arellano Douglas, 2020, p.56). Secondly, we rarely see students’ input on the categories of the LAS and the very concept itself. 

The language and categorization of services that were offered to students when assessing their expected anxiety matters because they were created by those in the profession and the language of our profession is centered in whiteness. As Anastasia Collins states, “Because white people hold hegemonic power within libraries, the language they use to frame institutional concepts (e.g., professional ethics, classification systems, service standards, performance expectations, etc.) reaffirms the dominance of their racial privilege, and because ‘the dominant cultural groups [are] generating the discourse [it] represent[s] [their dominance] as ‘natural’” (2018, p.43). Accordingly, our profession focuses on creating the concept of library anxiety, detailing how our students feel and why, attaching them to “symptoms” without trusting them to tell us if they actually agree that these feelings are related to their library experiences or why these feelings might exist. 

Further complicating these issues is that when discussing library anxiety, we ignore the larger picture of how our systems have been built with a false narrative of neutrality. We structure these reviews around behaviors and how to “change” or “fix” them without asking why these feelings and possible moments of confusion have become so universal. This issue is of course not specific to library anxiety, but it nonetheless directly impacts the work and concepts of library anxiety. This has been discussed in great detail by many before us, but nina de jesus hits on this issue perfectly: 

Regardless of many people’s feelings about the coherence of individual neutrality, many have taken it as axiomatic that libraries are neutral institutions and that any failure of libraries to be neutral is largely the fault of individuals failing to live up to the ideals or ethics of the profession, rather than understanding the library as institution as fundamentally non-neutral. Libraries as institutions were created not only for a specific ideological purpose but for an ideology that is fundamentally oppressive in nature. As such, the failings of libraries can be re-interpreted not as libraries failing to live up to their ideals and values, but rather as symptoms and evidence of this foundational and oppressive ideology (de jesus, 2014).

We focus attention on deficits within our students and refuse to consider in the equation that these spaces were not made to be comfortable for everyone, indeed for most people, and our students’ reactions to the library are reasonable. Most discussions of library anxiety even discuss how ineffective or incompetent students are repeatedly. For instance, Marisa A. McPherson says of library anxiety, “This fear can prevent students from approaching a research assignment rationally and effectively and can influence a student’s ability to complete assignments and be successful,” but she doesn’t consider who is making the decision about what is “rational,” “effective” or even useful (2015, p.318). 

The systems that have dictated what is appropriate for academic research are not intended for inclusion but rather to continue to uphold power for a select few and further hegemony. It’s as Nicola Andrews says when discussing issues within the profession as a whole, though we can easily see where this translates to our users as well: “When are we going to stop signaling that fear and anxiety is normal within our profession, and instead examine how these narratives are the result of institutions deflecting the need for change” (Andrews, 2020)?

Disrupting the Systems of Oppression

We have shown through many examples in this article why the discussion of library anxiety has become less interested in student success and making our users comfortable with the research process and more interested in blaming the learner for not fitting a prescribed idea of behaviors. The behaviors displayed in library anxiety are described as being “faulty” and our adherence to insisting they are necessary are built on white supremacy and hegemony. In that case, how do we disrupt the narrative of library anxiety to build services that address student needs in a realistic way? We posit that instead of focusing on services and symptoms, we should instead focus on our users holistically. The time spent researching if students feel anxiety about libraries without actually connecting this anxiety to being specific to libraries might be better used to understand the inequities that are fraught throughout academia and how to help make structural change. We need to think holistically about our users, yes, but also about our institutions and our profession. 

We know that “in many circumstances, individuals with marginalized identities experience discrimination during interpersonal encounters in libraries” (Floegel & Jackson, 2019, p. 414). We also know “studies have shown that students who are first-generation college students, nonwhite, or from lower socioeconomic backgrounds make less use of university library resources overall, and students who speak English as a second language are more likely to have higher levels of library anxiety” (as summarized by Blecher-Cohen, 2019, p. 360). What is more, “research shows us that students often face mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression, either as acute episodes or as part of a lifelong mental health journey. We also see increasing evidence that not only do campuses hold a sizeable neurodiverse population, but those individuals are often not provided with the services that best speak to the ways in which we engage with the world” (Skinner & Gross, 2021, p. xvi). We can note in these numbers, which were assessed before the extreme and general trauma that COVID-19 has inflicted on the majority of our learners, how prevalent the damaging practices of hegemony were, so we need to look at the entire picture and not focus on a micro-level revolving solely around library services.

Shifting our thinking from “what we know our students need” to gathering an understanding of what they feel they need and/or want would be a good start to disrupting the status quo that has existed within our profession for so long. One way in which to address this would be to engage with trauma-informed care as a way to understand the individual experiences of our students and the implications of how their different experiences have shaped their engagement with the library (SAMHSA, 2014). As Symphony Bruce pointed out in a previous article, students “should never feel as though their presence or needs are a burden. Students should be able to ask questions and request assistance and still be recognized for the knowledge they possess. In this way, librarians can and should play a vital role in creating a sense of belonging for our students” (2020).

Libraries were not created for everyone. In order to alter our approach to service we must truly understand that libraries were created for a small part of our general population. The concept of library anxiety hinges on the idea of an easily navigable space that was built for every type of user. However, as Fobazi Ettarh tells us, “Libraries were created with the same architectural design as churches in order to elicit religious awe. Awe is not a comforting feeling, but a fearful and overwhelming one….awe is used as a method of eliciting obedience from people in the presence of something bigger than themselves” (2018). 

It is not only the physical spaces themselves that can impact our learners’ use of our services and spaces, it is also the virtual spaces, the ways in which library employees interact with our users, and the policies we enact (or have enacted and not committed to reviewing regularly). The structures in place that allow this behavior to continue, that refuse to acknowledge and own up to the harm caused, and the continuation of racism and other forms of discrimination based around dis/ability status, neurodiversity, sexual orientation, gender identity, and more will only continue to cause anxiety, depression, and unmitigated harm. Too often our institutions are willing to confront issues of discrimination only in the abstract (like mission or values statements), which only furthers our profession’s insistence that any anxiety our users feel is a phenomena we must research. It’s as Charlice Hurst aptly points out: 

We can talk about it [racism] at conferences but not in our organizations’ conference rooms. White colleagues who have never given serious thought to racism believe themselves more fit to identify it; more capable of being “objective” or “reasonable.” They almost seem to pity us for our sensitivity to signals of racism. They believe that what they cannot see must not exist, overlooking the possibility that they do not see racism because it does not happen to them (2021). 

If our profession does not actively work to give up power and break down the structures that we so desperately cling to, then we can only expect our learners’ discomfort to continue to grow as our refusal to accept reality makes us even more distanced from their needs. 


The concept of library anxiety has its roots in deficit thinking and the oppressive, hegemonic values that undergird it. A belief that library anxiety – as a special phenomenon separate from any other sort of academic anxiety – bolsters the belief that libraries are at least neutral and at most consistently helpful, comfortable, and safe. None of this is inherently true. Instead, the academic library functions as part of a larger neoliberal project that situates students and other users in a deficient state benefiting from and fixed by the institution. 

To more fully engage with our learners, “We must not only apply an intersectional theoretical approach to creating community but center these narratives in the decision-making process in order to have a truly student-centric approach” (Moreno & Jackson, 2020, p. 11) We can move away from monolithic ideas of what a student should be and instead focus on how we can best address the actual needs of our student body through holistic measures. Making decisions that are informed by students’ stated needs and gathering this information through focus groups, ethnographic studies, and other methodologies, instead of based on our needs or our perceived ideas of student needs, will shift our institutions to being more inclusive and less discomforting for all our users. We need to be aware that the reality is that academic libraries are, generally, the actual monolith, not our students: our systems and procedures work very similarly across institutions despite the differences in our populations and specific user needs.  Although as library workers we can never truly divorce ourselves from the work of our institutions, we can rethink how we evaluate student needs, understand their strengths, and make a better learning environment for them and work environment for us. 


The authors would like to thank the editorial board of In the Library with the Lead Pipe for their dedication in allowing us to share our work and for their assistance through the process. In particular we would like to thank our peer editors, Jesus Espinoza and Lorin Jackson for their time, labor, and thoughtful feedback. We would also like to thank our editors, Ian Beilin and Ikumi Crocoll, for walking us through this process and particularly Ikumi’s considerable and generous commentary. 

Works Cited

Andrews, N. (2020). It’s Not Imposter Syndrome: Resisting Self-Doubt as Normal For Library Workers. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. 

Arellano Douglas, V. (2020). Moving from Critical Assessment to Assessment as Care. Communications in Information Literacy, 14(1). 

Blecher-Cohen, Z. (2019). The Student Connection: Thinking Critically on Library Anxiety and Information Literacy. Public Services Quarterly, 15(4), 359–367. 

Bostick, S. L. (1992). The development and validation of the Library Anxiety Scale [Dissertation, Wayne State University]. 

Bright, K. (2018). A woman of color’s work is never done: Intersectionality, emotional, and invisible labor in reference and information work. In R. L. Chou & A. Pho (Eds), Pushing the margins: Women of color and intersectionality in LIS (p.163-196). Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.

Bruce, S. (2020). Teaching with care: A relational approach to individual research consultations. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. 

Collins, A. M. (2018). Language, Power, and Oppression in the LIS Diversity Void. Library Trends, 67(1), 39–51. 

de jesus, nina. (2014). Locating the Library in Institutional Oppression. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. 

Emmelhainz, E., Pappas, E., & Seale, M. (2017). Behavioral expectations for the mommy librarian: The successful reference transaction as emotional labor. In M. T. Accardi (Ed), The Feminist Reference Desk: Concepts, Critiques and Conversations (p. 27-46). Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.

Ettarh, F. (2018). Vocational Awe and Librarianship The Lies We Tell Ourselves. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. 

Floegel, D., & Jackson, L. (2019). Recasting an Inclusive Narrative: Exploring Intersectional Theory. Proceedings of the Association of College and Research Libraries, USA, April 10-13, 2019, p. 412-420. 

Fraser, K. & Bartlett, J. (2018). Fear at first sight: Library anxiety, race, and Nova Scotia. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 13(2),

Gremmels, G. (2015). Constance Mellon’s “Library Anxiety:” An appreciation and critique. College and Research Libraries, 76(3), 278-275. 

Heinbach, C., Mitola, R., & Rinto, E. (2021). Dismantling Deficit Thinking in Academic Libraries: Theory, Reflection, and Action. Library Juice Press. 

Heinbach, C., Paloma Fielder, B., Mitola, R., & Pattini, E. (2019). Dismantling deficit thinking: A strengths-based inquiry into the experience of transfer students in and out of academic libraries. In the Library with the Lead Pipe.

Hurst, C. (2021, May 3). The ‘Not Here’ Syndrome. Stanford Social Innovation Review. 

Katopol, P. (2014). Avoiding the reference desk: Stereotype threat. Library Leadership & Management, 28(3), 1-4. 

Leung, S., & López-McKnight, J. (2020). Dreaming Revolutionary Futures: Critical Race’s Centrality to Ending White Supremacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 14(1). 

McAfee, E. (2018). Shame: The Emotional Basis of Library Anxiety. College & Research Libraries, 79(2), 237–256. 

McPherson, M. A. (2015). Library anxiety among university students: A survey. IFLA Journal, 41(4), 317–325. 

Mellon, C. A. (1986). Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and Its Development. College & Research Libraries, 7. 

Menchaca, M. (1997). Early racist discourses: The roots of deficit thinking. In Valencia, R. (Eds). The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice. The Falmer Press. 

Moreno, T. H. & Jackson, J.M (2020). Redefining student success in the academic library: Building a critically engaged undergraduate engagement program. Research Library Issues, no. 301,6–25.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Bostick, S. L. (2004). Library Anxiety: Theory, Research, and Applications. Scarecrow Press.

Skinner, J. C., & Gross, M. (2021). Introduction. In Underserved Patrons in University Libraries Assisting Students Facing Trauma, Abuse, and Discrimination (Vol. 1). ABC CLIO.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. 

Valencia, R.R. (1997). The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice. The Falmer Press. 

Van Kampen, D. J. (2004). Development and Validation of the Multidimensional Library Anxiety Scale. College & Research Libraries, 65(1), 28–34.

Assessment Interest Group Metadata Working Group Tools Subgroup / Digital Library Federation

DLF Digital Library Assessment

This post was written by Annamarie Klose and Scott Goldstein of the DLF AIG MWG Tools Subgroup





Metadata assessment is often aided by scripting and other automation tools. Catalogers and metadata librarians often employ the adage “Work smarter, not harder” to work at scale on hundreds, thousands, or even millions of records at a time. Within the community, some tools are more or less commonly known and used. The DLF Assessment Interest Group’s Metadata Working Group created the Tools Repository as a way of sharing information about metadata tools within the Libraries, Archives, and Museums community. The repository is publicly accessible through the DLF AIG MWG website’s tools webpage (

History of the Group

The original Tools Repository was an offshoot of the Environmental Scan project, begun in 2016, soon after the birth of the Metadata Working Group itself. The environmental scan collected information on the use, status, and application of 21 tools, with plans made to test them during the next working year. A visual breakdown of the types of tools and varieties of metadata work they supported, as well as a list of citations related to the use of tools in metadata work, accompanied this initial list.  In the early days, the Google suite of products were used to capture documentation and the ideas generated during collaborative working group meetings.  A concern was how to use the tools within the DLF Metadata Assessment Framework in terms of completeness, accuracy, and accessibility, conformance to expectations, consistency, timeliness, provenance, and trends.  In 2017, with preliminary organization achieved and tools selected, the working group began to consider not only deliverables, but the platforms to organize and display projects to their best effect. Working documents such as meeting notes and agendas would remain in the Googleverse, while the environmental scan and tools repository would be staged on GitHub, where issue tracking is readily available. More static documents, such as annual working plans and completed documentation, would find a home on the DLF AIG wiki and OSF repositories.

Getting to GitHub proved to be a bit of a challenge for the Tools Subgroup.  Throughout 2017 and 2018, the subgroup continued collecting its research, reviews, and results of tests in a shared Google Sheet. In 2019, members of the Tools Subgroup liaised with the Website Subgroup in an attempt to publicize what was then a spreadsheet, when using Jekyll was first considered. Rather than having to suffer through the infinite two-way scroll of a spreadsheet, using a wiki format would easily let readers choose categorized tools that held the most interest. Then, as now, Tools members relied heavily upon the tech skills of the Website subgroup to display their work.

Planned changes

Since 2018, the tools repository has listed the information in the wiki section of the underlying GitHub repository. This made adding and updating tools easy, but the wiki presentation was not ideal for giving the viewer a “bird’s-eye view” of the entire software landscape. Starting this year, the website links out to a Google Sheet. We are currently setting up the GitHub Pages website so the tools data can be (re)incorporated as HTML. To make this easier, we will set up a “collection” in the underlying Jekyll framework. A collection is a feature of Jekyll that creates a content type, or class of pages that are all structured the same way. Our collection will have fields for the title of the software tool, the programming language the tool is written in, whether the tool is open source, and so on. Adding a tool will then simply be a matter of adding a record to the tools directory. Using a Jekyll collection will not only allow us to display the tools in a consistent way, but it will also enable dynamic filtering. For example, one could filter only the records with a description containing “MARC” or with the programming language field containing “Python.”


In reimagining the tools repository, the subgroup took inspiration from the ​​Preserving Digital Objects With Restricted Resources (Digital POWRR) Tool Grid, a collection of tools for digital preservation organized into categories based on the OAIS Reference Model. The subgroup thought that introducing categories would aid navigation of the tools repository and summarize the tools’ functionality. 

The group started to work on identifying functional categories of metadata work by reviewing and grouping the tasks carried out by the current list of tools. Labels, and sometimes definitions, were difficult. For instance, “extraction” was considered as a category label for tools that retrieve data from an external source, but this term is commonly used to refer to the extraction of embedded metadata from digital files. “Retrieval” was settled on instead, and “extraction/embedding” became the category label for tools that interact with embedded data. Some of these challenges were due to the brevity of the labels. For instance, does “transform” refer to tools that transform metadata from one schema to another, or from one format to another, or transform the metadata values themselves? Or, are they tools that do all three? It was tempting to make the category labels more specific, but we decided to keep the categories broad in order to align with the Digital POWRR model and add category definitions for the labels.

After consulting with the larger DLF Metadata Working Group, the subgroup settled on seven task categories: Creation, Editing, Validation, Transformation, Extraction/Embedding, Retrieval, and Analysis.


Early on in the creation of the Tools Repository, each tool was rigorously tested to determine whether to include it in the repository. This meant that a lot of information was known about each tool, but it put a significant limit on how many tools would be included. In order to include more tools and make the repository a more useful resource, the subgroup shifted away from testing each tool and now relies on each tool’s documentation and community knowledge. This has enabled us to build a larger list of tools, but with the trade-off that the subgroup has less first-hand experience with each tool and cannot verify that each works as expected. We actively welcome community input to help us provide more accurate and complete information about the tools listed!

Because the group does not perform extensive testing or evaluation of each tool, we cannot vouch for the stability or security of any of the tools listed. For example, older versions of OpenRefine may be vulnerable to the Log4j security vulnerability that was exposed last year. Inclusion in the Tools Repository should not be seen as an endorsement of the tool, and individuals should exercise the usual level of caution when downloading and using any of the tools listed.

Like all projects, the Tools Repository is also influenced by the background of the people who created it. Within the subgroup, our members have varied experience with MARC cataloging, non-MARC metadata, programming, and more. Each of us brings those perspectives to our analysis of these tools, so our understanding and use of these tools may not be exactly the same as people with other backgrounds and needs.

Community Input

Do you know of tools that could be added or changes that should be made to the Tools Repository? The Tools Group can always use contributors. The Tools Submission form and Tool Correction form can be used. If you would like to join the group, you can contact Annamarie Klose (klose.16 AT


Current members of the subgroup are: Annamarie Klose, Scott Goldstein, Greer Martin, Rachel White, and Elliot Williams. There were many prior contributors to this group. Special thanks to the many prior DLF AIG MWG members and prior Tools Subgroup members without whose work this would not have been possible.

The post Assessment Interest Group Metadata Working Group Tools Subgroup appeared first on DLF.

Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 2022 August 9 / HangingTogether

The following  post is one in a regular series on issues of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility, compiled by Jay Weitz.

“Let’s talk race”

Randy Dantrell Heath, Branch Manager of the Edgewood location of the Richland Library (OCLC Symbol: SRC) in Columbia, South Carolina, USA, writes about “Let’s talk race: The power of conversations” in his entry on the OCLC Next blog. He calls it “a simple but powerful set of programs open to anyone in the community. We’ve now facilitated more than 90 conversations with 4,000+ community members from all backgrounds on a variety of topics explicitly convened to discuss race, social justice, and inequality.” It’s emotional and difficult work, Heath reports, “But it’s work I encourage all libraries to explore. I promise you that the rewards will outweigh any negatives.”

“Indigenous Approaches to Digital Infrastructure”

Data & Society, the independent nonprofit research organization, recently welcomed its new postdoctoral fellow, Tiara Roxanne, who “will work with the key concepts of sacredity, Indigenous cosmology, and storytelling, bringing them into conversation with an evolving literature on trust and safety in digital infrastructures.” Their first blog post, “Indigenous Approaches to Digital Infrastructure” talks about “the decolonial gesture: a space where we inhabit active and bodily or embodied gestures or actions as moves toward decolonization,” while acknowledging that “Decolonization is impossible.” They will work with one Indigenous community each from North America, Central America, and South America, “to create a community-centered digital infrastructure that takes on necessary protocols while holding space for Indigenous voice, practice, and overall assertion.”

Libraries and abortion information

The largest library system in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City’s Metropolitan Library System (OCLC Symbol: OKE), like many libraries across the United States, has found itself at the center of the debates over abortion after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. In the Vice article “Oklahoma Threatens Librarians: ‘Don’t Use the Word Abortion,’” Nadine Farid Johnson, the Washington director of PEN America, the freedom of expression organization, says, “We know that access to abortion care requires access to information. When the sharing of information is criminalized or otherwise prohibited, free expression rights are imperiled. The blocking of access to abortion information on public library computers and the silencing of librarians, if true, constitutes a significant impingement on the right to access information, and infringes these public employees’ rights as they seek to serve their patrons by sharing information that is arguably of public concern.” Bill Young, public information manager of the Oklahoma Department of Libraries (OCLC Symbol: OKD), notes in an Oklahoman article, “Oklahoma City library releases guidelines on patrons seeking abortion information,” that although librarians face reference questions every day, “We do not provide legal or medical advice.”

Serving Latinx communities

A Community Catalyst Initiative grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded a collaborative project involving the Public Library Association (PLA), the National Center for Families Learning (NCFL), plus one urban, one rural, and one suburban public library aimed “to identify the existing barriers to Latinx families’ use of public libraries and to find community-driven solutions.” Several of those involved in the project, including staff from the suburban Englewood, Colorado, USA, Arapahoe Libraries (OCLC Symbol: CO2), write about the project in “Using Co-Design as an Approach to Better Serve and Engage Low-Income, Latinx Communities” in Public Libraries Online. Involving families in planning and delivering library programs, diversity and equity education for staff, diverse representation in collections and events, work with local social justice organizations, and building trust were among the factors found to have the most impact.

Disability pride

New Disability Pride Flag – ​​Ann Magill CC BY-SA 4.0

In the United States, many celebrate July as the unofficial “Disability Pride Month” in honor of the July 1990 passage and signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Throughout the month of July, Book Riot Contributing Editor Kendra Winchester compiled a multifaceted six-part series devoted to several aspects of disability literature: “7 Fiction Audiobooks for Disability Pride Month,” “A Book Lover’s Guide to Disability Pride Month,” “7 Nonfiction Audiobooks for Disability Pride Month,” “7 Tips on How to be a Better Disability Ally on the Bookish Internet,” “A Nondisabled Reader’s Guide to Disability Literature,” and “10 Books to Introduce Readers to Disability Literature.” Along the way, Winchester also explained the history and symbolism of Ann Magill’s Disability Pride flag, designed in 2019 and updated in 2021: “The black background represents the mourning and loss that disabled people have experienced throughout history. It also symbolizes the rebellion and protest of disabled people fighting for their human rights. The diagonal lines symbolizes the barriers disabled people experience in society and the ingenuity disabled people illustrate when navigating those barriers.” Each color represents different “needs and experiences:” white for “Invisible and Undiagnosed Disabilities,” red for Physical Disabilities,” gold for “Neurodivergence,” blue for “Psychiatric Disabilities,” and green for “Sensory Disabilities.” Earlier in 2022, Winchester offered additional recommendations for intersectional reading in “10 2SLGBTQ+ Disabled Authors to Read this Pride Month” and “9 Nonfiction Books About Disability by People of Marginalized Genders.”

Opinions on libraries, censorship, and truth

In his “Op-Ed: Why inappropriate books are the best kind,” Los Angeles Times opinion writer David L. Ulin cites the April 2022 PEN America report “Banned in the USA: Rising School Book Bans Threaten Free Expression and Students’ First Amendment Rights” in pointing out that some 41% of current bans “are tied to directives from state officials or elected lawmakers,” which is a concerning and historic shift away from ban requests that have traditionally come from members of local communities. In a related vein, Guardian US opinion writer Maeve Higgins talks with ALA president-elect Lessa Kanani’opua Pelayo-Lozada of the Palos Verdes Library District (OCLC Symbol: PVL), California, USA, in “The Right in the US has a New Bogeyman: Libraries.” Pelayo-Lozada says, “Our goal as libraries is to empower our users; to empower them for critical thinking, to empower them to make their dreams come true. And that can be scary to folks who maybe don’t want everyone to be in power, who want to have power over others.” “Libraries help us to think. That is why they are powerful, and that is why they are under attack,” Higgins concludes. “That is also why we must protect them.” Tying it all together in a way are Frieda Afary, recently retired from the Los Angeles Public Library (OCLC Symbol: LPU), and Los Angeles Community College District (OCLC Symbol: LACCD) historian Wonda Powell, in their Library 2.022 “Urban Librarianship: Embracing Challenges and Opportunities” presentation, “Librarians as Stewards of Knowledge: Critical Thinking, Empathy, and Truth.”

The post Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 2022 August 9 appeared first on Hanging Together.

Phone a Friend / Ed Summers

I tried talking to Meta’s new AI chatbot about archiving a web page:

It seemed to do well conversationally for a bit, but eventually went into limbo, never to return, as it appeared to be phoning a friend?

It’s important to note this from the Terms of Service before you start goofing around:

I understand that chat conversations will be published publicly, and used for future research. Therefore, I agree not to mention any personal information in my conversations, including names, addresses, emails, and phone numbers.

It seems like names, addresses, emails and phone numbers probably aren’t the only things you don’t want to drop in there…

Weeknote 31 / Mita Williams

It was a short week as Monday was Emancipation Day. That's my excuse why I'm writing up this weeknote on Saturday instead of Friday.

Fedora Newsletter – July 2022 / DuraSpace News

We hope that you all enjoyed your July long weekends, whether it was for July 4th in the US or Canada Day north of the border, we hope that the weather was nice, the BBQ’s were hot and drinks were cold. As we move officially in to summer, we wanted to keep you updated on some of the things we have going on in the coming weeks. Read on to find out more. 


You’re Invited! Fedora Summer Open Houses 

We are officially inviting you to join us at one of our 2 upcoming Fedora Open Houses being held this month. These open houses are meant to be an opportunity to share use cases, ask questions and come together to learn about what we’ve been working on. In the interest of accommodating different time zones, we opted to host two separate events – one catering to North America and one for those in the EU/UK. We hope you can join us for one (or both!) of the following sessions: 

Tuesday, July 26th from 12pm – 1pm Eastern – 

Wednesday, July 27th from 10am – 11am Eastern – 

The Open House events are FREE to attend, so bring your colleagues and friends to listen in on the conversation. The more the merrier! Check out all that is going on in our new Community Calendar! 

IMLS Grant Migration Toolkit 

At the end of June, the first draft of the Migration Toolkit was released to the community for feedback and comments. This toolkit is a result of the IMLS Funded Grant Project – Fedora Migration Paths & Tools: A Pilot Project. Pilot Partners at the University of Virginia and Whitman College collaboratively created the content for the toolkit to provide resources for migrating from Fedora 3 to the newest, most supported version of the software, Fedora 6. It contains instructions for the migration process, templates, metadata remediation best practices and user stories collected throughout the course of the grant. You can also find links to the migration utilities and validation tooling created as a result of the work. 

You can see the Draft Toolkit here: 

We are asking the community to review the contents, instructions and templates contained within the Toolkit and provide feedback and comments. All comments should be entered before July 29, 2022 at which point the Pilot Partners and Fedora team will review and finalize the document for community-wide distribution and use. We look forward to hearing your feedback! 

Technology Update 

In June, the committer and tech team delivered Fedora 6.2.0, which contained some non-critical bug fixes, improvements to the HMLT UI and a new Statistics API. This Statistics API, a feature of which was requested by community users, will allow you to gather information quickly and easily about the contents of your repository at a given point in time.  

Additionally, the team has continued to work on optimizing performance and resolving bugs. They have focused on updating dependencies and have spent time adding features to both the migration and validation tools. Both tools now support “resume” functionality so that you can restart a migration or validation from where the process previously stopped. You can also now opt for a “head” only (ie. The most recent) migration if you don’t need to return your entire Fedora 3 version history. 

The team continues to meet every Thursday at 11am Eastern if you would like to join us for our weekly Tech Call. This call is open for anyone to join, even if just to listen in on the conversation. All are welcome! 

You can find the zoom link in our community calendar. 

Where to Find Us 

August – IslandoraCon, Charlottetown, PEI Canada 

  • Presentation: IMLS Grant – Fedora Migration Paths and Tools: A Pilot Project  

September – iPres 2022, Glasgow, Scotlanld 

  • Workshop: Welcome to Fedora 6.0: Features, Migration Support & Integrations for Community Use Cases

October – DLF and affiliated events, Baltimore, MD 

  • Learn@DLF Workshop: Welcome to Fedora 6.0: Features, Migration Support & Integrations for Community Use Cases 
  • DLF Forum:  Fedora 6.0: Feature Highlight & Community Update
  • DigiPres: Fedora 6.0: Features and the OCFL

Access 2022, Ottawa, Canada 

  • Presentation: IMLS Grant Update – Fedora Migration Paths & Tools: A Pilot Project 

See a conference you want to attend and have a collaborative idea you’d like to work with the Fedora team on? Email us at We would love to work together on join presentations to help bring Fedora to more users. 

What’s Happening in Our Partner Communities 



  • IslandoraCon will be held August 2-5,2022 at UPEI in Charlottetown, PEI. 
  • Join the Code of Conduct Committee! 
    • In advance of IslandoraCon, the community is seeking volunteers for a Code of Conduct Committee lead by Amy Blau and Drew Heles. Sign up to volunteer here
  • Islandora Annual General Meeting is taking place August 4, 2022 from 2pm-4pm Eastern 
    • Register here: 


  • Editorial Board released guidelines for maintaining and operating OCLF Projects 
  • OCFL 1.1 Spec is nearly ready for release 
  • Most recent community meeting minutes can be found here. 
    • Next meeting to take place Wed. Aug 11 8pm EDT/5pm PDT I Thurs. Aug 12 10am AEST/1am GMT 

Membership – Your support is valuable! 

Fedora is an open-source, community-supported program funded entirely by membership contributions. As we move in to membership renewals for FY2022-23, we wanted to thank all of our financial sponsors who continue to actively support this vital piece of software, used by countless institutions across the globe. Your funding supports our staff who work to develop, teach, engage and support all active Fedora users. Without our members, we would not be able to support the preservation of the vital content contained within the repositories of our users. Find out how you can help. Learn more and become a member today! 

Fedora Registry 

Part of our mission with Fedora 6.0 is to better understand our user install base. As a result, we are reaching out to the community now to help with these efforts. Is your institution in our registry? If so, are all the details up to date? Check out the current Fedora Registry here: 

Need an update or need to add your instance? Use this link: 

By understanding our install base and what versions of Fedora are being used, we will be better prepared to provide the support necessary for our entire community. 

Get Involved 

Fedora is designed, built, used, and supported by the community. Join the conversation on our Fedora Slack channel or sign up for our Fedora community mailing list to stay in the loop. You can find more details here. 

The post Fedora Newsletter – July 2022 appeared first on

Improving cross-campus social interoperability / HangingTogether

The OCLC Research Library Partnership recently hosted a virtual event entitled Social Interoperability Workshop: Successfully Engaging Stakeholders Across Campus. This workshop was an outgrowth of the 2019 OCLC Research report Social Interoperability in Research Support: Cross-Campus Partnerships and the University Research Enterprise, which recognized the growing imperative for librarians to collaborate with new stakeholders across campus.

The concise two-hour virtual workshop distilled key findings from the report and followed a format that combined presentations with interactive discussions on three core topics:

  • Social interoperability, complex adaptive systems, and why cross-campus collaboration can be hard
  • Stakeholders and their interests
  • Strategies and tactics for building cross-institutional relationships

Prior to the workshop, registrants were invited to reflect upon a specific cross-campus effort where they would like to build relationships and to come prepared to listen, contribute, and participate. We also encouraged institutions to send cohorts of learners to this workshop; we’ve learned from our own experiences here with Art of Hosting facilitation training, that sending cohorts of learners offers significant synergies for future collaboration and follow-through. Participants were randomly assigned to small breakout groups, and each group was provided with a Google Doc for optional note taking.

Brian Lavoie and I (report co-authors, together with Annette Dortmund) served as event facilitators. Mercy Procaccini and Merrilee Proffitt made the magic happen by providing essential technical and functional support for both events.

We offered the workshop on two different dates and times–June 14 and June 21–to support participation by our member institutions across multiple time zones. In all, more than 70 individuals attended from 32 RLP institutions in 5 countries. Exactly half (16) of these institutions had two or more individuals attending. One institution took our cohort guidance to heart and sent nine participants!

Workshop highlights

Cross-campus collaboration is hard
Word cloud from the start of workshop, where participants shared their anxieties about cross-campus collaboration.

In the first breakout session, participants had the opportunity to commiserate on the challenge of working across campus and to realize everyone finds this difficult. Participants in the one breakout group, for instance, found the description of the institution as a “complex adaptive system” spot on. In the chat, we invited participants to share one word describing how they felt about collaboration, and we received comments like “complicated,” “siloed,” “haphazard,” and even “nightmare,” reflecting the anxiety some feel about this activity.

There are numerous stakeholders

Participants also discussed the challenges and opportunities of working with other stakeholders. Several mentioned the Graduate School as a synergistic partner, and one group cited how uniting more stakeholders around an effort can also help secure more financial support. One of the breakout groups described the importance of informal contacts, while another emphasized the important role of liaison librarians in communications and relationship building.

Building a social interoperability toolbox

In the final breakout session, participants discussed how important informal or “soft” methods of outreach were important. They also discussed how important it could be to find “connectors” on campus to help facilitate relationships and trust building. Through it all, it’s important to be adaptable, using different tactics with different audiences at different times.

Participants reported feeling encouraged

Word cloud from conclusion of workshop, describing increased optimism about collaboration opportunities.

At the conclusion of the workshops, we again polled participants to see if their attitudes toward cross-campus collaboration had changed, and they had! This time, participants used words like “encouraged,” “supported,” “confident,” and “ready to scheme” to describe their growing optimism about working with others across the institution.

Overall, the event evaluations were extremely positive, with participants praising the event facilitation, the applicability to their professional and skills development. Of particular note:

  • 100% strongly agreed or agreed that they found the workshop useful for their professional development
  • 83% of participants said the event exceeded or met expectations.
  • 86% strongly agreed or agreed that they see themselves applying the skills learned in this workshop

We are better together

Building cross-campus relationships in order to support library goals is always challenging, but RLP affiliates don’t have to do this alone. We will reconvene participants later this year to informally check in, share successes and barriers, and, most importantly, provide a supportive global community to enable each of us to catalyze change locally. Watch for more details in the coming weeks.

Also, if you missed the workshops in June, no worries. We’ll be offering this workshop again for our RLP partners.

Photo by Hannah Busing on Unsplash

The post Improving cross-campus social interoperability appeared first on Hanging Together.

It's not really leaving if you have somewhere better to be / Mark Matienzo

2022 is proving to be a year of many profound changes. There are two big transitions going in my life: one professional, and one personal.

Starting with the simpler of the two - I will be leaving my role at Stanford University Libraries on August 19 and will be starting a position at a startup. You will be hearing more about this in the coming weeks, so apologies if you are left hanging. Suffice to say, I am really excited to work with what seems to be a great team on a super cool product. I am grateful for all of the opportunities I have had over the last six years at Stanford to collaborate with amazing folks within and beyond the institution. My experience has prepared me for a new direction in my career, and I will miss working with such an excellent crew.

Secondly, my name is María, and my pronouns are she/her. I am the same colleague, comrade, and fellow artist that you have known me to be for many years. After a long period of my life not knowing how or not wanting to, I am lucky in that I have come to accept myself as a proud transgender woman. My friends, family, and colleagues have been wonderfully supportive, and I hope you will support me just the same. In my case, transition was something I had to do to be myself, and the best version of myself, to survive.

For those of you who know me through my professional or creative lives, you may not know how to refer to me because of a legacy of my past publications, presentations, musical releases, or what have you. If there is any uncertainty about how to refer to me in the context of citation for something on which my former name appears, please use either my current name, María A. Matienzo, or the version with my initials (M.A. Matienzo). Going through all past references, publications, etc. is certainly not necessary and the administrative labor of doing that for myself is exhausting enough to contemplate.

While I am coming out as trans publicly, please remember that I have a principled stance on incorporating information about gender in structured data: I do not want it there unless I add it, or unless I am asked whether it can or should be added. For instance, I strongly believe that Wikidata’s P21 (sex or gender) property is a property that may violate the privacy of living people. One of my deepest frustrations about this in Wikidata is the prevalence of people and bots that add P21 statements by making strong assumptions based on a person’s given name. I have written and presented a lot about knowledge organization, autonomy, and liberation, and sticking by this stance feels right.

Lastly, I have gotten a lot of questions from friends and colleagues asking me how I feel about “leaving” - whether a past life or identity, the LAM sector, or any number of other things or states of existence. This is not a quit-lit post - while the LAM sector has its structural and cultural problems, this is a big step forward. I cannot say if I will be back, but at this point, I am comfortable not knowing. I am far more certain about my gender identity by comparison, but I also realize that perspectives about one’s identity can shift in time – mine certainly did. I never have had all the answers, but I have gotten a lot out of the journey in figuring this out.

Retraction Watch Database entry / William Denton

The article retraction I mentioned in June is now in the Retraction Watch Database under my name: William Denton. (There’s no ID number for or way to link directly to one particular retraction, as far as I can see.) My thanks to the Retraction Watch staff for adding it.

I wish the data was available under an open license. The user guide says, “In order to fund our continued operations now that our grants have ended, we will be licensing the data to commercial entities. Therefore, while we are happy to make the entire Retraction Watch Database (RWDB) available as a CSV file to scholars, journalists and others who plan to publish their findings, publishing the entire dataset is prohibited, as is scraping the site. Please contact us to secure access to the dataset by signing our data use agreement on behalf of an institution.” Maybe one day some reliable funding will be found so it can be released as open data, which such a database should be.

Helium / David Rosenthal

A major reason that cryptocurrencies have become such a problem is that mainstream journalists normally just regurgitate the hype they are fed by people Talking Their Book. Kevin Roose is a New York Times "technology columnist" who is infatuated with cryptocurrencies. Last March he wrote The Latecomer's Guide to Crypto, which was so bad that Molly White assembled a group of experts to perform a devastating fact-check. Roose responded by justifying "talking his book" in a since-deleted tweet:
Crypto is pretty experiential compared to traditional finance, and it's going to get harder for journalists to report on this stuff if they're prohibited from touching it at all (especially as more activity moves into token-gated Discords, DAOs with ownership requirements, etc.)
He conveniently ignores that conflict of interest policies prevent journalists owning cryptocurrencies, not experiencing them using the paper's money.

A month earlier Roose had published another masterpiece of credulity entitled Maybe There’s a Use for Crypto After All whose subhead was:
Helium, a wireless network powered by cryptocurrency, hints at the practical promise of decentralized services.
Below the fold I compare reality with Roose's naive boosterism.

Roose provides some numbers:
The network is made up of devices called Helium hot spots, gadgets with antennas that can send small amounts of data over long distances using radio frequencies. These hot spots, which cost roughly $500 apiece
More than 500,000 Helium hot spots are in use around the world,
In the first few days after I plugged it into my Wi-Fi router, it generated about $7 worth of $HNT
Lets assume that a "few days" is a week. If Roose's hot-spot was representative of the network (he didn't check the sub-Reddit to see if it was) that would mean that the network was paying out $3.5M/week or $182M/year.

Mark Felt (Deep Throat)
Roose is in his mid-30s. I thought all aspiring journalists of his generation watched All The President's Men and heard Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat say "follow the money". So if the network was paying out $182M/year, and it was a sustainable business, it should have been taking in more than $182M/year from the kind of customers Roose described as:
companies like Lime (which has used Helium to keep tabs on its connected scooters) and the Victor mousetrap company (which uses it for a new line of internet-connected traps).

Did he call up Lime and ask "how much are you paying Helium, and are you getting value for it?". Did he check the public blockchain to identify Helium's wallets and see how their HNT token was moving? Did he notice that by the time he wrote HNT had dropped from its peak on 11th November 2021 of $51.20 to $30.00, and ask other Helium hot-spot owners how they felt about their income being cut 42%? As we shall see, he didn't.

Of course, money from these corporate customers was not the only money flowing into Helium. Six months earlier, Joanna Ossinger reported that Andreessen-Backed 5G Blockchain Network Raises $111 Million:
The Helium Network, a decentralized peer-to-peer 5G wireless network, has raised $111 million in a token sale led by Andreessen Horowitz.

The transaction was structured as a purchase of Helium’s native token, HNT, and included participation from Ribbit Capital, 10T, Alameda Research and Multicoin Capital, according to a statement.
At that date HNT was trading at $16.46. Had Roose been paying attention to the fortunes of tokens issued by A16Z-backed companies, he might have noticed that HNT's price history was not unusual. Chia, another A16Z-backed company, had a similar trajectory, without HNT's early history. He might even have read Fais Khan's "You Don't Own Web3": A Coinbase Curse and How VCs Sell Crypto to Retail, published three weeks earlier. Khan shows that, after an initial pop, the longer a VC-backed coin has been on Coinbase, the worse it performs relative to BTC and ETH, and:
A16z’s returns are much worse than Coinbase’s listings overall! This to me smells of insider selling. These should be the best coins there are, given a16z’s access, but instead 100% of those older than 12 months and 90% older than 6 months lag Ethereum.
Of course, VC money coming in is good, but a sustainable business can't survive on it. Another source of money coming in is the $500 for each of the hot-spots. They are LoRa gateways, and he could have searched on Amazon to find how much other LoRa gateways cost. I just did, and right now the cheapest I found is $52.99, and a professional one is $193.99. So each hot-spot is generating at least $300 over retail. That's $150M right there, but it isn't a sustainable cash flow either.

So just by using arithmetic and the Internet, Roose could have rapidly found enough information to cast doubt on Helium's sustainability. But he wasn't alone in believing the hype. Seven weeks later, Hannah Miller reported that Crypto Wireless Company Helium Hits Unicorn Status:
Helium Inc., the creator of a blockchain that powers a decentralized wireless network, raised $200 million in a funding round led by Tiger Global Management and Andreessen Horowitz. The startup, valued at $1.2 billion with the latest funding, also said Wednesday that it is changing its name to Nova Labs Inc.
At that date, 30th March 2022, HNT was $24.98, down 51% from its peak. Of course, A16Z probably sold around the peak. Even if they had HODL-ed they'd be up 52% but anyone who bought after 10th October 2021 would be under water. On 17th May A16Z published Introducing the 2022 State of Crypto Report describing Helium as:
a grassroots wireless network, is posing the first legitimate, decentralized challenge to entrenched telecom giants.
This was impeccable timing. One week earlier, Terra/Luna had collapsed, setting off the "crypto winter". HNT dropped to $8.70, 83% down from the peak. As I write it is $9.30. Amy Castor read A16Z's report and posted A16z’s ‘State of Crypto’ report: A rehash of bad crypto market pitches:
Helium is a utility token ICO scam where you mine HNT to pay for long-range/low-bandwidth wireless connectivity. To start mining, you have to buy $80 worth of gear from a Helium-approved vendor marked up to $600. Some miners report making less than $1 per day. HNT has lost 85% of its value since November.
But it doesn't appear that anyone actually followed the money until 26th July, when Liron Shapira's thread (unroll) went viral. He starts with the TL;DR:
.@Helium, often cited as one of the best examples of a Web3 use case, has received $365M of investment led by @a16z.

Regular folks have also been convinced to spend $250M buying hotspot nodes, in hopes of earning passive income.

The result? Helium's total revenue is $6.5k/month
The Generalist explains:
To use Helium’s IoT network, customers burn HNT in exchange for Data Credits (DC). This has a deflationary effect on the price of HNT. Data credits maintain a steady value of 1 DC equalling $0.00001. Companies spend Data Credits by transferring data via LongFi and making transactions on the Helium blockchain.
Data Credits are used when onboarding a hotspot, asserting a location, and processing a payment. Onboarding hotspots, in particular, is intensive from a Data Credit perspective. Since Helium is onboarding so many new hotspots, this skews results, suggesting greater customer activity than is actually present. Data from The Decentralized Wireless Alliance removes these three uses, demonstrating the size of the Helium economy’s customer demand. By this measure, DC usage was just $6,561 in June.
Inspired by Shapira's tweet, actual journalists started asking the questions that Roose couldn't be bothered with. First out of the gate was Matt Binder with Web3 darling Helium has bragged about Lime being a client for years. Lime says it isn't true.:
Since 2019, the decentralized wireless network service, which bills itself as a peer-to-peer network for the Internet of Things, has touted rideshare company Lime as one of its marquee clients, claiming the company uses its service to geolocate rentable escooters. There are numerous mentions of this partnership on its website, along with the presence of Lime's company logo, and in press coverage with various news outlets.

There's just one problem: That partnership never really existed.

"Beyond an initial test of its product in 2019, Lime has not had, and does not currently have, a relationship with Helium." Lime senior director for corporate communications Russell Murphy said to Mashable.

According to Murphy, there was a "brief test of [Helium's] product that didn’t last beyond a month or two" in the summer of 2019. ... Murphy says that, as a condition of the trial, Lime had requested that its name not be used by Helium in promotional material.
According to Lime, The New York Times did not reach out to the company to confirm the partnership.
Closely followed by Mitchell Clark with Helium says its crypto mesh network is used by Lime and Salesforce — it isn’t:
Now, Salesforce, whose logo appeared on Helium’s website right next to Lime’s, says that it also doesn’t use the technology. “Helium is not a Salesforce partner,” Salesforce spokesperson Ashley Eliasoph told The Verge in an email.
Since when probed, Helium's customers seem to evaporate, it isn't suprising that the system's actual revenue from customers is so low. Shapira writes:
Members of the r/helium subreddit have been increasingly vocal about seeing poor Helium returns.

On average, they spent $400-800 to buy a hotspot. They were expecting $100/month, enough to recoup their costs and enjoy passive income.

Then their earnings dropped to only $20/mo.

These folks maintain false hope of positive ROI. They still don’t realize their share of data-usage revenue isn’t actually $20/month; it’s $0.01/month.

The other $19.99 is a temporary subsidy from investment in growing the network, and speculation on the value of the $HNT token.

Meanwhile, according to Helium network rules, $300M (30M $HNT) per year gets siphoned off by @novalabs_, the corporation behind Helium.
So a reasonably skeptical journalist should have discovered that Helium was a typical Web3 company, peddling lies and hype in order to enrich insiders and A16Z.

But there's more. A diligent "technology columnist" might have been expected to make at least these four important observations:
  1. The economics of running a Helium hot-spot are analogous to those of Proof-of-Work mining. In the long term they are both low-margin businesses. There is a limited suopply of rewards for mining blocks or carrying traffic. There is nothing to stop competitors joining in and eroding your margins. PoW mining is profitable only when it takes time for competitors to enter; when the currency is proceeding moon-wards and/or when the supply of mining hardware is restricted. Neither is guaranteed. When they aren't, the lowest-margin miners are forced out. The same will happen to Helium hot-spots.
  2. Hot-spots compete for the available traffic in their area of coverage. In areas of high hot-spot density, typically urban areas, each will get a small share of the traffic, although if Helium were ever to have a lot of customers there might be quite a bit of it. In rural areas the hot-spot density will be low, so each will get a big share of the available traffic. But there won't be much of it, because there won't be a lot of Things in the Internet there, and because the low hot-spot density will cause gaps in coverage, discouraging use of the network in rural areas.
  3. Helium hot-spots are often described (not by Helium itself) as forming a mesh network. How does a mesh network deliver traffic? Devices connect to a mesh router. Wikipedia explains what they do:
    Mesh routers forward traffic to and from the gateways, which may or may not be connected to the Internet
    In other words, packets hop from node to node until they arrive at their destination or a gateway that can forward them onto the Internet. That isn't how Helium works. Each hot-spot (router) is a gateway, so data packets never need to hop between nodes. This makes sense because Helium uses LoRaWAN radio protocols:
    Together, LoRa and LoRaWAN define a Low Power, Wide Area (LPWA) networking protocol ... The LoRaWAN data rate ranges from 0.3 kbit/s to 50 kbit/s per channel.
    If packets took multiple hops at this low bandwidth, the network performance would be miserable. They don't; after the first hop to the hot-spot they use the much higher bandwidth of the hot-spot owner's ISP's broadband link. Clearly, a maximum of 50K bit/s wouldn't significantly load this link.
  4. Source
    One thing Helium constantly stresses is "5G":
    Helium 5G will be the second major wireless network that the Helium Network supports. If you have a phone that supports 5G, such as an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy, you will soon be able to connect through Hotspots that are powered by the People — you may be getting 5G from your neighbor!
    5G cellular networks deliver serious bandwidth:
    5G speeds will range from ~50 Mbit/s to over 1,000 Mbit/s (1 Gbit/s).
    Assuming Helium eventually gets a lot of customers, the impact of connecting a LoRa router to the median US broadband with 150M bit/s down and 20M bit/s up will not be noticeable. But connecting a 5G router will have a big impact on anyone lacking my superb 1G bit/s symmetrical fiber from Sonic (best ISP ever!). Because they don't have a lot of customers, the impact will initially be negligible. But just as competition and the drop in HNT's value led over time to a lot of unhappy hot-spot owners, success with 5G would lead to similar unhappiness.
It really should be the job of mainstream journalists to apply skepticism to technology hype, not to depend upon tweeters and bloggers to ask the obvious questions.

List Making / Mita Williams

One of the ways that I like to kick the tires of a new-to-me bibliographic system is to try to make list of the CBC Massey Lectures with it.

Regulating "Digital Assets" / David Rosenthal

I was asked to make a brief contribution to discussion of the President's Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets, concentrating on the technological risks they involve over and above those of conventional financial assets. Below the fold is my contribution with links to the sources.

I'm a retired software engineer so I focus here on the technological risks. I have no positions in cryptocurrencies or related companies. Nearly a quarter-century ago I started work at Stanford on a decentralized peer-to-peer consensus system using Proof-of-Work. It won a Best Paper award five years before Satoshi Namakoto published the Bitcoin protocol.

This discussion is badly framed; the term "digital asset" is counter-productive. My checking accounts are digital assets. What you want to talk about are "cryptocurrencies" or "digital ledger technologies" or "blockchains", but these terms cover two completely different technologies:
  • permissioned or centralized systems with an obvious locus of control to which regulations can be applied,
  • and permissionless or decentralized systems which claim to lack a locus of control, and thereby to be immune from regulation.
The major design goal of permissionless cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum was to evade regulation by diffusing responsibility; conflating the two systems suggests permissioned systems are "digital assets" just like Bitcoin, so immune from regulation.

That a system is permissionless is a fact, that it is decentralized is a claim. In practice the claim is false, they do have loci of control. The spurious claim is used to deter regulation, so don't accept it by using the "decentralized" word.

The "digital asset" frame includes talking about "innovation" and pie-in-the-sky benefits. Both are again spurious, used to deter regulation. First, permissioned blockchain technology is thirty years old, and permissionless blockchain technology is not that innovative either; Satoshi Nakamoto simply assembled a set of well-known techniques to implement a cryptocurrency. Second, the products built on these technologies are not at all innovative, they simply replicate existing financial products without all the pesky regulation that would prevent their insiders ripping off the suckers.

Centralized systems, whether they use a conventional database or a permissioned blockchain, don't raise significant new risks or regulatory problems, but permissionless systems do. They are not fit for purpose in at least five areas:
  • Consensus
  • Anonymity
  • Immutability
  • Privacy
  • User Experience
First, nodes in permissionless systems must achieve consensus on the next block of transactions. They are vulnerable to Sybil attacks, in which the attacker controls many ostensibly independent nodes. The only defense is to impose costs on nodes such that the cost of mounting an attack is greater than the reward from it. Imposing costs via Proof-of-Work is simple and effective but involves catastrophic environmental costs, via Proof-of-Stake is complex and centralizing due to cryptocurrencies extreme Gini coefficients.

Transactions bid fees in an auction for inclusion in a block. When everyone wants to transact, the cost (fixed reward + variable fees) of the average transaction can reach $300, and median finality can reach 75 minutes. Low-fee systems, as Bitcoin will become, are insecure and vulnerable to DDoS attacks. Since Bitcoin and Ethereum launched, many thousands of other cryptocurrencies, some with much better technology, have failed to dent their market dominance.

Second, users of permissionless systems can create arbitrarily many identities, pseudonyms. Newly created pseudonyms are anonymous, but in systems such as Bitcoin and Ethereum as they become enmeshed in the web of transactions they can be linked to real-world identities fairly easily.

BitFinex loot transfers
Users attempt to avoid this in two ways. About 90% of Bitcoin transactions are not "economically meaningful", attempting to obscure the user's identity. Thus the average cost of a real Bitcoin transaction at busy times can be about $1500, and the network processes less than 20 such transactions per minute on average.

More sophisticated miscreants use "mixers" such as Tornado Cash, or coins such as Monero or Zcash that use advanced cryptography to obscure transactions. These capabilities of permissionless cryptocurrencies enable a massive crime wave including sanctions evasion, ransomware and drug dealing. Further, even with escrow "smart contracts", users cannot safely purchase physical goods.

Third, permissionless systems' transactions are immutable, there is no trust locus that could enforce reversals. This greatly enhances their criminogenic nature; make a single mistake and your assets are irretrievable. Systems that cannot recover from mistakes are not usable in the real world.

Fourth, the history of transactions in a permissionless system is necessarily public. Maintaining anonymity requires operational security beyond ordinary users' ability. Thus in practice most users' transaction history is effectively both public and immutable, enabling abuse and harassment on an unprecedented scale.

Fifth, because of the catastrophic nature of mistakes, users of these purportedly "trustless" systems generally do not access permissionless systems directly, but must place their trust in a user experience layer above the base system's API. As is normal in software, increasing returns and network effects mean that these layers have one or two dominant applications (Alchemy and Infura for Ethereum, for example). A compromise of these systems would place the whole ecosystem at risk.

As you see, permissionless cryptocurrency technology really doesn't work well at all. Evidence for this is the need for so-called "layer-2 systems" such as the Lightning Network, which doesn't really work either. So why put up with this inadequate technology? To deflect regulation so that the insiders and the criminals can continue to rip off everyone else. Encouraging "responsible development" of a technology whose main purpose is to enable irresponsibility is a fool's errand.

Update: 3rd July 2022

I should have pointed out that, while it is often easy to show that a permissionless system is not decentralized, the possibility that ostensibly independent actors are using clandestine channels to coordinate means that it is impossible to prove that it is decentralized. Thus any numerical estimate of decentralization, such as the Nakamoto coefficient, must be treated as a upper bound.

Insights from a recent RLP discussion on Bibliometrics and Research Impact (BRI) services / HangingTogether

The following post is part of a series  related to the provision of bibliometrics and research impact services at OCLC Research Library Partnership institutions.

The OCLC Research Library Partnership recently hosted a discussion on the topic of Bibliometric and Research Impact (BRI) service development, attended by 41 participants from 29 institutions. This was a follow-up from an RLP webinar hosted in June 2022 where library professionals from three RLP institutions shared about the status of BRI efforts at their institutions. Thanks to our webinar presenters, who also graciously helped to serve as content experts for the discussion:

  • Mei Ling Lo, Science Research Librarian, Rutgers University – New Brunswick Libraries 
  • Matthew R. Marsteller, Associate Dean for Faculty, Carnegie Mellon University Libraries 
  • William Mischo, Interim Head, Grainger Engineering Library Information Center, Berthold Family Professor Emeritus in Information Access & Discovery, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

We intentionally structured this discussion informally, with no set agenda, in order to gauge interest and identify areas of potential further investigation. This was an opportunity for our RLP partners to come together, see the faces and names of community members with similar interests, and to learn from each other. It was a fascinating discussion, with a few key themes emerging:

Libraries are well situated to support research analytics on campus 

At the beginning of the discussion, we used a couple of online icebreaker polls to learn more about the participants. The majority of participants (65%) reported that their library currently provides BRI services for researchers, but only slightly more than half (52%) reported that their library provides services to support academic and research units.

BRI seems to be an area where libraries have much to offer. Indeed, Beth Namachchivaya from Waterloo offered an insightful description of this landscape, where the library is situated at the nexus of two existing institutional practices:

  • Institutional culture around rankings and research impact, and
  • Existing library supports to help scholars manage their research identities and portfolios.

This puts the library in a “sweet spot” for supporting BRI because while not every librarian engages at the institutional or unit level, most have an opportunity to work with individual scholars or teams to help them manage their scholarly identity, reputation, and research portfolio.

Libraries often struggle to communicate their value proposition

I think most folks in our discussion understood that the library has much to offer in this landscape, but this may not be common knowledge across campus. Indeed, I heard comments that reflected two different lived experiences in RLP libraries:

  • A few reported strong relationships and even a “pro-library” sentiment among other campus units. This has led to shared positions, liaison roles, greater library engagement on campus committees, and an appreciation for the potentialities of research analytics.
  • Others described how it was hard for others on campus—including researchers—to recognize that the library offers services beyond books. One participant operating at a particularly decentralized university colorfully described their situation where campus units with a recognized interest in research analytics were actively trying to avoid any new responsibilities in this area (playing “hot potato“) while the library was concurrently trying to assert a role, but with little progress.  

How can these experiences be so different? I speculate that while each specific institution is unique, with its own distinct challenges and culture, it comes down to relationships at the individual level—what we call “social interoperability.” One of our participants described their successes as the result of repeated advocacy by the library dean, but that once other units begin to recognize the benefits of partnering with the library, these collaborations have ”spread like wildfire.”  

We informally polled our participants, to learn what units their libraries are partnering with. The office of research and academic affairs units were the most common collaborators, but with numbers at 24% and 28% of respondents, respectively, there seems to be room for growth.

Participants from Virginia Tech, Syracuse, and Waterloo described how they’ve developed strong relationships with the Office of Research. These relationships have payoffs for both units. Using tools like Dimensions, Elements, Pure, Scopus, and many others, the library can provide improved tracking and reporting on things like the value of internal grants or identifying potential faculty for external award nominations–insights that are highly valued by other campus stakeholders. In return, the library has often secured a seat at the table for campus-wide decision making. For instance, one institution described how their library BRI activities have led to a role serving on a new Faculty Information System (FIS) implementation committee, where the library can help identify synergies with the existing Pure RIM system.

Taking the pulse on other issues

A couple of other items surfaced that merit future discussion:

  • Information ethics and the responsible use of research metrics. For instance, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is still often used as a proxy for understanding the quality of an individual research article or to assess an individual’s contributions. This is a misuse of the JIF, as described in statements like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the 2015 Metric Tide report in the UK. I see libraries as having much to offer in raising awareness of the bluntness of metrics like the JIF and h-index, such as this library-facilitated presentation on metrics for the Ethics and Survival Skills course offered by the University of California San Diego Research Ethics program.
  • Wide gaps in services for humanists. In general, research metrics have been designed for STEM fields, and the different scholarly publishing practices in the humanities create an array of challenges:
    • Humanities publications (either as monographs, book chapters, or journal articles) are usually not indexed in sources like Scopus;
    • ORCID awareness is low, in part because book publishers often don’t request them;
    • Book chapters may not have an assigned DOI, meaning no opportunities for Altmetrics or additional indexing and discovery opportunities.

There is also general discomfort with using the term metrics among humanists—so much so that one institution reports replacing the word “metrics” with “counts of things” when working with humanists.

What’s next?

The Research Library Partnership will be offering at least a couple more webinars on the topic of BRI later this year, in collaboration with librarians at Virginia Tech and the University of Pennsylvania. We will also be developing more small group discussions, most likely on the topics discussed above. Contact me if you’re interested in presenting to the RLP about efforts at your institution or co-leading a discussion on a topic of interest to you!

The post Insights from a recent RLP discussion on Bibliometrics and Research Impact (BRI) services appeared first on Hanging Together.

Another Infinite Money Pump / David Rosenthal

Datafinnovation's 3AC, DCG & Amazing Coincidences is a long and complex investigation of one of the key elements of the recent "crypto collapse". Fortunately. at FT Alphaville Bryce Elder uses an analogy that helps explain the basic idea. Below the fold I try to explain Elder's explanation of Datafinnovation's investigation.

Elder's analogy starts by assuming you have £10.
A fairground sells ride tokens for £1.20 each or ten for £10. Some people buy tokens individually. They’re idiots. Others buy ten tokens at a time. They’re also idiots.

Smart people borrow ten tokens from the ticket booth using £10 as security. The fair value of ten tokens is £12 so it’s a no-brainer.
Your balance sheet now looks like this:
  • Assets: 10 tokens (fair market value £12) + cash £10.
  • Liabilities: Debt to ticket booth 10 tokens (fair market value £10).
But instead of going on the waltzers or whatever, they pledge the tokens back to the ticket booth as security for a £10 loan. They now have a £10 loan that’s secured by tokens valued at £12, and a loan of £10 that secures the tokens, which creates £2 of delicious equity.
Your balance sheet now looks like this:
  • Assets: 10 tokens (fair market value £12) + cash £20.
  • Liabilities: Debt to ticket booth 10 tokens (fair market value £10) + £10.
So now, assuming you can pay back the debt when it becomes due, you have your £10 and £2 of equity:
The next smart thing to do is to borrow more tokens from the ticket booth using the money borrowed from the ticket booth that can be loaned back to the ticket booth.
Your balance sheet now looks like this:
  • Assets: 20 tokens (fair market value £24) + cash £20.
  • Liabilities: Debt to ticket booth 20 tokens (fair market value £20) + £10.
Bingo: more equity created. The process can be repeated infinitely because £10 of tickets is always worth £12 and, importantly, there’s no actual fairground. It’s just a ticket booth.
Is this magic? No, the equity is being created because of an accounting trick. Here's what your balance sheet should look like after the first step:
  • Assets: 10 tokens (fair market value £12) + cash £10.
  • Liabilities: Debt to ticket booth 10 tokens (historic cost £10).
On the asset site you are valuing the tokens at the "fair market value" created by idiots' one-at-a-time purchases, on the liability side you are valuing them at what you paid for them, buying them in blocks of 10. This is an instance of the "greater fool theory". You are betting that you can always sell the tokens to idiots who will pay £1.20 each.

The analogy to the ticket booth is the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust which, as Amy Castor described in Welcome to Grayscale’s Hotel California, was a bag of Bitcoin that allowed clients to buy shares with Bitcoin. From 2015 to 2021 the shares consistently traded at a premium to the underlying Bitcoin - they were tokens you could buy for £1 (historic cost) that were "worth" £1.20 (fair market value).

To prevent this infinite money pump spinning out of control, the first twist was that the shares were locked up for 6 months. In effect, buying shares with Bitcoin was a bet that the premium six months ahead would represent interest on the Bitcoin used for the purchase. The second twist was that, as Castor's headline suggested, that the Bitcoin checked in to the trust but they never checked out. The bet was that the premium plus the spot Bitcoin price you got after 6 months would represent replacing your Bitcoin from the market plus the premium as interest. Thus it didn't matter wether Bitcoin went up or down in that time, what determined the interest was the premium at the 6-month mark.

The shares traded at a premium for six years straight, so this was a sure-fire win. And who better to know this than Grayscale Bitcoin Trust itself? So this is where Datafinnovation's investigation comes in:
DCG [Digital Currency Group] owns Grayscale and Genesis. Grayscale issues/manages/etc the GBTC fund which they are desperately trying to turn into an ETF. And Genesis provides borrowing and lending services, among other things, on BTC and GBTC and USD.

GBTC is a US-registered security. Genesis is a US-registered broker-dealer. This means two key things:
  1. We are talking about securities here, with 100% certainty.
  2. Both companies file lots of documents with the SEC
What is the Digital Currency Group? Dan Primack reports in SecondMarket founder launches bitcoin conglomerate:
It’s called Digital Currency Group, and will include a pair of businesses that were originally formed at SecondMarket, but were not part of the sale to Nasdaq. They include Genesis Global Trading, an over-the-counter bitcoin trading firm; and Grayscale Investments, a digital currency asset management firm that manages the Bitcoin Investment Trust, a publicly-listed vehicle that raised over $60 million.
Grayscale used to be called SecondMarket. And back when it had that name it had some SEC problems
That is a cease and desist order. Genesis really shouldn’t be messing around with:

activities that could influence artificially the market for the offered security
Given they were under a cease-and-desist order, Grayscale and Genesis couldn't risk using the money pump themselves. If they were going to benefit from it, they needed (1) a third party to run the pump, and (2) a way for the third party to kick back some of the ill-gotten gains.

What Datafinnovation suggests might have happened, based on the timings of a sequence of sales, is that the third party was Three Arrows Capital (3AC):
So what happened here? Well, the guess is the following sequence of events was repeated over and over:
  1. 3AC borrows BTC from Genesis as a lender with some small amount of collateral
  2. 3AC passes this BTC to Genesis as a Authorized Participant to create GBTC shares. Genesis duly locks the BTC in the trust via Grayscale and returns shares.
  3. These shares are trading at a premium so this represents “free money” to 3AC.
  4. 3AC then pledges these shares back to Genesis for a USD loan. If the premium was large enough this loan is worth more than the BTC they borrowed at the beginning.
Sounds circular right? It is.
Does this sound like Elder's analogy?

The money pump worked as long as the shares 6 months ahead traded at a premium, which they did until early 2021. Amy Castor wrote:
Everybody was happy until February 2021, when the Purpose bitcoin ETF launched in Canada. Unlike GBTC, which trades over-the-counter, Purpose trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange, close to NAV. At 1%, its management fees are half that of GBTC. Within a month of trading, Purpose quickly absorbed more than $1 billion worth of assets.

Demand for GBTC dropped off and its premium evaporated. Currently, 653,919 bitcoins (worth a face value of $26 billion) are stuck in an illiquid vehicle.
So GBTC has 3.4% of all the Bitcoin (maybe 10% of the Bitcoin free float) locked up forever. And because there is no longer any premium, no-one is earning interest on the Bitcoin they used to buy GBTC shares.

But, just as the spot Bitcoin market is dwarfed by the derivatives market, that's not the real problem. Amy Castor again:
Crypto lender BlockFi’s reliance on the GBTC arbitrage is well known as the source of their high bitcoin interest offering. Customers loan BlockFi their bitcoin, and BlockFi invests it into Grayscale’s trust. By the end of October 2020, a filing with the SEC revealed BlockFi had a 5% stake in all GBTC shares.

Here’s the problem: Now that GBTC prices are below the price of bitcoin, BlockFi won’t have enough cash to buy back the bitcoins that customers lent to them. BlockFi already had to pay a $100 million fine for allegedly selling unregistered securities in 2021.

As of September 2021, 47 mutual funds and SMAs held GBTC, according to Morning Star. Cathie Wood’s ArkInvest is one of the largest holders of GBTC. Along with Morgan Stanley, which held more than 13 million shares at the end of 2021.
So the pain was widespread. But worse was to come, as Datafinnovation explains:
If the price is too low there are two big problems:
  1. 3AC can’t repay the USD loan
  2. 3AC can’t repay the BTC loan
When the premium started to move DCG stepped in and started buying. Notice the premium disappeared in early 2021 and their buying program began in March 2021.
Su Zhu and Kyle Davies, the founders of 3AC, thought the good times were here to stay:
3AC sold about half their position to DCG. And pledged the rest for loans to Genesis and Equities First. Because BTC rallied so spectacularly their position was worth over $1 billion and the loans were huge.
Why did BTC rally so spectacularly? Amy Castor explains that the huge GBTC premium drove demand for GBTC which drove demand for BTC:
There were several versions of the arb. You could borrow money through a prime broker. You could use futures to hedge your bet. You could recycle your capital twice a year.

Every version involved Grayscale purchasing more bitcoin, thus increasing demand, widening the spread in the premium, and pushing the price of bitcoin ever higher. Between January 2020 and February 19, 2021, the price of BTC climbed from $7,000 to $56,000.
After 3AC sold to DGC and took out loans, they had a lot of USD. What did Su Zhu and Kyle Davies do with a lot of USD?:
They spent this money on stuff. We don’t need to go into precisely what but it involved a yacht, houses, LUNA tokens and all manner of shitcoins and other investments.
But then:
Now while these two were living monastic lifestyles waiting for a yacht that

was bought over a year ago and commissioned to be built and to be used in Europe

the prices of stuff they owned collapsed. Why and how LUNA fell apart doesn’t matter here. What matters is that it collapsed. Over the weekend of May 7–8 BTC, and the rest of the crypto market, dropped sharply. GBTC fell back to levels it hadn’t seen since mid 2020.

At this point their GBTC-backed loans were margin-called. They had no more cash and the company fell apart.
Because they had been running the money pump, 3AC had been able to offer ridiculously high returns, which allowed other firms to offer slightly less ridiculous returns simply by funneling investor money to 3AC. Amy Castor describes the result:
Crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (3AC) went into liquidation as it was heavily invested in UST and luna. Firms that had big loans to 3AC, such as Voyager, Celsius, and BlockFi, had to file bankruptcy or seek bailouts from other crypto firms. Even crypto exchanges had been playing the CeFi markets with customer funds, and many had to close their doors.
Frances Coppola's Where has all the money gone? provides a lot of detail about 3AC's collapse. The TL;DR is:
And after Luna blew a massive hole in its balance sheet, it robbed Peter to pay Paul, lied to its customers and ghosted the creditors on whose loans it was defaulting.
The overall picture that emerges from this, together with the extraordinary series of loan agreements in the bundles, is of a company that was massively over-leveraged and had for some time been experiencing cash flow strain. It borrowed heavily to ride the wave of crypto appreciation during the pandemic. "The money will never run out" was its philosophy. But when the market turned and crypto prices started to fall, it had to borrow even more to maintain its collateral and meet its obligations.
But if the company's remaining assets and those of its co-founders have gone to safe havens beyond the reach of liquidators, and the co-founders have fled to a country with no extradition treaties, then creditors will receive little or nothing and legal action will be toothless. And since the failure of companies like Voyager and Celsius was at least partly caused by 3AC's collapse, it is their retail customers who will ultimately pay for Su Zhu and Kyle Davies's recklessness and extravagance.
Finally, Datafinnovation points the finger of suspicion:
If this is right then Genesis financed this fiasco. They lent 3AC BTC. And then, effectively, lent them more USD against those very BTC. That sounds absurd. And it is.

Legal and Ethical Considerations for Providing Access to Born-Digital Collections: Getting Started / Digital Library Federation

This blog is part two of a series comprising a set of primers that address ten complex legal and ethical issues encountered when providing access to born-digital archival records. The guidance is grounded in two foundational beliefs: 1. There is a potential to harm individuals, communities, and institutions if access is not thoughtfully and strategically viewed through an ethical and legal lens; and 2. It is not ethical to restrict access unnecessarily. For more information see:

Each section in the DLF Born-Digital Access Working Group’s Legal and Ethical Considerations for Born-Digital Access resource includes action-oriented recommendations for institutions and individual archivists, as well as recommendations for technical infrastructure to build, with the goal of facilitating fair and ethical access to born-digital library collections. 

But not every action needs to be bespoke, customized to address a specific category of access restrictions. The following are actions and infrastructure recommendations that practitioners should explore when balancing the legal and ethical considerations of providing access to born-digital collections at a broader level. Implementing these recommendations helps facilitate all of the downstream work on specific access considerations that we will share in future blog posts. Note that public policies should be created with the aid of legal counsel whenever possible.

Actions for the institution to take

  • Provide a communication mechanism for the public to report metadata errors, provide additional information on, or request the removal of digital materials made accessible by the institution. Inviting discussion demonstrates the institution’s “good intentions” (Hirtle 2009, 207) and supports a responsible access program(1). Additionally, institutions should develop an internally documented workflow on responding to such communications and in what circumstances they will result in removal(2). 
  • Develop and publish an indemnification statement. This can be included in an access or use policy that advises patrons on their responsibilities should they encounter personally identifiable information (PII) or data subject to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)(3). An indemnification statement can protect the institution from malicious use of privacy protected information. 
  • Develop a policy on retention or non-retention of original physical source media, as well as deleted, hidden, or otherwise unintentionally acquired files recovered via disk imaging. This can be included in a collection development policy, and can protect and guide the institution in responding to the types of challenges noted above. 

Actions for the archivists to take

  • When applicable, encourage donors to review files prior to transfer, and remove any files subject to attorney-client privilege, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), or GDPR, as well as files that contain PII or otherwise private information. 
  • Commit to undertaking some level of pre-acquisition appraisal to separate identifiable PII and GDPR-related data. This may take the form of browsing a creator’s files on their computer, or physically sorting removable media and appraising based on written labels. For organizational records, this can be accomplished by connecting to their server to review files. 
  • Whenever possible, identify and document potential problem areas in the accessioning stage (i.e. what parts of the collection to watch out for and why). The next archivist stewarding this collection will thank you. 
  • If the collection will not be processed immediately but is going to be made accessible, include language in a public-facing record explaining that materials require review prior to access. New information found in the review can be added to the description(4). 
  • Develop a documented restriction period tracking method. This can take the form of a spreadsheet or database ideally in a shared storage space. ArchivesSpace users can set restriction periods and an alert based on these restriction periods. The record is then automatically opened on the determined date. 
  • Maintain consistent processing documentation, and make it accessible to the relevant people in your institution. This could take the form of processing or project plans, fair use assessments, meeting minutes, access and use policies, and processing notes in the finding aid. 

Technical Infrastructure


Secure storage is necessary through all phases of digital collections including:

  • A protected server or hard drive to which limited authorized staff have access before materials have been appraised. 
  • Intermediate storage for embargoed materials.
  • Long term preservation storage. 

Very few institutions have the digital preservation infrastructure and long-term management plans required to ensure the longevity of the majority of their digital materials. If you don’t know where to store sensitive data, you are not alone. Getting a storage solution in place requires extensive collaboration and communication, whether with a vendor or cross-departmentally. Research is emerging for smaller scale processes and collaborative infrastructures that allow average and under-resourced institutions to steward sensitive archival data (Mumma 2019).


  • Secure, non-networked workspace to view and process born-digital materials. 
  • Processing tools such as ePADD, FTK, BitCurator, Bulk Extractor and Bulk Reviewer that can identify, restrict, redact, and delete personally identifiable or otherwise sensitive information. (See the PII and Privacy sections of Legal and Ethical Considerations for Born-Digital Access for more information.) Organizational IT departments may also be able to provide enterprise tools for identifying sensitive information. 


  • For open online access: clearly articulated access, use, and takedown policies. 
  • For mediated online access: capacity to limit access to authenticated users in a virtual reading room. 
  • For mediated on-demand access: capacity to make accessible via email or cloud sharing upon request. 
  • For in-person access: a computer with the necessary viewing software and security settings in place. Alternatively, an external hard drive that can be loaded with the relevant collection files and loaned to researchers who may view the files via their personal laptop onsite. 
  • For online or in-person access to unprocessed digital records: mediation through user authentication and/or a user agreement. 

An aggregated list of actions is available online and viewable at:

Stay tuned for future posts that will dig into specific types of legal and ethical conundrums archivists and librarians encounter when providing access to born-digital collections.

(1)  See “Our commitment to providing responsible access to digital primary sources–and how you can help!” in “About the Collections in Calisphere” for an example. Available at
(2)  See UC Berkeley Libraries “Responsible Access Workflows” for an example set of workflows for both deciding whether to publish and when to remove digitized materials. Available at
(3) For an example indemnification statement, see University of California Santa Cruz Special Collections & Archives “Privacy and Personally Identifiable Information” in their Access Policy. Available at
(4) For guidance on providing access to unprocessed collections, see “2.B. Suggested Access Policies and Procedures” in Guidelines for Efficient Archival Processing in the University of California Libraries. Version 4. University of California Libraries, 2020. Available at

DISCLAIMER: This text has been reviewed and feedback incorporated from practicing lawyers, but it was not originally drafted by a lawyer and is not legal advice. Please use this as a starting point to understand the issues, but always consult your local legal counsel or other support system as you make access decisions around born-digital collections.

Works Cited

Hirtle, Peter B., Emily Hudson, and Andrew T. Kenyon. Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009.

Mumma, Courtney C. “Preserving Sensitive Data in Distributed Digital Storage Networks – IMLS LG-34-19-0055-19.” Texas Digital Library, last updated September 27, 2019. Available at


Primary Author of this section: Christina Velazquez Fidler, Digital Archivist, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley
Co-Authors: Hannah Wang, Jessika Drmacich, Jess Farrell, Camille Tyndall Watson, Kate Dundon

Thank you to the many community contributors for feedback and edits to Legal and Ethical Considerations for Born-Digital Access, from which this post was derived.

The post Legal and Ethical Considerations for Providing Access to Born-Digital Collections: Getting Started appeared first on DLF.

DLF Digest: August 2022 / Digital Library Federation

DLF Digest

A monthly round-up of news, upcoming working group meetings and events, and CLIR program updates from the Digital Library Federation

This month’s news:

This month’s DLF group events:

DLF Digital Pedagogy Group – #DLFteach Twitter Chat
Tuesday, August 16, 2 pm ET/11 am PT

Join our August #DLFTeach Twitter chat on Doing DH in non-English Language. This discussion will engage scholars who have encountered challenges, successes, resources, and projects in non-English languages. Our hosts are the Recovery Program/US Latino Digital Humanities Center (@apprecovery), Gabriela Baeza Ventura (@gbventura), Carolina Villarroel (@rayenchil), and Lorena Gauthereau (@LGauth19). Follow along and participate with the #DLFTeach hashtag. Questions will be tweeted from the @CLIRDLF handle.

Details on this conversation are at


This month’s open DLF group meetings:

For the most up-to-date schedule of DLF group meetings and events (plus NDSA meetings, conferences, and more), bookmark the DLF Community Calendar. Can’t find meeting call-in information? Email us at

DLF groups are open to ALL, regardless of whether or not you’re affiliated with a
DLF member institution. Learn more about our working groups and how to get involved on the DLF website. Interested in starting a new working group or reviving an older one? Need to schedule an upcoming working group call? Check out the DLF Organizer’s Toolkit to learn more about how Team DLF supports our working groups, and send us a message at to let us know how we can help. 

The post DLF Digest: August 2022 appeared first on DLF.

Samvera Partner Profile: WGBH / Samvera

Organizations active in the Samvera Community can become Samvera Partners, and make a commitment to support the Community through participation and annual dues. Get to know one of our longtime Partners, WGBH.

How long has WGBH been involved in the Samvera Community?
WGBH has been involved with Samvera since it was known as the Hydra project. Our first interaction was a meeting at Stanford in 2012. We began to be active in the Community about a year later.

Which Samvera technologies do you use?
We use Avalon Media System as well as a very modified version of Hyrax that uses components of Hyrax, but a different meta data model.

Tell us a bit about your repositories. How have you customized them to meet your specific needs?
Our modified Hyrax repository manages mostly data and links to audio visual files that are sitting on a server for access.  We do not store the audio visual files in the Fedora repository.  For our Avalon instance we built a new ingest using the ingest API.

How do individuals at your organization participate in the Samvera Community?
We have a member of the Samvera Marketing Working Group and at one time we helped launch the annual Virtual Connect spring conference. As part of the Marketing Working Group we’ve helped with planning communications for Connect, gave presentations at conferences about starting out with Samvera and manned the exhibit table. We also attend monthly Partner calls and annual Partner meetings. We would like to be more involved on the development side.

What value does WGBH receive from participating in the Samvera Community?
When we participate more actively, I think we gain access to technology solutions we might not have considered or thought of ourselves.  Our use case is quite a bit different than most others in Samvera, so we need to be a bit more creative in taking the community solutions and applying them to our use case. 

The post Samvera Partner Profile: WGBH appeared first on Samvera.

Meet the 2022 DLF Forum Fellows / Digital Library Federation

Welcome 2022 DLF Forum Fellows

This year, the Council on Library and Information Resources is thrilled to share the return of the Digital Library Federation’s Forum Fellowship program to support attendance at our annual DLF Forum. The generosity of our sponsors and member organizations will make it possible for ten (10) awardees to attend the 2022 DLF Forum in Baltimore, Maryland, October 9-12.

2022 DLF Forum Fellows receive:

  • Complimentary DLF Forum registration
  • A complimentary room at the conference hotel for three nights
  • A stipend for travel and incidentals
  • Invitations to special networking opportunities
  • The option to present a short lightning talk during the conference

Fellowship categories in 2022 include Fellowships for Students, Historically Black College and University (HBCU) Fellowships, Tribal College and University (TCU) Fellowships, Public Library Fellowships, and Fellowships for Grassroots Archives and Cultural Heritage Organizations.
Learn more about this year’s awardees on the 2022 Forum website.

Please join us in offering a warm welcome to these ten DLF Forum Fellows, and look for their reflections on the Forum experience later this year, on the DLF blog.

Want to stay updated on all things #DLFforum? Subscribe to our Forum newsletter and follow us at @CLIRDLF on Twitter.

The post Meet the 2022 DLF Forum Fellows appeared first on DLF.

Weeknote 30 / Mita Williams

This week I was in the weeds.

Dawn / Ed Summers

Yup, I read The Dawn of Everything too. It was a super! It’s a collaboration between an anthropologist and an archaeologist, rethinking what it means to be human, here on Earth. It’s a hopeful book about the many different histories in our past and present, which set the stage for possible futures, that are not predetermined and foreclosed on by the current predicaments we find ourselves in now. It is rich with disciplinary citations–they fully admit it’s really a citation vehicle for marshalling the recent literature on how the history of us humans is a lot more complex and interesting than the linear, teleological stories of civilization we were told in grade school. But despite this scholasticism it pulls you along with a storytelling force, all the way through the 692 pages, and millenia, with a lightness, colorful language, a sense of humor, and candor that are really kinda startling.

Lots has been written and said about this book already, especially given its timing with David Graeber’s premature death. These are just some selfish short notes for me to recall what I thought were the main insights.

The thing that I probably don’t need to note down because I’ll remember it, is that western notions of freedom and equality owe a citation debt to indigenous North American’s critique of European settler society. The book starts and ends on this point, and in between Graeber and and Wengrow develop their idea that Freedom is really about:

  1. Freedom to physically move somewhere else if you want to.
  2. Freedom to modify and create new social relations.
  3. Freedom to disobey.

These three freedoms are offset by three means of domination that lead to hierarchical power structures that curtail freedom:

  1. Monopoly on violence.
  2. Control of information.
  3. Charismatic leadership.

They use these different axes of freedom and domination to explore past ways of living from the archaeological record. They also use anthropological findings from more recent cultures, because really there’s only so much we can understand by looking at what has been left behind–some blanks need to be filled inductively using what we know now about the variety of ways humans have lived more recently.

The collective force of these findings contradicts the usual narrative that increasingly social complexity brings about necessary hierarchies of control. So called hunter-gatherer societies that preceded the agrarian “revolution” were actually highly experimental, and took many shapes. Forms of hierarchical domination existed before farming and property, as did egalitarian, decentralized forms of commoning.

This complexity suggests that our future as a species will contain more experimentation (not less), and that our present predicament as capitalism is burning the world, is NOT foreclosed by current systems of domination. Dawn of Everything is an eminently practical book about hope, and how what we tell ourselves about the past matters for how we think and operate in the present.

As someone interested in the study of information, its history, and especially the role of archives in society, G&W’s point about the control of information as a tool of bureaucracy and domination was kind of exciting. They draw on recent archaeological evidence that points to knowledge and writing systems that predate the use of writing for bureaucratic purposes in agriculture.

It was once widely assumed that if bureaucratic states tend to arise in areas with complex irrigation systems, it must have been because of the need for administrators to co-ordinate the maintenance of canals and regulate the water supply. In fact, it turns out that farmers are perfectly capable of co-ordinating very complicated irrigation systems all by themselves, and there’s little evidence, in most cases, that early bureaucrats had anything to do with such matters. Urban populations seem to have a remarkable capacity for self-governance in ways which, while usually not quite ‘egalitarian’, were likely a good deal more participatory than almost any urban government today. Meanwhile most ancient emperors, as it turns out, saw little reason to interfere, as they simply didn’t care very much about how their subjects cleaned the streets or maintained their drainage ditches.

We’ve also observed that when early regimes do based their domination on exclusive access to forms of knowledge, these are often not the kinds of knowledge we ourselves would consider particularly practical (the shamanic, psychotropic revelations that seem to have inspired the builders of Chavín de Huántar would be one such example). In fact, the first forms of functional administration, in the sense of keeping archives of lists, ledgers, accounting procedures, overseers, audits and files, seem to emerge in precisely these kinds of ritual contexts: in Mesopotamian temples, Egyptian ancestor cults, Chinese oracle readings and so forth. So one thing we can now say with a fair degree of certainty is that bureaucracy did not begin simply as a practical solution to problems of information management, when human societies advanced beyond a particular threshold of scale and complexity.

This, however, raises the interesting question of where and when such technologies did first arise, and for what reason. Here there’s some surprising new evidence too. Our emerging archaeological understanding suggests that the first systems of specialized administrative control actually emerged in very small communities. The earliest clear evidence of this appears in a series of tiny prehistoric settlements in the Middle East, dating over 1,000 years after the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük was founded (at around 7400 BC), but still more than 2,000 years before the appearance of anything even vaguely resembling a city. (pp 419-420)

This chapter “Why the State Has No Origins” goes on to describe some of these archaeological sites of writing and record keeping in great detail–which was a lot of legit fun to read, and suggests several bits of reading I want to follow up on: Abrams (1988), “The People as Nursemaids to the King” in Graeber & Sahlins (2017) and Hyland (2016) among them.

Quipu in the Museo Machu Picchu

This way of thinking about record keeping, as something that does not need to be a tool of scaled social control is currently being developed by scholars studying community archives (Caswell, Migoni, Geraci, & Cifor, 2016; Flinn, Stevens, & Shepherd, 2009; Hurley, 2016; McKemmish, 1996; Punzalan, 2009), which broadens and deepens our understanding of record keeping practices as simply organs of the state (Duranti, 1994) or corporations. There’s also the idea of small data practices that have a long tail of operation despite our current obsession with singular big data sites (Abreu & Acker, 2013; Ford, 2014). In my own dissertation research I used Foucault’s concept of Governmentality as a way of thinking about this spectrum of records use, since it applies at different scales (from the family all they way up to the state) (Summers, 2020).

However my read of Dawn of Everything in part suggests a much more complicated and richer picture, where record keeping and memory practices can have their foundations in different areas than The State. Records are instrumental for reshaping social relations of all kinds on all scales. I remember one of my committee members, Katrina Fenlon, suggesting during my defense that as I looked at how valuation practices in archives are often connected to forms of use (including misuse and disuse) had I also considered the enjoyment that was often at play, literally, as government employees building a digital forensics system to track criminals (some of whom happened to also be avid gamers) collected video games. Dawn of Everything was a good exercise in broadening the historical and collective imagination. I recommend it, and don’t be intimidated by its heft if you enjoy a good story.

Here are some discussions of The Dawn of Everything that I found fun. If you ran across others that you liked please drop me a line:


Abrams, P. (1988). Notes on the Difficulty of Studying the State (1977). Journal of Historical Sociology, 1(1), 58–89.
Abreu, A., & Acker, A. (2013). Context and collection: A research agenda for small data. In iConference proceedings (pp. 549–554).
Caswell, M., Migoni, A. A., Geraci, N., & Cifor, M. (2016). `To Be Able to Imagine Otherwise’: community archives and the importance of representation. Archives and Records. Retrieved from
Duranti, L. (1994). The concept of appraisal and archival theory. The American Archivist, 328–344.
Flinn, A., Stevens, M., & Shepherd, E. (2009). Whose memories, whose archives? Independent community archives, autonomy and the mainstream. Archival Science, 9(1-2), 71–86.
Ford, H. (2014). Big Data and Small: Collaborations between ethnographers and data scientists. Big Data & Society, 1(2).
Graeber, D., & Sahlins, M. (2017). On kings. Chicago, Illinois: Hau Books.
Hurley, G. (2016). Community archives, community clouds: Enabling digital preservation for small archives. Archivaria, 82, 129–150.
Hyland, S. (2016). How khipus indicated labour contributions in an Andean village: An explanation of colour banding, seriation and ethnocategories. Journal of Material Culture, 21(4), 490–509.
McKemmish, S. (1996). Evidence of me. Archives and Manuscripts, 24(1), 28. Retrieved from
Punzalan, R. L. (2009). “All the things we cannot articulate”: colonial leprosy archives and community commemoration. In J. A. Bastian & B. Alexander (Eds.), Community archives: The shaping of memory. Facet Publishing.
Summers, E. H. (2020). Legibility Machines: Archival Appraisal and the Genealogies of Use. Digital Repository at the University of Maryland.

Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 2022 July 26 / HangingTogether

The following  post is one in a regular series on issues of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility, compiled by Jay Weitz.

“ALA Condemns Threats of Violence in Libraries”

Photo by Kieran Sheehan on Unsplash

Responding to the evermore ominous political environment, the American Library Association Executive Board issued a statement on 2022 June 24 condemning, “in the strongest terms possible, violence, threats of violence and other acts of intimidation increasingly taking place in America’s libraries, particularly those acts that aim to erase the stories and identities of gay, queer, transgender, Black, Indigenous, persons of color, those with disabilities and religious minorities.” ALA pledges to stand with library workers, “those who govern libraries,” and community members, and “to stand up to those who would undermine” “the free and democratic exchange of ideas.”

“How Roe got to be Roe”

The Schlesinger Library (OCLC Symbol: SLR) at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute, which describes itself as “the leading center for scholarship on the history of women in the United States,” documents the evolution of both the abortion rights and anti-abortion movements in its archives. Liz Mineo of the Harvard Gazette writes in “How Roe got to be Roe” about the extensive historical materials in the collection, some of which will be part of an exhibit at the Schlesinger Library beginning in October 2022. “One of the most interesting aspects of our collections on women’s reproductive rights is that they span the very personal and very public,” says Jenny Gotwals, who is the library’s Johanna-Maria Fraenkel Curator for Gender and Society. “We know that in order for historians to tell the whole history of the conflict over abortion, we must have archives that document people who are coming to this issue from different standpoints.”

Library outreach to marginalized communities

The Oregon Library Association (OLA) Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Antiracism Committee presents the fourth episode of its new podcast, Overdue: Weeding Out Oppression in Libraries. The episode entitled “Advocating for Marginalized Community Through Outreach with Star Khan” features the recently-elected incoming President of OLA, who is Outreach Services Librarian at Driftwood Public Library (OCLC Symbol: ORDRI), Lincoln City, Oregon, USA, talking about outreach as a core service for libraries and how that work has an impact on equity. Max Macias of Oregon’s Portland Community College (OCLC Symbol: OQP) and Kristen Curé of Oregon’s Springfield Public Library (OCLC Symbol: OXY) conducted the interview with Star Khan on 2022 May 18.

“Making EDI-Related Change”

The recording of the 2022 June 16 American Library Association Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Assembly, “We are ALA: Making EDI-Related Change” is now available. The eight speakers, from a variety of public and academic libraries and other institutions, addressed their involvement with ALA equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives, and suggested how others in the library community can have an impact.

“Language Subject Access to Indigenous Materials” in the Philippines

Cristina B. Villanueva, of the University of the Philippines Baguio, Cordillera, (OCLC Symbol: UPILS), deals with the inadequacies of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in “Language Subject Access to Indigenous Materials: The Philippine Cordillera Case” (Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 60:3-4 (2022) 297-314, DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2022.2075512). Villanueva advocates the use of local subject terms for Indigenous materials and suggests improvements for internal policies that will lead to better and more consistent access. “Libraries catering to Indigenous people and ethnolinguistic groups should commit to rethinking and reworking cataloging and indexing policies; creating, in collaboration with stakeholders, a local subject authority list; improving techniques in subject analysis for Indigenous materials; and utilizing an online search and retrieval system with enhanced linking and searching capabilities,” she writes.

“Disability Manga”

In ALA’s Booklist, Victoria Rahbar, web services librarian at Hostos Community College–CUNY (OCLC Symbol: ZHC) in Bronx, New York, USA, writes “A Manga Book Display for the Accessibility Resource Center” about the emerging genre she calls “disability manga.” Featured are eight series or stories “soaked in realism as they reflect the lived experience of both disabled readers and disabled manga creators.” Rahbar suggests that academic libraries display such resources at the Accessibility Resource Center or other suitable spaces for students with disabilities, where the students may be more likely to encounter them.

Reparative description for Japanese American incarceration

The Yale University (OCLC Symbol: YUS) Reparative Archival Description (RAD) Working Group presented the symposiumLanguage Matters: Defining the History of Japanese American Incarceration During World War II” on 2022 April 19 and has now made the materials available. The panelists discussed “their approaches to addressing euphemistic and harmful language in the words used to describe Japanese American incarceration during World War II.”

“LGBT Fantasy Books”

The Uncorked Librarian, a blog that “features diverse books and movies to inspire travel,” suggests “25 Best LGBT Fantasy Books” for both teens and adults. The multifaceted list includes science fiction, the paranormal, vampire archivists, wizards, politics, graphic novels, martial arts, swashbucklers, and more.

The post Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 2022 July 26 appeared first on Hanging Together.

Oppressive structures and the oppression of lack of structure / Meredith Farkas

River flowing around rocks

I have a notebook from my trip to Paris in 2003 for my friend’s wedding. It’s unbelievably detailed. Basically, I cut out things from four different Paris travel guides, wrote notes, and made my own extremely detailed guide book for what I wanted to do each day in Paris. I look at it now and it does look fairly ridiculous. My trip back to Paris with my family in 2018 involved similar planning, though done in a Google Doc. I created itineraries for each day we’d be in Paris with streets, buildings, parks, activities, restaurants, and bakeries listed for each location. It was absurdly structured. What is funny is that I actually love serendipity. I like just wandering around a place and discovering new things. That’s how we spent my birthday this year. We went on a hike in Forest Park and then grazed on food and drinks from random places in the neighborhood around there. It was a total joy. But I’m usually too afraid to leave things to chance like that, especially if I feel like others are depending on me. I feel like it’s all sitting on my shoulders and I don’t want to mess things up. I don’t want to let people down or myself. If I have it all planned out, I feel safer.

I’ve been this way ever since I was a teenager, always doing everything I could to avoid stress, ambiguity, or the possibility of letting others down. If I had an assignment, unlike literally all of my friends, I would get it done days or even weeks in advance of the deadline. I was also always the person in group projects who created structure and a clear accounting of who was responsible for what. Later on, I’d be the person on committees creating order, documentation, and providing clarity around what each person was responsible for (always collaboratively, but I was often the driving force in that kind of work). I can’t deal with the stress of deadlines looming over my head. I can’t deal with the ambiguity of not knowing what my role is in a group. I worry that I’m going to fail someone, that I’m not doing enough. So I try to create structure. To manufacture a sense of control so I don’t fall apart at the seams.

It’s only within the past few years that I was able to see that this need for structure and clarity was actually a response to trauma. Keeping things controlled and predictable is a common survival strategy of folks who grew up in physically or emotionally abusive homes. Growing up, I never knew when someone was going to blow up at me. There was a lot of screaming and harsh unrelenting criticism in my house. And it was often over the tiniest most insignificant things. There was never room for mistakes — making a mistake meant being screamed at and called terrible things. And when you’re a kid, you know nothing different. I truly believed there was something horribly wrong with me; that everything I did was wrong. That I would grow up and no one would ever want to share their life with me as my mom told me. As a child, I only really felt secure when I was with my abuela and abuelo. They let me see another world, one where I was good and loved. It’s not hard to see how a childhood where I almost never felt safe led to a need to create structure to protect me from messing up or letting people down. My younger brother is the king of routines and control and it didn’t occur to me for years that we shared that rigidity, because it manifested in different ways in our lives. But I think we both are constantly hedging against disaster because of how we were raised.

I’ve made a lot of progress over the years. Having a baby is a great lesson in losing control. It was an experience that has really helped me to soften in the face of what I can’t control rather than going rigid, though I don’t always get it right. COVID also created a lot of uncertainty that I handled fairly well. I’ve also gotten a lot better at failing or not getting something done on time. It used to be that when I was managing a project, if someone didn’t get their work done, I’d either mother them or I’d do it for them. A few years ago, I started letting people fail and letting the project fail if others didn’t get their work done. I didn’t let it all rest on my shoulders. I’m also more at peace about many of the things I can’t control. And I’ve made a ton of progress in letting go of a lot of the aspects of white supremacy culture I think I most embodied — like perfectionism (in myself — I was never so hard on others), a sense of urgency, and individualism.

Yet, I’ve also come to believe that it’s ok for me to be who I am. If I need structure, routine, and clarity, that’s not a weakness that I need to overcome. It’s how I stay healthy as a trauma survivor. While, yes, I’d love to not be anxious at all, I’m not sure that’s realistic, and I’m done seeing my needs as flaws or unimportant. Beating myself up for how I feel is like shooting myself with a second arrow. I’m done pushing my needs to the bottom of the pile when working with others. When I’d join a committee in the past and there was so much ambiguity over what each person was supposed to be doing, I would blame myself for feeling the anxiety I did and tell myself I just needed to overcome it. As I worked with more neurodivergent people, anxious people, and people with PTSD, I realized I wasn’t alone in the way I felt and that creating structure and clarity is simply what a lot of people need to feel safe. We all deserve to feel safe, right?

A few months ago, I rejoined a committee focused on DEI and antiracism work; the previous incarnation of which I was part of. Particularly when doing this sort of work, I am aware of my whiteness and how I can embody some of the characteristics of white supremacy culture. While I hold several marginalized identities (Jewish, queer, disabled), I feel pretty strongly that BIPOC should be centered in this work. I didn’t want to come in and try to change things, but just to contribute to the work wherever I could be most useful.

What became clear pretty quickly was that the Chair of the committee was doing way too much work (something she brought up herself) and perhaps because of it, no one wanted to take over as chair or even act as co-chair. I could see that a lot of the things she was doing did not have to reside with a chair and suggested that we could create a structure where the power and responsibility were shared equally across all members of the committee. We could each take on leadership roles — managing the grant money, liaising with our parent organization, etc. We’d been talking about how a Chair role itself is such an artifact of whiteness culture, so I thought that suggesting a more democratized structure would be welcome. And if not, I suggested that one of our goals for the following year could be to figure out a committee structure that works for us and doesn’t feel like it replicates whiteness. But one colleague brought up that “structure” in and of itself can feel oppressive to BIPOC. It rang alarm bells for her. What for some provides safety and clarity for others is a painful and ill-fitting straightjacket. I’m really glad that she mentioned her concern rather than just going along with the creation of something that felt oppressive for her. In the moment, I felt ashamed of my need for structure. But upon reflection, I recognize that both needs are real and valid.

It got me thinking how accommodating one group might unintentionally cause harm to another. How do we honor both the need for structure that provides safety for some and protects some from overwork and that for some people the idea of structure is whiteness in itself? I’m still playing with this in my mind. As a White woman on this committee, I want to prioritize the needs of my BIPOC colleagues. I will soften to the lack of structure and with fearing that I’m not doing enough, because I don’t actually know what I should be doing. I’m reminding myself that I have the luxury of job security and this is a volunteer role, so I can put it into perspective and soften when it hits against my usual boundaries. This whole thing really highlights for me the importance of teasing out diverse needs and concerns. More often than not, I’ve been too ashamed to admit to my own needs around structure and clarity. And I’m sure that in majority white spaces, our BIPOC colleagues frequently feel unable to bring up their needs when they diverge from the majority. How can we create spaces where people who hold all kinds of marginalized identities can be honest about what they need?

For me, owning and accepting my “issues” has been therapeutic. I find there is much more pain in denying or trying to muscle through what I’m feeling than to accept it. In the case of this committee, I think I’m going to have to accept more ambiguity than I’m usually comfortable with, but I’m going to be gentle with myself in the face of what I’m feeling. I’m not going to feel responsible or worry too much about what isn’t getting done because we don’t have a solid structure. It’s not on me. Surrendering to the reality of a situation can sometimes be really freeing. I recently had to do that at work and it felt good to say “this is just not going to happen, no matter how hard I try” rather than to keep banging my head against a wall or overworking because my boss won’t make space for me to do some important work. Why keep torturing myself? While I hope this committee can collaboratively design a structure in the future that nurtures everyone’s well-being and doesn’t replicate white supremacy culture, I’m also going to be ok if that doesn’t happen. Knowing when to harden and soften your boundaries is a real art form and one I hope I’m getting better at day by day. I don’t want to harden when I should be more flexible or soften when that means accepting injustice or mistreatment. May we all know when to push back for our well-being and when to let go for our sanity.

Image credit: Rocks Water Flow Stream by ForestWander licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States license.

The Internet Archive's "Long Tail" Program / David Rosenthal

In 2018 I helped the Internet Archive get a two-year Mellon Foundation grant aimed at preserving the "long tail" of academic literature from small publishers, which is often at great risk of loss. In 2020 I wrote The Scholarly Record At The Internet Archive explaining the basic idea:
The project takes two opposite but synergistic approaches:
  • Top-Down: Using the bibliographic metadata from sources like CrossRef to ask whether that article is in the Wayback Machine and, if it isn't trying to get it from the live Web. Then, if a copy exists, adding the metadata to an index.
  • Bottom-up: Asking whether each of the PDFs in the Wayback Machine is an academic article, and if so extracting the bibliographic metadata and adding it to an index.
Below the fold I report on subsequent developments in this project.

The results from top-down part included the beta of the fatcat wiki search engine based on the collected metadata, and from the bottom-up part an alpha version of a reasonably fast and accurate machine learning classifier that could identify academic articles.

This was enough progress that the Mellon Foundation awarded a second two-year grant, which has now concluded. One primary result was the launch of IA Scholar:
This service provides fulltext searching over research publications archived in Internet Archive's various collections. It includes content from the natural sciences, humanities, biomedicine, art, history, industrial research, government reports, and more.

Reader access to the content is provided when possible. Sometimes this access is to a "pre-print" or other version of the work, and this is indicated in the search results. In other cases, depending on search filters, results are included for which there is only a bibliographic catalog entry. It may still be possible to obtain access through a public library or from the publisher directly.
The difference between this and simple full-text search comes from the metadata index technology from the first grant. So, for example, you can:
  • copy and paste a citation into the search box, and the system will parse it.
  • use search filters such as year:<2000 or type:paper-conference
Another was Internet Archive Releases Refcat, the IA Scholar Index of over 1.3 Billion Scholarly Citations:
As part of our ongoing efforts to archive and provide perpetual access to at-risk, open-access scholarship, we have released Refcat (“reference” + “catalog”), the citation index culled from the catalog that underpins our IA Scholar service for discovering the scholarly literature and research outputs within Internet Archive. This first release of the Refcat dataset contains over 1.3 billion citations extracted from over 60 million metadata records and over 120 million scholarly artifacts (articles, books, datasets, proceedings, code, etc) that IA Scholar has archived through web harvesting, digitization, integrations with other open knowledge services, and through partnerships and joint initiatives.
I tried IA Scholar. First, using Chromium, I pasted this citation into the search box:
David S.H. Rosenthal, and Daniel Vargas. “Distributed Digital Preservation in the Cloud”, International Digital Curation Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, January 2013
The system returned a single correct hit in 0.17sec with the start of the abstract and a DOI in the center column and a cornucopia of correct information in the right column, both somewhat marred because they included much raw HTML.

Second, I tried this query:
author:"david s h rosenthal" author:"Vicky Reich"
The system returned six hits in 0.59sec, this time correctly formatted. The screenshot shows the top three results. Alas, the second has been confused by two papers with the same title:
  1. Vicky Reich & David S.H. Rosenthal. “LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe)”, Presented at Preservation 2000: An International Conference on the Preservation and Long Term Accessibility of Digital Materials, December 7-8, 2000, York, England. Also published in The New Review of Academic Librarianship, vol. 6, no. 1, 2000, pp. 155-161. doi:10.1080/13614530009516806
  2. David S.H. Rosenthal. “LOCKSS: Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe”, Presented at the NIST Digital Preservation Interoperability Framework Workshop, March 29-31, 2010, Gaithersburg, MD.
The system correctly found paper #1 at The New Review of Academic Librarianship with the DOI. But it also found paper #2 in the Wayback Machine, collected from the LOCKSS Program's wiki. The titles and one of the authors matched, but the dates were a decade apart and the primary author of paper #1 was missing from paper #2, so matching needs some work. Perhaps greater weight should be given to the copyright dates. But to the system's credit, it found both a somewhat obscure formal paper, and a really obscure conference paper that was simply posted to the project's wiki. And it didn't have any false positives.

REJECTED / Nick Ruest

I applied for Twitter Academic Access. I was rejected. There is no appeal process, and no insight into the rationale for the denial other than this email. If you reply to the email asking for more insight into the reason for the denial, you get an autoresponse stating, “Auto-Response: This email address does not process replies. You will not receive a response. Should you have questions regarding your Twitter Developer account, please refer to our forums at Thank you.”

Academic Research Access Application Email

I can’t help having some feelings of embarrassment and shame. I’m also annoyed, frustrated, and at the same time just a big ol’ meh shrug emoji. I have a lot of complicated feelings about the platform, and haven’t really engaged with using it for the last 5 years other than API work. But, I still think there is value in the data that can be extracted, and how that data intersects with a lot of my research projects. That’s why I applied for Academic Access. That said, I know I shouldn’t have these feelings of shame and embarrassment, but I do because I’ve been working with a few of the Twitter APIs for 10 years now. I’ve done a lot of collecting and analysis. I’ve collaborated with colleagues from a variety of academic disicplines, and published on the results of those collaborations. I naively thought that this would be an easy process for me. Privilege, eh?

So, I figured I share my story. Not in a demand to speak with the manager, but to shed some light on the process and it’s opaqueness, as well as just getting this out there for any others that have dealt with this. Solidarity in commiseration I guess?

The process to apply for Academic Research Access appears to be fairly simple. On face value it does. But, when you think about it a bit, you can really second guess yourself or read into things too much. I do give Twitter a lot of credit for the guide that they created. It’s definitely helpful, and informed all of my answers in the process.

So what does the process look like? It’s basically a two page form, with the questions in the guide linked above. I didn’t take any screenshots of it because I honestly didn’t think I would have too, so that’s why there are none here.

The first page in the form is pretty straight forward. Twitters asks for your name as it appears on your institution’s documentation. Then some links, basically demonstrate your academic bona fides: Google Scholar Profile, Faculy directory profile, research project profile, and any other relevant links. Your academic institution; name, country, province, city. Your department, school, or lab name. They also ask your academic role – faculty, graduate student, researcher, etc. Pretty straightforward eh? Below is what I had in my form.

The second page of the form appeared to be pretty straightforward as well. Twitter asks eight questions; the second half of the questions on the guide. The input is standard HTML form text areas. They aren’t overly huge, so I rolled with the assumption they just want a paragraph or two for each entry, 200 words as they state here. Below are the questions and my answers.

What is the name of your research project?

Web Archives for Historical Research, and Archives Unleashed.

Does this project receive funding from outside your academic institution? If yes, please list all your sources of funding.

Yes, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Compute Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation, and Science, York University Libraries, Start Smart Labs, and the Faculty of Arts and David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo.

In English, describe your research project.

The Web Archives for Historical Research (WAHR) group as well as the Archives Unleashed Project has the goal of linking history and big data to give historians the tools required to find and interpret digital sources from web archives. Our research focuses on both web histories - writing about the recent past as reflected in web archives - as well as methodological approaches to understanding these repositories. Our team develops web archive search and data analysis tools to enable scholars, librarians and archivists to access, share, and investigate recent history since the early days of the World Wide Web.

In English, describe how Twitter data and/or Twitter APIs will be used in your research project.

As our project’s goal is to use build tools and create datasets to aid other historians, librarians, archivists, and researchers to both use and interpret web archives, we use Twitter data from Twitter APIs to augement web archives. This data provides another lens to view an event or topic, and can also be used a resource to futher develop and create stronger web archives.

Will your research present Twitter data individually or in aggregate?


In English, describe your methodology for analyzing Twitter data, Tweets, and/or Twitter users.

Our group’s research uses a variety of methods for analysing Twitter data. These methods are largely based on filtering a given dataset in various ways – such as top links, hashtag, images, or tweets – to represent something analogous to a traditional finding aid in the archival profession. Additionally, we also take a look at networks of users around popular tweets in a collection, and use that as an entry point for further analysis that may tell a story. We also have created collages of images for a given event that allows a user to virtually sit in a collection look for patterns. We also use links that are shared as seed list for web crawls to further augment web archive collections. Finally, our group takes great care to respect the Twitter Terms of Service, privacy of users, and ethics guiding our profession.

In English, describe how you will share the outcomes of your research (include tools, data, and/or resources).

In an effort for research reproducibility, the public datasets that we share from raw Twitter API data are Tweet IDs lists which allow a given user to “rehydrate” the data in compliance with Twitter’s Terms of Service. We use twarc to collect data, dehdyrate, and rehydrate. We also use tools we have created to analysis dataset using Apache Spark. Finally, our research output is generally peer reviewed journal articles in our respective academic domains – History, Libraries and Archives, Computer Science, and Digital Humanities – and datasets are shared in platforms such as Canada’s Borealis, or Zenodo.

Will your analysis make Twitter content or derived information available to a government entity?


Once I filled those out, that was it. Click submit, and wait. About 8 hours later, I got the rejection.

The rejection is pretty opaque. I was told my use case was not eligible. I don’t know why it isn’t eligible because they don’t tell you. I don’t know if was a problem with how I answered any of my questions because they don’t tell you. They don’t ask you to expand, or do they tell you that if your answers aren’t to their liking. The denial is simply the end of the process. So, maybe my answers aren’t great, and I’m happy to own that if that’s the case. But, the Kafkaesque process is unsettling, and I’m sitting here with all these weird feelings. Maybe I should inquire over at and try and get this resolved, or maybe it’s a message to just walk away from this problematic platform.

Weeknote 29 / Mita Williams

This week I have tried to cycle and/or swim before work. After being sedentary for too long, it's been taking some time to build back my capacity to do such things. It's funny how I can accept this long on-ramp when it comes to exercising but I'm so more easily frustrated with myself and less forgiving when it comes to things like writing and

Mining News / David Rosenthal

In May I wrote Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, based on Paul Butler's The problem with bitcoin miners. Butler pointed out that mining company financials were based on depreciating their hardware in a straight line over five years, where in reality "The average time to become unprofitable sums up to less than 1.29 years". I summarized the problem:
In simple terms, this excess depreciation means that the company's real cost for creating income is much higher than they report, and thus their real profit as a continuing business is much less than they report, because they are not putting aside the money they will need to replace obsolete hardware.
This was written a couple of weeks after the Terra/Luna crash started on May 7th, triggering the current "crypto winter", too early to see the effect on miners. Now, as the contagion spreads and successive cryptocurrency companies file for bankruptcy, we are starting to see the knock-on effects. Below the fold, a collection of news about mining.

Lets start with the good news. Joanna Ossinger reports that JPMorgan Says Bitcoin Cost of Production May Be Down to $13,000:
Bitcoin’s cost of production has dropped from about $24,000 at the start of June to around $13,000 now, which may be seen as a negative for pricing, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

The drop in the production cost estimate is almost entirely due to a decline in electricity use as proxied by the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, strategists led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou wrote in a note Wednesday. They posit that the change is consistent with efforts by miners to protect profitability by deploying more efficient mining rigs, as opposed to a mass exodus by less efficient miners. They also say it could be seen as an obstacle to price gains.
Publicly traded miners have struggled along with digital assets themselves. Marathon Digital Holdings Inc. is down 76% year-to-date, Riot Blockchain Inc. has dropped 78% and Core Scientific has tumbled 86%.
The miners' valuations were based on the stratospheric margins they enjoyed as the progress of BTC "to the moon" starting in the fall of 2020 greatly outpaced the supply of new mining hardware, then fell as China cracked down in mid 2021, then recovered to peak on 7th November. The graph shows the rapid decline in miners' margins since then, culminating with the Terra/Luna collapse when mining briefly became unprofitable. The collapse of miners' valuations was clearly justified.

Miners need BTC to keep heading up. Note the period on the graph before it headed moon-wards when mining was barely profitable.The slight recovery in miners' margins may not last:
“While clearly helping miners’ profitability and potentially reducing pressures on miners to sell Bitcoin holdings to raise liquidity or for deleveraging, the decline in the production cost might be perceived as negative for the Bitcoin price outlook going forward,” the strategists wrote. “The production cost is perceived by some market participants as the lower bound of the Bitcoin’s price range in a bear market.”
On May 5th the Bitcoin hash rate was around 228M TH/s, and with the Terra/Luna collapse it has stopped its strong upward trend. It is now around 192M. If JP Morgan is correct that miners are "deploying more efficient mining rigs" then they can't be correct that an "exodus by less efficient miners" isn't happening. If more efficient mining rigs are flowing in to the market, then older less efficient rigs must be flowing out.

This is certainly what the team behind the Cambridge Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index believe. Their estimate of the total power usage of the Bitcoin blockchain has dropped 41% from 15.3GW before the Terra/Luna collapse to 9.1GW now, while the hash rate has dropped only 16%. So the average efficiency of the miners must have increased, which means that less efficient rigs have been turned off.

David Pan's Bitcoin Miner Woes Risk Getting Worse After Celsius Collapse confirms that this is what is happening:
The troubled crypto lender’s mining subsidiary also filed for protection from creditors late Wednesday. Celsius Mining said in the filing that it owns 80,850 rigs -- with 43,632 in operation -- and expects to run about 120,000 rigs and generate more than 10,000 coins by the end of this year.
It is likely that the 37,218 rigs Celsius has sitting idle are the older, less efficient and thus less profitable ones. I would expect that, in bankruptcy, Celsius will struggle to keep mining, let alone ramp up to 120K rigs. instead they will need to sell rigs to raise cash. But Pan reports:
The bankruptcy comes as the value of mining rigs plunges with Bitcoin prices in sharp decline. Some of the most popular machine models have fallen as much as 50% since the last bull run and miners are struggling to complete purchase orders they made several months ago.
What these reports don't mention is that flooding the market with older, less efficient rigs and thereby dropping their residual value means that they are depreciating even faster than the estimates from before the Terra/Luna crash, meaning that the problem Paul Butler identified in miners' financials is even worse than his description. He concluded:
Investors have been happy to provide capital to these companies, looking for anything in the public markets that provides some exposure to bitcoin, without paying much attention to what the companies are doing.

I don’t think it ends well.
So far, he is a prophet. These companies, which were essentially a bet that BTC would proceed "to the moon", were struggling to do anything but lavishly reward their executives when BTC was around $30K, but it is now around $20K. Not to mention that most of the rigs are in Texas and, as David Pan reports:
Nearly all industrial scale Bitcoin miners in Texas have shut off their machines as the companies brace for a heat wave that is expected to push the state’s power grid near its breaking point.
Not merely are their rigs depreciating far faster than before, but they aren't generating any income either. It may be summer, but regulatory winter is coming. Dani Anguiano reports in Energy use from US cryptomining firms is contributing to rising utility bills that:
The largest US cryptomining companies have the capacity to use as much electricity as nearly every home in Houston, Texas; energy use that is contributing to rising utility bills, according to an investigation by Democratic lawmakers.
The lawmakers solicited information from seven of the largest US cryptomining companies, including Stronghold, Greenidge, Bit Digital, Bitfury, Riot, BitDeer and Marathon, about their energy sources and consumption and the climate impacts of their operations. The data revealed that the industry is using a substantial amount of electricity, ramping up production and creating significant carbon emissions at a time when the US needs to drastically reduce emissions to combat the climate crisis.

Call for Nominations to the NDSA Coordinating Committee – Extended / Digital Library Federation

NDSA will be electing three members to its Coordinating Committee (CC) this year, with terms starting in January 2023. CC members serve a three year term, participate in a monthly call, and meet at the annual Digital Preservation Conference. The Coordinating Committee provides strategic leadership to the organization in coordination with group co-chairs. NDSA is a diverse community with a critical mission, and we seek candidates to join the CC that bring a variety of cultures and orientations, skills, perspectives and experiences, to bear on leadership initiatives. Working on the CC is an opportunity to contribute your leadership for the community as a whole, while collaborating with a wonderful group of dynamic and motivated professionals. 

If you are interested in joining the NDSA Coordinating Committee (CC) or want to nominate another member, please complete the nomination form by 11:59pm EDT Friday, August 19, 2022 which asks for the name, e-mail address, brief bio/candidate statement (nominee-approved), and NDSA-affiliated institution of the nominee. We particularly encourage and welcome nominations of people from underrepresented groups and sectors. 

As members of the NDSA, we join together to form a consortium of more than 260 partnering organizations, including businesses, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, professional associations and universities, all engaged in the long-term preservation of digital information. Committed to preserving access to our national digital heritage, we each offer our diverse skills, perspectives, experiences, cultures and orientations to achieve what we could not do alone. 

The CC is dedicated to ensuring a strategic direction for NDSA, to the advancement of NDSA activities to achieve community goals, and to further communication among digital preservation professionals and NDSA member organizations. The CC is responsible for reviewing and approving NDSA membership applications and publications; updating eligibility standards for membership in the alliance, and other strategic documents; engaging with stakeholders in the community; and working to enroll new members committed to our core mission. More information about the duties and responsibilities of CC members can be found at the NDSA’s Leadership Page.

We hope you will give this opportunity serious consideration and we value your continued contributions and leadership in our community.

Any questions can be directed to

Thank you,

Hannah Wang, Vice Chair

The post Call for Nominations to the NDSA Coordinating Committee – Extended appeared first on DLF.

Calls For Cryptocurrency Regulation / David Rosenthal

On 8th July 2022 Lael Brainard, Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve governors gave a speech entitled Crypto-Assets and Decentralized Finance through a Financial Stability Lens in which she writes:
Distinguishing Responsible Innovation from Regulatory Evasion
New technology often holds the promise of increasing competition in the financial system, reducing transaction costs and settlement times, and channeling investment to productive new uses. But early on, new products and platforms are often fraught with risks, including fraud and manipulation, and it is important and sometimes difficult to distinguish between hype and value. If past innovation cycles are any guide, in order for distributed ledgers, smart contracts, programmability, and digital assets to fulfill their potential to bring competition, efficiency, and speed, it will be essential to address the basic risks that beset all forms of finance. These risks include runs, fire sales, deleveraging, interconnectedness, and contagion, along with fraud, manipulation, and evasion. In addition, it is important to be on the lookout for the possibility of new forms of risks, since many of the technological innovations underpinning the crypto ecosystem are relatively novel.
The G20's Financial Stability Board followed with FSB Statement on International Regulation and Supervision of Crypto-asset Activities making a similar pitch for regulation. As did the European Central Bank with Decentralised finance – a new unregulated non-bank system?. Paul Krugman asks the right question in Crypto Is Crashing. Where Were the Regulators?:
Traditional banking is regulated for a reason; crypto, in bypassing these regulations, [Lael Brainard] said, has created an environment subject to bank runs, not to mention “theft, hacks and ransom attacks” — plus “money laundering and financing of terrorism.”

Other than that, it’s all good.

The thing is, most of Brainard’s litany has been obvious for some time to independent observers. So why are we only now hearing serious calls for regulation?
Below the fold I argue that these calls are both very late, and are couched in self-defeating language.

These calls from the regulators are not that new. For example, on 1st November 2021 the US Treasury issued President’s Working Group on Financial Markets Releases Report and Recommendations on Stablecoins saying:
The potential for the increased use of stablecoins as a means of payments raises a range of concerns, related to the potential for destabilizing runs, disruptions in the payment system, and concentration of economic power. The PWG report highlights gaps in the authority of regulators to reduce these risks.

To address the risks of payment stablecoins, the agencies recommend that Congress act promptly to enact legislation to ensure that payment stablecoins and payment stablecoin arrangements are subject to a federal framework on a consistent and comprehensive basis.
According to the FT, Treasury claimed it would take direct action if congress failed to act. But congress was already failing to act. Nearly a year earlier, on 2nd December 2020 Representatives Tlaib, García and Lynch had introduced the Stablecoin Tethering and Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act to subject stablecoin issuers to banking regulation. Did Treasury take direct action? Not so much.

When the bill was introduced USDT and USDC together had issued about $23B, when the Treasury called for regulation they had issued about $105B — about $7.5B/month. Combined issuance peaked at around $132B before the Terra/Luna collapse since when it has declined to $122B, still more than 5 times the amount when the bill was introduced. USDT has suffered a marked loss in market share to USDC, whose claims of backing are deemed more credible, which in itself suggests the need for regulation.

It may be that the regulators' calls for regulation are intended to deflect blame for inaction by pointing fingers at the legislators. But if not, regulators are making a set of fundamental mistakes:
  1. By saying the discussion, as Brainard does, is about "digital assets" or as others do, about "digital ledger technology" or "blockchains", the regulators are adopting the crypto-bros' frame. These terms conflate two completely different technologies; permissioned or centralized systems with an obvious locus of control to which regulations can be applied, and permissionless or decentralized systems which claim to lack a locus of control, and thereby to be immune from regulation.

    The major design goal of permissionless cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum was to escape regulation; conflating them with permissioned systems allows the latter to claim immunity from regulation because they are "digital assets" just like Bitcoin. Regulators should focus the discussion on permissionless systems, and in passing mention that existing regulations apply to permissioned systems.

  2. In focusing on permissionless systems, regulators again accept the crypto-bros' frame by accepting the claim that they are "decentralized" and thus lack loci of control to which regulations can be applied. As has been obvious all along, but has recently received support from Trail of Bits and Prof. Angela Walch, these systems in practice do have loci of control, and use the claim of "decentralization":
    as a veil that covers over and prevents many from seeing, ... the actions of key actors within the system.
    Regulators should not use the term "decentralized" but should instead focus on the many ways in which permissionless systems are in practice centralized, targeting these loci of control for regulation. Notice how the "digital asset" framing prevents them doing so.

  3. Regulators typically start the way Brainard does, by praising the promised benefits of cryptocurrency "innovation" such as:
    increasing competition in the financial system, reducing transaction costs and settlement times, and channeling investment to productive new uses.
    Again, buying in to the crypto-bros' framing in this way is counter-productive for two reasons. First, permissioned blockchain technology is thirty years old, and permissionless blockchain technology is not that innovative either; Satoshi Nakamoto simply assembled a set of well-known techniques to implement a cryptocurrency. Second, the products built on these technologies are not at all innovative, they simply replicate existing financial products without all the pesky regulation that would prevent their promoters ripping off the suckers.

    Avg. $/Transaction
    Regulators should avoid any reference to pie-in-the-sky potential benefits and argue that permissionless systems are necessarily less efficient and slower than centralized systems because of the cost and time overhead of the underlying consensus mechanism. And that they are less secure because of the risk of 51% attacks and their increased attack surface.

    Median Confirmation Time
    They can support this argument by pointing out that over the last year (a) the average Bitcoin transaction cost has varied between $50 and $300, (b) the median time to six-block finality has varied between 24 and 80 minutes, and (c) the Bitcoin network is processing less than five "economically meaningful" transactions between individuals per minute. These are numbers that would not strain a centralized system running on a Raspberry Pi. Note again how the "digital assets" framing prevents them from making this argument.

Permissionless cryptocurrencies were designed to evade regulation, so fighting them on their own "decentralized" ground isn't a winning strategy. Permissioned cryptocurrencies arose because the permissionless systems were so slow, inefficient and unwieldy; lumping them together with permissionless systems obscures their vulnerability to regulation, and the permissionless systems' weak points.

Using Cloud Storage for Access to Digital Archives / Digital Library Federation

This post was written by the members of DLF’s Born Digital Access Working Group’s Cloud Storage for Accessing Born-Digital Materials subgroup: Adriane Hanson (University of Georgia), Caterina Reed (Stony Brook University), Lara Friedman-Shedlov (University of Minnesota), Matthew McEnriy (Texas Tech University), Nicole Scalessa (Vassar College), and Steven Gentry (University of Michigan).

Introduction and Background

Cloud computing (a.k.a. “the cloud”) is commonly used by gallery, library, archive, and museum (GLAM) professionals to provide access to born-digital material. Due to the cloud’s overall importance and prevalence, a subgroup of the Digital Library Federation’s Born Digital Access Working Group (DLF BDAWG) formed in March 2021 to more closely explore the intersection of cloud computing and the provision of access to born digital material. This subgroup, originally entitled “Using Google Drive for Access,” drew inspiration from Eric C. Weig’s “Leveraging Google Drive for Digital Library Object Storage” for both its title and original focus on how GLAM professionals could use Google Drive to provide access to this material. The initial focus was on Google Drive due to its proliferation among institutions as a mechanism to provide access. Not only is Google Drive widely and cheaply available, it can host nearly any type of file and permits a great deal of granular control over who can access the material and for what period of time. Until recently, storage quotas were also extremely generous, if not unlimited, which permitted repositories to store collections consisting of many gigabytes of data.

However, at the first group meeting in May 2021, members discussed not only Weig’s article, but also Google’s forthcoming 2022(1) changes to their Workspace for Education (formerly known as the G Suite for Education; see Peters 2021 article). In particular, the change in Google’s data storage policy—from “unlimited storage to qualifying institutions…[to] a baseline of 100TB of pooled [free] storage shared among an institution” prompted many thoughts (see Peters 2021 article). Google claims that is enough storage for “approximately over 100 million documents, 8 million presentations, or 400,000 hours of video”; the reality, however, is that many organizations already exceed that quota. For example, the Bentley Historical Library, a single unit within the University of Michigan, was already stewarding 136 terabytes of digital material by July 2020 (see Bentley’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Strategic Plan Five-Year Strategic Objectives, Measures, and FY21 Actions). While Google will permit organizations to purchase additional storage, many GLAM professionals that have been using Google Drive to store collection-related files are understandably concerned that they will not have the leverage to negotiate the recurring budgetary costs necessary for sustainability. 

Ultimately, this change resulted in group members re-naming the subgroup “Cloud Storage Solutions for Accessing Born-Digital Materials” and pivoting to center their efforts on general low-cost and no-cost cloud storage solutions for access. 

Over the next few meetings, the subgroup searched the literature for case studies about how institutions are using cloud storage to provide access to born digital material. Unfortunately, after conducting this deeper literature review and discussing the results, it was determined that there was a gap in the literature on this topic. Members also compiled a list of free cloud-based storage solutions similar to Google Drive. However, it was discovered that the amount of storage users are granted for free from these solutions is incredibly small when compared to both the forthcoming Google Workspace for Education and the original G Suite for Education. Consider the following examples: 

If a librarian/archivist were to use all the free options listed above, they would max out their cloud storage at 110 GB. While some GLAMs could theoretically provide access to digitally born materials using these methods concurrently, the amount of work to juggle different storage capacities and limitations would be significant. Additionally, born digital archival collections frequently consist of extremely heterogeneous file types and formats that cannot be stored in other repositories maintained by their institutions. Such repositories also face the challenge of providing access to born digital archival materials at varying levels of restriction.  

Survey Results

The apparent literature review gap—as well as challenges in locating freely available cloud storage solutions—encouraged the subgroup to conduct a survey to gather practical examples of how repositories are providing cloud storage access to born digital materials. After drafting and periodically revising the survey based on internal and external feedback, the survey(2) was sent to the DLF BDAWG email list and was open from April 5 to April 15, 2022. Eight responses were received, although—because one respondent does not use the cloud for access due to privacy concerns—only seven responses met the criteria for a complete analysis(3). Of these responses, six are higher education institutions and one is a self-described “nonprofit think tank.” They provide access to collections ranging in size from 0.5 TB to 200 TB. Most of the respondents use the cloud for access on an experimental or case-by-case basis, often relying on more than one platform, depending on the circumstances. More than one respondent uses Google Drive (4), Amazon Web Services (3), OneDrive (2), and Omeka (2). Other platforms used included Box, LibSafe Go, virtual servers, DSpace, contentDM, bepress, and Figshare. These were platforms that the respondent’s institution already subscribed to rather than something acquired specifically for born digital materials. Use of multiple platforms allowed respondents to match the access method to the technical skills of the requestor. 

Respondents experienced a number of challenges across all of these platforms, including difficulty providing access to larger files, integrating with preservation or access systems, and managing conditions governing access.  It is clear that the cloud options implemented were often not by choice but rather by circumstance. Respondents inferred a need to find sustainable cloud solutions that align with staffing expertise and capacity within budgetary constraints to ensure sustainability. 

What Now?

The largest issue of concern that was revealed through the subgroups work is how Google’s decision to limit its previously unlimited storage for educational institutions will ultimately impact GLAMs and their efforts to connect researchers with born digital material. At other times, these talks became much broader and questioned how large organizations could foster specific answers to these increasingly complex topics. 

The practical steps the Born Digital Access Working Group’s Cloud Storage for Accessing Born-Digital Materials subgroup recommend include: 

  • Build/maintain positive relationships and open communication with information technology staff as it relates to storage, access, and migration 
  • Draft a communication plan, digital management plan, or other relevant documentation, to share concerns about Google Drive with stakeholders. 

Ultimately, there is much more work that needs to be done on this topic than could be accomplished by a handful of volunteers within a year. Given the wide range of free and paid cloud storage solutions currently available to GLAMs, as well as the lack of consensus from the literature and survey respondents, we are confident that cloud storage remains a complex issue that will not disappear any time soon. As such, readers are encouraged to join BDAWG, continue this work, and look even more closely into the intersection of born digital materials and cloud storage options. 

(1) Some institutions have received extensions via tech consortia that they are members of.
(2) Thanks to Corey Schmidt, Project Management Librarian at the University of Georgia, for sharing his expertise about survey development.
(3) Given the small number of responses, these results should be taken anecdotally and not as trends.


The post Using Cloud Storage for Access to Digital Archives appeared first on DLF.

Weeknote 28 / Mita Williams

This week I've moved into my new office. It is an opportunity to design the space so that it may evoke the right vibes. I recently received some fairy lights from my family for my birthday. I haven't decided if these are for home or work, yet.

Pump-and-Dump Schemes / David Rosenthal

On June 29th the SEC rejected the application from Grayscale Bitcoin Trust to launch a Bitcoin ETF. Among the justifications the SEC provided for their decision were (page 22, my re-formatting):
The Commission has identified in previous orders possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the spot bitcoin market, including:
  1. “wash” trading;
  2. persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing;
  3. hacking of the bitcoin network and trading platforms;
  4. malicious control of the bitcoin network;
  5. trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in bitcoin, new sources of demand for bitcoin, or the decision of a bitcoin-based investment vehicle on how to respond to a “fork” in the bitcoin blockchain, which would create two different, non-interchangeable types of bitcoin) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information;
  6. manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (USDT);
  7. fraud and manipulation at bitcoin trading platforms
Bitcoin and the wider cryptocurrency markets have a long history of "persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing" and "manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (USDT)". Among the techniques involved are "pump-and-dump" schemes. Below the fold I review the literature on these schemes, and follow up with a critique.


The cryptocurrency community has always been aware of the pump-and-dump epidemic. In December 2018 David Gerard wrote The ‘Bart’ — sudden hundreds-of-Bitcoin pumps or dumps, to burn the margin traders with a detailed account of a Bitcoin pump and dump:
You’ll typically see huge pumps, then stability for a few hours, then a huge dump. Crypto watchers call these “Barts”, ‘cos they look a bit like Bart Simpson’s haircut.

These aren’t just a crypto thing — you’ll see them for all manner of thinly-traded commodities in ill-regulated markets, or in forex.
This wasn't news to readers of Gerard's blog, he had been writing about Pump and Dump (P&Ds) schemes for some time. Here I review the academic literature I could find on the topic, in date order.

To the moon: defining and detecting cryptocurrency pump-and-dumps by Josh Kamps and Bennett Kleinberg (26th November 2018) used anomaly detection techniques applied to price histories of different cryptocurrencies on different exhanges, and found signals of P&Ds in both:
The exchanges Binance and Bittrex account for more of the pumps than the relative number of symbols analysed, suggesting these exchanges are utilised more for P&D schemes than others. Conversely, the exchange Kraken accounts for almost 6% of the symbols, yet less than 1% of the pumps. This is perhaps best explained by the fact that Kraken is one of the more regulated US-based exchanges, and deals mainly with crypto/fiat currency pairs, as opposed to crypto/crypto.
The data show that the most P&Ds for one symbol pair was 13, with the vast majority of symbols having between 0 and 3 P&Ds. This is consistent with the notion that specific coins may be targeted more often than others. Also interesting to note is that five of the top ten most pumped coins were pumped on the Bittrex exchange.
The Economics of Cryptocurrency Pump and Dump Schemes by JT Hamrick et al (December 2018) took a different approach:
We identified 3,767 different pump signals advertised on Telegram and another 1,051 different pump signals advertised on Discord during a six-month period in 2018. The schemes promoted more than 300 cryptocurrencies. These comprehensive data provide the first measure of the scope of pump and dump schemes across cryptocurrencies and suggest that this phenomenon is widespread and often quite profitable. ... We then examine which factors that affect the "success" of the pump, as measured by the percentage increase in price near the pump signal. We find that the coin's rank (market capitalization/volume) is the most important factor in determining the profitability of the pump: pumping obscure coins (with low volume) is much more profitable than pumping the dominant coins in the ecosystem.
Because they were monitoring the pumpers' messages, they were able to identify:
two distinct approaches to pumping cryptocurrencies: transparent pumps that openly promote coordinated purchases to raise prices and obscured pumps that set price targets instead. By making pump signals so obvious (e.g., pre-announcements, countdown messages, revealing the coin name at precisely the intended purchase time), the organizers of transparent pumps likely increased the chances of coordinated purchasing behavior to drive up prices. This is reflected in the superior returns to transparent pumps compared to obscure ones.
Detecting "Pump & Dump Schemes" on Cryptocurrency Market Using An Improved Apriori Algorithm by Weili Chen et al (4th April 2019) used the leaked Mt. Gox transaction dataset spanning April 2011 to November 2013 as input to an algorithm whose basic idea was:
As the key feature of a P&D scheme is the participated users buy or sell the digit asset in the same time period, thus we can detect P&D schemes by finding groups of users which usually buy or sell the asset in the same time period.
The Anatomy of a Cryptocurrency Pump-and-Dump Scheme by Jiahua Xu and Benjamin Livshits (14th August 2019) first analysed a single P&D in detail:
The pump-and-dump was organized by at least four Telegram channels, the largest one being Official McAfee Pump Signals, with a startling 12,333 members. Prior to the coin announcement, the members were notified that the pump-and-dump would take place on one of the Cryptopia’s BTC markets (i.e., BTC is the pairing coin).

Announcement: At 19:30 GMT, on November 14, 2018, the channels announced the target coin in the form of a OCR-proof picture, but not quite simultaneously. Official McAfee Pump Signals was the fastest announcer, having the announcement message sent out at 19:30:04. Bomba bitcoin “cryptopia” was the last channel that broadcast the coin, at 19:30:23.

The target coin was BVB, a dormant coin that is not listed on CoinMarketCap. The launch of the coin was announced on Bitcointalk on August 25, 2016. 5 The coin was claimed to be have been made by and for supporters of a popular German football club, Borussia Dortmund (a.k.a. BVB). The last commit on the associated project’s source code on GitHub was on August 10, 2017.

Although it has an official Twitter account, @bvbcoin, its last Tweet dates back to 31 August, 2016. The coin’s rating on Cryptopia is a low 1 out of possible 5. This choice highlights the preference of pump-and-dump organizers for coins associated with unserious projects.

During the first 15 minutes of the pump, BVB’s trading volume exploded from virtually zero to 1.41 BTC (illustrated by the tall grey bar towards the right end of the price/volume chart), and the coin price increased from 35 Sat 7 to its threefold, 115 Sat (illustrated by the thin grey vertical line inside the tall grey bar).

Price fluctuations: Further dissecting the tick by tick transactions (Figure 4), we note that the first buy order was placed and completed within 1 second after the first coin announcement. With this lightning speed, we conjecture that such an order might have been executed by automation. After a mere 18 seconds of a manic buying wave, the coin price already skyrocketed to its peak. Note that Bomba bitcoin “cryptopia” only announced the coin at the time when the coin price was already at its peak, making it impossible for investors who solely relied on the announcement from the channel to make any money.

Not being able to remain at this high level for more than a few seconds, the coin price began to decrease, with some resistance in between, and then plummeted. Three and half minutes after the start of the pump-and-dump, the coin price had dropped below its open price.
The authors then built:
a model that predicts the pump likelihood of all coins listed in a crypto-exchange prior to a pump. The model exhibits high precision as well as robustness, and can be used to create a simple, yet very effective trading strategy, which we empirically demonstrate can generate a return as high as 60% on small retail investments within a span of two and half months.
Cryptocurrency Pump and Dump Schemes: Quantification and Detection by Friedhelm Victor and Tanja Hagemann (8th November 2019) reports on:
quantification and detection of pump and dump schemes that are coordinated through Telegram chats and executed on Binance - one of the most popular cryptocurrency exchanges. We detail how pumps are organized on Telegram, and quantify the properties of 149 confirmed events with respect to market capitalization, trading volume, price impact and profitability. Based on this ground truth, and regular trading intervals obtained from twitter timestamps, we optimize a binary classifier in order to be able to detect additional suspicious trading activity. Our results indicate that pump and dump schemes occur frequently in cryptocurrencies with market capitalizations below $50 million, that scheme operators often organize their actions across multiple channels, that such activity tends to lead to inflated prices over longer time periods and machine learning can help to identify activity that is similar to known pump and dump schemes.
An Examination of the Cryptocurrency Pump and Dump Ecosystem by JT Hamrick et al (25th November 2019) continued their technique of joining P&D groups:
We quantify the scope of cryptocurrency pump and dump schemes on Discord and Telegram, two popular group-messaging platforms. We joined all relevant Telegram and Discord groups/channels and identified thousands of different pumps. Our findings provide the first measure of the scope of such pumps and empirically document important properties of this ecosystem.
We identified 952 pumps on Discord and 2,469 on Telegram over six months in 2018, then connected it with pricing data on nearly 2,000 coins across 220 cryptocurrency trading exchanges tracked by
We find that the median percentage price rise is 2.4-2.6% for the top 75 most popular coins, compared to 14-16% for the least popular coins ranked below 1,000 in terms of trading volume.
They conclude:
We identified two distinct approaches to pumping cryptocurrencies: transparent pumps that openly promote coordinated purchases to raise prices and obscured pumps that set price targets instead. By making pump signals so obvious (e.g., pre-announcements, countdown messages, revealing the coin name at precisely the intended purchase time), the organizers of transparent pumps likely increased the chances of coordinated purchasing behavior to drive up prices. This is reflected in the superior returns to transparent pumps compared to obscure ones.

Our analysis has implications for regulatory policy. Regulators could perhaps significantly disrupt future pump and dump schemes by focusing their efforts on the most prolific exchanges and brazen pump channels. Far from insurmountable, a concentrated ecosystem makes enforcement tractable.
Mirtaheri et al Fig. 1>
Identifying and Analyzing Cryptocurrency Manipulations in Social Media by Mehrnoosh Mirtaheri et al (17th December 2019) focused on the relevance of Twitter activity:
given financial and Twitter data pertaining to a particular coin, our method is able to detect, with reasonable accuracy, whether there is an unfolding attack on that coin on Telegram, and whether or not the resulting pump operation will succeed in terms of meeting the anticipated price targets. We also analyze activities of users involved in pump operations, and observe a prevalence of Twitter bots in cryptocurrency-related tweets in close proximity to the attack.
Charting the Landscape of Online Cryptocurrency Manipulation by Leonardo Nizzoli et al (18th June 2020) conclude:
  • We collect and share a large dataset for studying online cryptocurrency manipulations, comprising more than 50M messages and describing the online cryptocurrency ecosystem across three major platforms: Twitter, Telegram and Discord.
  • We uncover the pivotal role of Twitter bots in broadcasting invite links to deceptive Telegram and Discord channels, exposing a little-known social bot activity.
  • Instead of focusing on specific frauds, we let manipulation patterns naturally emerge from data, highlighting the existence of two different manipulations – namely, pump-and-dump and Ponzi schemes.
  • Our results describe Discord as a reasonably healthy online cryptocurrency ecosystem. In contrast, more than 56% of crypto-related Telegram channels are involved in manipulations. Moreover, these deceptive activities are massively broadcast with the help of Twitter bots.
Nizzoli et al Table 3
They used topic extraction techniques, which revealed both Ponzis and P&Ds as shown in their Table 3. In particular:
Whereas on Discord we found a negligible level of deception, on Telegram we retrieved 296 channels involved in pump-and-dump and 432 involved in Ponzi schemes, accounting for a striking 20% of the total.
Cryptocurrency Pump-and-Dump Schemes by Tao Li, Donghwa Shin and Baolian Wang (10th February 2021) used a difference-in-difference approach based on the Bittrex exchange's ban on Pump and Dump schemes starting 24th November 2017 to show:
significant wealth transfers between insiders and outsiders ... causal evidence that P&Ds are detrimental to the liquidity and price of cryptocurrencies.
One question is why, given the huge advantages enjoyed by the pump organizers, others are willing to participate. The authors:
discuss potential mechanisms why outsiders are willing to participate and describe how our findings shed light on manipulation theories.
Among their results are:
An “insider,” who knows the cryptocurrency identity and timing of the pump in advance and buys target cryptocurrencies ten minutes before the announcement and holds until 70 seconds after the announcement, achieves a nearly 25% return. For an “outsider” who does not know about a P&D in advance but buys immediately after the announcement and sells 70 seconds later, his return of 15% is still eye-popping.
Our estimates suggest that the Bittrex ban increased prices of its cryptocurrencies by about 4.5% (during a five-day window) to 10.0% (during a two-week window), and the volume by 24.2% (during a two-week window) to 33.2% (during a four-week window), respectively.
The Doge of Wall Street: Analysis and Detection of Pump and Dump Cryptocurrency Manipulations by Massimo La Morgia et al (3rd May 2021) examined two different types of manipulations, classic P&Ds and "crowd pumps" exemplified by Gamestop. As regards P&Ds:
Groups of highly coordinated people arrange this scam, usually on Telegram and Discord. We monitored these groups for more than 3 years detecting around 900 individual events. We analyze how these communities are organized and how they carry out the fraud. We report on three case studies of pump and dump.
La Morgia et al Fig. 4
Their Figure 4 shows the P&Ds that they found. They then report in detail on three case studies of P&Ds:
In the first, we perform an analysis of the pump and dumps groups, the targeted exchange, and the cryptocurrencies. In the second we focus on Big Pump Signal, arguably the biggest pump and dump group, able to generate a volume of transactions of 5,176 BTC in a single operation. Lastly, we present the case study of the Yobit exchange that organized 3 pump and dump operations in 2018.
Then they:
leverage our unique dataset of the verified pump and dumps to build a machine learning model able to detect a pump and dump in 25 seconds from the moment it starts, achieving the results of 94.5% of F1-score.
Finally they:
move on to the crowd pump, a new phenomenon that hit the news in the first months of 2021, when a Reddit community inflates the price of the GameStop stocks (GME) of over 1,900% on Wall Street, the world's largest stock exchange. Later, other Reddit communities replicate the operation on the cryptocurrency markets. The targets were Dogecoin (DOGE) and Ripple (XRP). We reconstruct how these operations developed, and we discuss differences and analogies with the standard pump and dump. Lastly, we illustrate how it is possible to leverage our classifier to detect this kind of operation too.
Profitability of cryptocurrency Pump and Dump schemes by Taro Tsuchiya (9th June 2021) showed that some exchanges are more P&D-friendly than others:
Yobit and Cryptopia are more sensitive (easily manipulated) to the increase in the trading volume than Binance and Bittrex, while controlling other significant factors, including the timing of the pump (hourly, yearly), the currency, and the Telegram channel.
Tsuchiya trained a model on PumpOlymp data:
The classification model succeeded in predicting more than 75% of the successful and unsuccessful pumps (out-of-sample) using information before the pump occurs.
A new wolf in town? Pump-and-dump manipulation in cryptocurrency markets by Anirudh Dhawan and Tālis J. Putniņš (12th November 2021) observed that P&D organizers make money only if others join in despite probable losses:
We investigate the puzzle of widespread participation in cryptocurrency pump-and-dump manipulation schemes. Unlike stock market manipulators, cryptocurrency manipulators openly declare their intentions to pump specific coins, rather than trying to deceive investors. Puzzlingly, people join in despite negative expected returns. In a simple framework, we demonstrate how overconfidence and gambling preferences can explain participation in these schemes. Analyzing a sample of 355 cases in six months, we find strong empirical support for both mechanisms. Pumps generate extreme price distortions of 65% on average, abnormal trading volumes in the millions of dollars, and large wealth transfers between participants.
Detecting cryptocurrency pump-and-dump frauds using market and social signals by Huy Nghiem et al (15th November 2021) used a neural network combining data extracted from social media and market data to:
predict the target cryptocurrency for each pump before its announcement using market and social media signals ... that are capable of forecasting the highest price induced by the pump after the cryptocurrency’s identity is revealed within 6.1% error margin.
Our experimental results serve as proof of a feasible forecasting expert system for identifying cryptocurrency pump-and-dump frauds using publicly available data.
Their dataset is interesting:
We focus on pump channels organized on Telegram, a cloud-based, crossplatform messaging service. We gather data from PumpOlymp, a website that collects and hosts comprehensive historical pump events on Telegram channels through various means as per direct conversation with PumpOlymp’s staff. PumpOlymp’s administrators search for possible channels using relevant keywords, such as ”pump”,”dump”,”signals”, etc. and their variants on search mediums such as Telegram’s site search, Twitter links, and Discord’s aggregators, including also, a website that mines Telegram-specific analytics. Pump channels also cross-promote each other, providing another possible venue for collection. Administrators then manually review this list of candidates to designate true pump channels based on previously outlined hallmark characteristics. Our collection of historical pump events retrieved from dates back from June 17th, 2018 to December 19th, 2019.
Our data includes pump activities on 4 exchanges: Binance, Bittrex, Cryptopia and Yobit for 355 unique cryptocurrencies. In the designated time period, 324 pump events transpired on Binance, followed by Yobit with 269, Cryptopia with 243, and Bittrex with 49.
Note that these machine learning models could be used to implement profitable algorithmic trading by predicting and joining P&Ds.


These papers agree on a number of points:
  1. P&Ds are frequent.
  2. They are organized on channels such as Discord and Telegram.
  3. They are extremely profitable for organizers and others who can trade on "material non-public information".
  4. P&Ds targeting smaller altcoins are both more prevalent and more profitable
The problem with this consensus is that, because the research measures the profitability of a P&D by spot trades in the targeted cryptocurrency, it downplays the type of P&D described by David Gerard and shown above. These target the major cryptocurrencies, primarily Bitcoin, and derive their profitability not from spot trades but from trades in the (roughly ten times larger) derivative market, which is dominated by financial institutions. As Gerard wrote explaining "Barts":
The motivation is to burn margin traders, whether short (betting the price will go down) or long (betting it’ll go up) — you’ll see a Bart when it’s profitable to manipulate the number that a derivative depends upon. Pump or drop the price a hundred dollars, win the margin bet against someone who bet the other way.
These P&Ds are profitable only for cryptocurrencies with a large, liquid derivative market. Because moving the price of such a cryptocurrency requires trading large amounts of stablecoins, they are available only to deep-pocketed players, who do not organize them on groups with names like Big Pump Signal. Gerard details one such event (actually a $40M D&P followed by a P&D):
The way it works is:
  1. Margin traders place bets on the Bitcoin price.
  2. Those bets depend on the price at other exchanges.
  3. You can win more on the bet than it would cost to fiddle the price to win the bet.
I don’t know what the margin bets were that were being targeted by the rise — but the sudden drop was a single sale, of 5,000 BTC on Bitstamp, around 02:50 UTC on the morning of Friday 17 May. The price bottomed out at 03:10 UTC at $6,178

This was a huge dump. Trading in all cryptos is very thin — clearing 5,000 BTC out of the Bitstamp order book at that time meant going from orders to buy Bitcoin at $7,800, all the way down to orders to buy at $6,178. And so, that was the bottom price.

This caused about $250 million of long positions on BitMEX to be liquidated, as the price used by BitMEX bottomed at $6469.15.

BitMEX doesn’t exchange bitcoins for US dollars itself — it takes its BTC/USD prices from Coinbase and … Bitstamp.
Note the >6-fold difference between the spot and derivative values. The profits available to these manipulations are likely much larger than those available by manipulating the spot markets.

Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 2022 July 12 / HangingTogether

The following  post is one in a regular series on issues of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility, compiled by Jay Weitz.

Abortion in YA literature

In “The Rights of All Women,” Maggie Reagan brings together a timely group of young adult nonfiction and fiction books concerning abortion. “Most of the girls having abortions in YA are white and upper-class,” Reagan notes, “and though reproductive rights are talked about as something that effects all women, the nuances haven’t yet been deeply explored.”

Art Spiegelman and libraries

Since it was published in 1991, the Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novel Maus, by Art Spiegelman, has been banned or challenged numerous times. He sat for an interview with American Libraries, “Newsmaker: Art Spiegelman,” discussing book bans, the use of comics in the classroom, and his own reverence for libraries. “I read a lot and found things at random by pulling books off shelves, taking them home, seeing which ones worked for me,” he recalls. “It was just a matter of reading without any filter.”

“Standing Up for Intellectual Freedom”

Andy Gooding-Call, a librarian at the Merrimack Valley Library Consortium (OCLC Symbol: MRQ) in North Andover, Massachusetts, USA, recommends six American Library Association publications to help institutions deal with various challenges to intellectual freedom. In “Standing Up for Intellectual Freedom,” Gooding-Call cites resources about banned materials, displays and meetings rooms, and training library staff to weather the legal storms.

Expungement clinics

Under the auspices of WebJunction, Worcester County Library (OCLC Symbol: RT9) in Snow Hill, Maryland, USA, offers “How to Run an Expungement Clinic at Your Library” along with related resources. Expungement, “the process by which a record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from state or federal record,” helps to clear away legal impediments to employment by connecting users with pro bono lawyers who can assist in the process.

Drag Queen Story Hour disrupted

In a June 11, 2022, incident that “totally freaked out all of the kids” according to San Francisco area drag performer Panda Dulce, a Drag Queen Story Hour at the San Lorenzo location of the Alameda County Library (OCLC Symbol: JQA) in California was disrupted by a group of men alleged to be members of the Proud Boys. The sheriff’s office described them as “extremely aggressive with a threatening violent demeanor causing people to fear for their safety,” as reported by SFGATE in “Hate crime investigation underway after alleged Proud Boys storm Drag Queen Story Hour at Bay Area library.”

“Hide the Pride”

Photo by Henry Be on Unsplash

CatholicVote, a self-described “grassroots lobbying organization with a connected political action committee,” which is “not funded or administered by the Catholic Bishops,” launched its “Hide the Pride” campaign during Pride Month, June 2022. The campaign is “a parent-led movement to empty local taxpayer-funded libraries of progressive sex- and gender-related content aimed at children.” Amanda Girard, a Collections, Access, and Facilities Information Specialist at Southern New Hampshire University (OCLC Symbol: HC7), writes about the initiative to “reclaim your public library” on the ALA Intellectual Freedom Blog, “‘Hide the Pride’ Campaign Targets Library Pride Month Displays.” The idea is to check out Pride display books and keep them at home until the displays and books are removed from the collection. “This is framed under the guise of protecting children’s innocence,” writes Girard, “suggesting that anyone other than adults having access to materials on sexuality, gender identity, and other related topics, does harm to the community.”

Intellectual Freedom Syllabus

The American Library Association Intellectual Freedom Round Table has announced the completion of the project created by the Emerging Leaders Program, “Intellectual Freedom Syllabus.” It consists of “a curated collection of resources that can be used in the creation of an intellectual freedom curriculum geared towards LIS education.” The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution serve as the foundation of this core value of information organizations. There are currently eight units (including access, censorship, collection development, digital literacy, meeting rooms, school libraries, special libraries, and social justice) upon which the syllabus will continue to build.

The post Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 2022 July 12 appeared first on Hanging Together.

Programs are Live for CLIR’s 2022 Events: DLF Forum, Learn@DLF, DigiPres, DHC Symposium / Digital Library Federation

Join us in Baltimore October 9-13, 2022. October 9: Learn@DLF; October 10-12: DLF Forum; October 12-13 NDSA Digital Preservation & Digitizing Hidden Collections Symposium

The Council on Library and Information Resources is delighted to announce the release of the full programs for our in-person conferences happening in Baltimore, MD this October: the Digital Library Federation’s (DLF) Forum and Learn@DLF, NDSA’s Digital Preservation 2022: Preserving Legacy, and CLIR’s Digitizing Hidden Collections Symposium. This year’s programs are remarkable, and you won’t want to miss them.

Explore the Programs

Our events will take place on the following dates:

We are especially grateful to our volunteer Reviewers and Program Committees, without whom these fabulous programs would not have come together. And, thank you to all who submitted proposals. This year’s field was competitive, and it shows in the strong programs we’re sharing today.

Secure the early bird rate, register for our events, book your hotel, browse our new community-written Baltimore local guide, and start planning for yet another memorable week with CLIR. 

DLF member organizations receive one complimentary DLF Forum registration as part of their member benefits. Not sure who received your code? Contact us at

We will continue updating the Covid-19 Health Protocols information on our website. If you have any questions, please write to us at We’re looking forward to seeing you in Baltimore this fall.

-Team DLF

P.S. Want to stay updated on all things #DLFforum? Subscribe to our Forum newsletter and follow us at @CLIRDLF on Twitter.

The post Programs are Live for CLIR’s 2022 Events: DLF Forum, Learn@DLF, DigiPres, DHC Symposium appeared first on DLF.

Thinking in Systems / Mita Williams

You might not know this but I have a newsletter that I published every Saturday morning called The University of Winds. Today's issue dovetails nicely with library-related and library-adjacent topics, so I thought I'd republish a part of it here as well.

WACZ Images / Ed Summers

Over on the SUCHO Slack a question came up about how to extract images from a WACZ file. These WACZ files are being created by volunteers using browsertrix-crawler to collect at risk cultural heritage websites in the Ukraine. You can see the completed ones in this this listing, which are also available in the public S3 bucket s3://

A WACZ is really just a ZIP file that contains WARC data and metadata at predicatble file locations. So it’s not too tricky to use a programming language’s native support for ZIP and an extension library like warcio to read the packaged WARC data and look for records containing images.

#!/usr/bin/env python3

# usage: <wacz_file>
# This program will extract images from the WARC files contained in a WACZ 
# file and write them to the current working directory using the image's URL 
# as a file location.
# You will need to `pip install warcio` for it to work.

import sys
import logging

from pathlib import Path
from zipfile import ZipFile
from urllib.parse import urlparse
from warcio import ArchiveIterator

def main():
    logging.basicConfig(filename="wacz-images.log", level=logging.INFO)
    wacz_file = sys.argv[1]
    wacz = ZipFile(wacz_file)
    for warc_file in warc_files(wacz):
        for rec in ArchiveIterator(, "r")):

def warc_files(wacz):
    return list(filter(lambda f: f.endswith(".warc.gz"), wacz.namelist()))

def extract(rec):
    if rec.rec_type == "response" and rec.http_headers.get("Content-Type", "").startswith("image/"):
        path = get_path(rec.rec_headers["WARC-Target-URI"])
        if not path.parent.is_dir():
        except OSError as e:

def get_path(url):
    uri = urlparse(url)
    return Path(uri.netloc + uri.path + uri.query)

if __name__ == "__main__":

This program will read the WACZ file and write out a series of images files using the URL as a way to construct a file path.

I ran it on yizhakultura-com.wacz and it generated the following file/directory structure:
├── assets
│   └── img
│       ├── donate-pink.png
│       ├── donate.svg
│       ├── facebook.png
│       ├── instagram.png
│       ├── telegram.png
│       ├── with-gift-wrapping.jpg
│       ├── without-gift-wrapping.jpg
│       └── youtube.png
├── favicon.ico
├── themes
│   └── yizhak
│       └── assets
│           └── img
│               ├── calendar.svg
│               ├── cart.png
│               ├── facebook-pink.png
│               ├── favicon.ico
│               ├── h-logo.png
│               ├── icon-arrow-left-slim.svg
│               ├── icon-arrow-right-slim.svg
│               ├── list-pink.svg
│               ├── logo.png
│               ├── partners
│               │   ├── 1.jpg
│               │   ├── 2.jpg
│               │   ├── 3.jpg
│               │   ├── 4.jpg
│               │   ├── 5.jpg
│               │   ├── 6.jpg
│               │   ├── 8.jpg
│               │   └── 9.jpg
│               ├── play.svg
│               ├── profile.png
│               ├── search.svg
│               ├── telegram-pink.png
│               └── text.svg
└── uploads
    ├── 05bee3a9818ccab1dc429a89bdbbb206.jpg
    ├── 100825206ce367ff4787081875ad7b11.jpg
    ├── 1bf78535711236ddda5ceeec4b867250.jpg
    ├── 21be3439fbf879a6f2257caa73969a0a.jpg
    ├── 21f1c47c5d1712a3eee5990cafc9a312.jpg
    ├── 24c791e88cdc2d9944d2e9db76cde1fc.jpg
    ├── 312c159cb08cd75ee56897308b0e96f1.jpg
    ├── 3a2e3718d2bd5277fd2ac700fd390298.jpg
    ├── 5c0f228e84f12beb8ac825d6e64f2106.jpg
    ├── 5cd51756ff1d5eca01bf7fd3718b2a00.jpg
    ├── 5f6ea3b9e1b3bbb9b4c242f289efea14.jpg
    ├── 6d2b3ffad6857fb8563843c7a559c465.jpg
    ├── 7429d30aa9b1ee57cab4a28d38457037.jpg
    ├── 8c7c3e4861ae3811fe92cdc79cff9621.png
    ├── a28a9a7e165d15311d51503b69339936.jpg
    ├── a32dbe47ce445daaca985f53f146632b.jpg
    ├── acde32f5465761b5c49356356c87b531.jpg
    ├── aeb36179d4df2022caee2c5ca331478e.jpg
    ├── b7b5cddee442462aff3fa2d401c7c2ae.png
    ├── c472557a07b55f0244485382f5b50bed.jpg
    ├── d04f630818f67da6e1055459cbd45fba.jpg
    ├── d6f9803a411a3fa6085b88a2e2df6740.jpg
    ├── d814e5df88b10f7d30ab1cecc55dcb3e.jpg
    ├── da4bdeaecb69f6555429a7bb804f413f.jpg
    ├── df1ddd2c180c23139a86b6eedc83836d.jpg
    ├── e6cde30606f7a412c838e0b7f8836f63.jpg
    ├── eabd170fe42c6fae67329b7fd954069f.jpg
    ├── ee11230887275ab95295afed60f47e55.jpg
    ├── f1a5bf6449e447153d43d9089f3c18db.jpg
    ├── f3956280cb7db26516e1c2a62e70d3dc.jpg
    ├── images
    │   ├── authors
    │   │   ├── medium
    │   │   │   ├── %D1%81_zadorozhna_oksana.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_adzhyieva_esma.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_antsybor_daria.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_banko_mariia.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_bogdanec_svitlana_02.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_borysenko_valentyna.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_braichenko_olena.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_bulatova_svitlana.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_buradzhyieva_valeriia.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_chyzhevska_nadiia.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_dehtiarova_valeriia.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_demchuk_stefaniia.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_dyndo_maryna.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_dyrda_svitlana.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_fanta_ilona.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_halas_maiia1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_hromova%EF%BB%BF_nataliia.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_kaliuzhna_kateryna2.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_kazakevych_olha.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_kosenko_mariya.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_kotsiubanska_olha.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_kovaleneko_serhii.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_krasylenko_yuliia.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_krikunova_dariia.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_kuzjo_natalya.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_lesia_hasydzhak.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_lindeman_alisa.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_midianka_petro.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_nahorniuk_oleksii.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_nazarenko_vadym.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_netudykhatkin_ihor.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_okopna_tetiana.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_pankova_anastasiia.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_pastushenko_tetiana_.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_patiuk_daryna_maryna.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_pavlova_olena.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_petrenko-lysak_alla.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_petrenko-tseunova_olha.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_polek_tina9.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_potapenko_maksym.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_pyvovarenko_olena.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_samruk_natalia1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_shchur_oksana.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_sheptytska_tetiana.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_slavinska_iryna1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_slobodyanyuk-montavon_hanna.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_soboleva_olena.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_sokyrko_oleksii.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_tetiana_tkachenko.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_tilnova_inna.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_vasianovych_oleksandr.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_vilkova_olena.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_yakusyk_tetiana.png
    │   │   │   ├── a_yudina_oksana1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_zemliana_iryna.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── a_zubko_olha1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── artem.png
    │   │   │   ├── c_denys_kramarenko.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── c_kostiantyn_slipchenko.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── c_olena_zhabotynska.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── c_viacheslav_popkov.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── c_vitalii_huralevych.jpg
    │   │   │   └── c_yaroslav_artiukh.jpg
    │   │   └── thumbnails
    │   │       ├── %D1%81_zadorozhna_oksana.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_adzhyieva_esma.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_antsybor_daria.png
    │   │       ├── a_banko_mariia.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_bogdanec_svitlana_02.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_borysenko_valentyna.png
    │   │       ├── a_braichenko_olena.png
    │   │       ├── a_bulatova_svitlana.png
    │   │       ├── a_buradzhyieva_valeriia.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_chyzhevska_nadiia.png
    │   │       ├── a_dehtiarova_valeriia.png
    │   │       ├── a_demchuk_stefaniia.png
    │   │       ├── a_dyndo_maryna.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_dyrda_svitlana.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_fanta_ilona.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_halas_maiia1.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_hromova%EF%BB%BF_nataliia.png
    │   │       ├── a_kaliuzhna_kateryna2.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_kazakevych_olha.png
    │   │       ├── a_kosenko_mariya.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_kotsiubanska_olha.png
    │   │       ├── a_kovaleneko_serhii.png
    │   │       ├── a_krasylenko_yuliia.png
    │   │       ├── a_krikunova_dariia.png
    │   │       ├── a_kuzjo_natalya.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_lesia_hasydzhak.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_lindeman_alisa.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_midianka_petro.png
    │   │       ├── a_nahorniuk_oleksii.png
    │   │       ├── a_nazarenko_vadym.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_netudykhatkin_ihor.png
    │   │       ├── a_okopna_tetiana.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_pankova_anastasiia.png
    │   │       ├── a_pastushenko_tetiana_.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_patiuk_daryna_maryna.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_pavlova_olena.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_petrenko-lysak_alla.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_petrenko-tseunova_olha.png
    │   │       ├── a_polek_tina9.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_potapenko_maksym.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_pyvovarenko_olena.png
    │   │       ├── a_samruk_natalia1.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_shchur_oksana.png
    │   │       ├── a_sheptytska_tetiana.png
    │   │       ├── a_slavinska_iryna1.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_slobodyanyuk-montavon_hanna.png
    │   │       ├── a_soboleva_olena.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_sokyrko_oleksii.png
    │   │       ├── a_tetiana_tkachenko.png
    │   │       ├── a_tilnova_inna.png
    │   │       ├── a_vasianovych_oleksandr.png
    │   │       ├── a_vilkova_olena.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_yakusyk_tetiana.png
    │   │       ├── a_zemliana_iryna.jpg
    │   │       ├── a_zubko_olha1.jpg
    │   │       ├── artem.png
    │   │       ├── c_denys_kramarenko.jpg
    │   │       ├── c_kostiantyn_slipchenko.jpg
    │   │       ├── c_olena_zhabotynska.jpg
    │   │       ├── c_viacheslav_popkov.jpg
    │   │       ├── c_vitalii_huralevych.jpg
    │   │       └── c_yaroslav_artiukh.jpg
    │   ├── materials
    │   │   ├── full
    │   │   │   ├── 100.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20180806_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20180813_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20180823_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20180905_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20180918_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20180929_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20181005_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20181011_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20181105_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20181112_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20181125_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20181218_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20181227_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190101_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190104_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190111_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190117_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190125_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190131_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190210_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190222_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190307_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190308_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190323_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190403_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190430_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190503_ano_xxx_920x560.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190509_ano_xxx_920x560.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190511_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190515_akk_xxx_920x560.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190531_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190617_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190618_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190623_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190624_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190705_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190715_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190722_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190729_xxx_000_920x5601.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190729_xxx_000_920x56011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190814_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190820_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190826_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190905_apn_000_920x560.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190918_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20191010_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20191107_aps_001_920560.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20191108_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20191115_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20191213_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20191227_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20191231_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20192816_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200124_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200219_000.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200229_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200320_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200328_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200424_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200513_0001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200520_ril_001_9205601.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200605_000.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200617_kud_001_9205602.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200623_000.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200623_0001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200627_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200707_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200727_bmi_001_9205601.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200730_000.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200823_zog_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201008_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201026_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201103_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201105_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201110_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201111_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201115_0132_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201121_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201124_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201125_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201128_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201202_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201202_1343_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201206_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201217_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201221_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201223_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201228_1115_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_0012.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_0013.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_0014.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_003.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 2020314_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 2020405_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210105_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210119_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210126_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210127_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210202_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210210_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210219_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210225_0001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210225_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210303_2031_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210310_1833_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210314_0919_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210315_2204_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210317_1737_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210324_1501_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210326_2052_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210328_2215_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210401_2206_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210402_1805_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210403_0217_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210408_1614_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210411_0156_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210415_1220_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210418_1649_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210426_0209_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210430_1044_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210516_1143_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210602_1703_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210607_0146_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210611_0015_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210622_1108_001.jpeg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210702_1936_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210709_0049_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210715_2025_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210724_2249_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210725_2300_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210729_1507_000.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210811_0829_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210812_0904_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210901_0744_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210918_1211_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210920_1332_0001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210925_0220_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210929_1443_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211008_2050_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211022_1521_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211025_1044_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211028_0317_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211028_1745_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211029_0928_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211031_0240_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211031_0305_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211106_1142_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211106_1256_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211112_1112_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211114_1221_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211120_1046_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211120_1113_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211124_1400_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211125_0213_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211201_0855_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211208_1034_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211211_2024_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211215_2011_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211220_2035_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211228_1817_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20211229_1333_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20220105_0111_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20220107_1501_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20220114_0206_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20220202_1530_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20220205_2125_000.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20220209_1110_000.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20220216_2232_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20220219_1852_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 22020212_0015_000.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 79187781_3231065063573219_6068652454101123072_n.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Titul.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── annie-spratt-553038-unsplash.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── fol__170v.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── na_desert_920560.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── news_and_announcements.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── news_and_announcements1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── news_and_announcements2.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── news_and_announcements21.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── news_and_announcements212.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── news_and_announcements2121.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── news_and_announcements2122.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── news_and_announcements2123.jpg
    │   │   │   └── photo_2020-10-12_19-32-18.jpg
    │   │   ├── medium
    │   │   │   ├── 20180806_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20180813_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20180823_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20180905_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20180918_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20180929_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20181005_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20181011_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20181105_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20181112_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20181125_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20181218_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20181227_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190101_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190104_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190111_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190117_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190125_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190131_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190210_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190222_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190307_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190308_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190323_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190403_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190430_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190509_ano_xxx_920x560.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190511_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190531_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190617_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190618_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190623_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190624_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190705_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190715_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190722_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190729_xxx_000_920x56011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190814_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190820_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190826_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20190918_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20191010_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20191107_aps_001_920560.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20191108_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20191115_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20191213_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20191227_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20191231_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20192816_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200124_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200219_000.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200229_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200320_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200328_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200424_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200513_0001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200520_ril_001_9205601.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200605_000.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200623_000.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200623_0001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200627_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200707_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200727_bmi_001_9205601.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200730_000.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20200823_zog_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201008_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201026_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201103_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201105_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201110_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201111_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201115_0132_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201121_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201124_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201125_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201128_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201202_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201202_1343_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201206_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201217_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201221_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201223_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201228_1115_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_0012.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_0013.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_0014.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20201230_003.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 2020314_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 2020405_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210105_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210119_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210126_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210127_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210202_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210210_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210219_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210225_0001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210225_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210303_2031_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210310_1833_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210317_1737_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210324_1501_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210326_2052_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210328_2215_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210401_2206_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210402_1805_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210403_0217_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210408_1614_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210411_0156_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210415_1220_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210418_1649_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210426_0209_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210430_1044_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210516_1143_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210611_0015_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210622_1108_001.jpegw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210702_1936_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210709_0049_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210715_2025_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210724_2249_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210725_2300_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210729_1507_000.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210811_0829_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210812_0904_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210901_0744_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210918_1211_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210920_1332_0001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210925_0220_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20210929_1443_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211008_2050_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211022_1521_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211025_1044_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211028_0317_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211028_1745_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211029_0928_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211031_0240_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211031_0305_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211106_1142_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211106_1256_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211112_1112_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211114_1221_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211120_1046_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211120_1113_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211124_1400_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211125_0213_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211201_0855_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211208_1034_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211211_2024_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211215_2011_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211220_2035_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211228_1817_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20211229_1333_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20220105_0111_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20220107_1501_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20220114_0206_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20220202_1530_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20220205_2125_000.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20220209_1110_000.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20220216_2232_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 20220219_1852_001.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── 22020212_0015_000.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   ├── Titul.jpgw=600
    │   │   │   └── news_and_announcements2.jpgw=600
    │   │   └── small
    │   │       ├── 20180806_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20180813_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20180823_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20180905_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20180918_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20180929_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20181005_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20181011_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20181105_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20181112_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20181125_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20181218_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20181227_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190101_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190104_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190111_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190117_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190125_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190131_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190210_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190222_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190307_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190308_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190323_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190403_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190430_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190511_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190531_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190617_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190618_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190623_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190624_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190705_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190715_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190722_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190814_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190820_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190826_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20190918_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20191010_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20191108_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20191115_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20191213_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20191227_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20191231_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20192816_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200124_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200219_000.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200229_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200320_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200328_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200424_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200513_0001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200520_ril_001_9205601.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200605_000.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200623_000.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200627_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200707_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200730_000.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20200823_zog_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201008_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201026_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201103_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201105_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201110_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201111_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201115_0132_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201121_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201124_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201125_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201128_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201202_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201202_1343_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201206_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201217_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201221_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201223_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201228_1115_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201230_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201230_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201230_0012.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201230_0013.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201230_0014.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20201230_003.jpg
    │   │       ├── 2020314_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 2020405_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210105_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210119_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210127_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210202_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210210_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210219_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210225_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210310_1833_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210314_0919_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210315_2204_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210317_1737_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210324_1501_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210326_2052_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210328_2215_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210401_2206_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210402_1805_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210403_0217_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210408_1614_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210411_0156_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210415_1220_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210426_0209_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210430_1044_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210516_1143_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210602_1703_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210607_0146_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210611_0015_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210622_1108_001.jpeg
    │   │       ├── 20210702_1936_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210709_0049_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210715_2025_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210724_2249_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210729_1507_000.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210812_0904_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210901_0744_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210918_1211_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210920_1332_0001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20210925_0220_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211008_2050_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211022_1521_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211025_1044_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211028_0317_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211028_1745_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211029_0928_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211031_0240_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211031_0305_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211106_1142_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211106_1256_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211112_1112_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211114_1221_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211120_1046_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211120_1113_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211124_1400_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211125_0213_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211201_0855_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211208_1034_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211211_2024_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211215_2011_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211220_2035_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211228_1817_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20211229_1333_0011.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20220105_0111_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20220107_1501_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20220202_1530_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20220205_2125_000.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20220209_1110_000.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20220216_2232_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 20220219_1852_001.jpg
    │   │       ├── 22020212_0015_000.jpg
    │   │       ├── news_and_announcements.jpg
    │   │       ├── news_and_announcements2.jpg
    │   │       ├── news_and_announcements21.jpg
    │   │       ├── news_and_announcements212.jpg
    │   │       ├── news_and_announcements2121.jpg
    │   │       ├── news_and_announcements2122.jpg
    │   │       └── news_and_announcements2123.jpg
    │   ├── products
    │   │   ├── full
    │   │   │   ├── 010.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 042.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 084.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 118.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 174.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 218.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 262.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Krimean_Tatar_Cuisine_Book_UA.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_01_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%8F.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_03.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_07.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_09.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_11.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_13.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_15.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_19.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_2.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_3.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_4.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_5.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11_Page_1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11_Page_2.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11_Page_3.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_04.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_06.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_08.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_09.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_14.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_17.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_18.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_20.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Roman_Toder_Vysoka_Kuhnia_UA.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Smachna_Kropyvnychchyna.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Ukraine_Food_and_History_Book_UA.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Ukraine_Food_and_History_Book_UA_new1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Ukraine_Food_and_History_EN.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── cook_book_15042019_14.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── cook_book_15042019_16.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── cook_book_15042019_25.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── cook_book_15042019_48.jpg
    │   │   │   └── food_book_demo_013.png
    │   │   ├── medium
    │   │   │   ├── Krimean_Tatar_Cuisine_Book_UA.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Roman_Toder_Vysoka_Kuhnia_UA.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Smachna_Kropyvnychchyna.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Ukraine_Food_and_History_Book_UA_new1.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── Ukraine_Food_and_History_EN.jpg
    │   │   │   └── food_book_demo_013.png
    │   │   └── thumbnails
    │   │       ├── 010.jpg
    │   │       ├── 042.jpg
    │   │       ├── 084.jpg
    │   │       ├── 118.jpg
    │   │       ├── 174.jpg
    │   │       ├── 218.jpg
    │   │       ├── 262.jpg
    │   │       ├── Krimean_Tatar_Cuisine_Book_UA.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_01_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%8F.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_03.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_07.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_09.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_11.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_13.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_15.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_20211101-beaver_v2_p_sm-edit_Page_19.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_1.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_2.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_3.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_4.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11-2_Page_5.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11_Page_1.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11_Page_2.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_SMACHNA_185_255_MM_08_11_Page_3.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_04.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_06.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_08.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_09.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_14.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_17.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_18.jpg
    │   │       ├── Pages_from_Ukraine__Food_and_History_20.jpg
    │   │       ├── Smachna_Kropyvnychchyna.jpg
    │   │       ├── Ukraine_Food_and_History_Book_UA.jpg
    │   │       ├── Ukraine_Food_and_History_Book_UA_new1.jpg
    │   │       ├── Ukraine_Food_and_History_EN.jpg
    │   │       ├── cook_book_15042019_14.jpg
    │   │       ├── cook_book_15042019_16.jpg
    │   │       ├── cook_book_15042019_25.jpg
    │   │       ├── cook_book_15042019_48.jpg
    │   │       └── food_book_demo_013.png
    │   ├── projects
    │   │   ├── full
    │   │   │   ├── 100.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20181218_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190503_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20190511_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20191107_aps_001_920560.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20200219_005.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20201026_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210611_0015_0011.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210708_2002_001.jpg
    │   │   │   ├── 20210729_1507_0001.jpg
    │   │   │   └── Ukraine__Food_and_History_Cover.jpg
    │   │   └── medium
    │   │       ├── 100.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20181218_001.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20190503_001.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20190511_001.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20191107_aps_001_920560.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20200219_005.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20201026_001.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20210611_0015_0011.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20210708_2002_001.jpgw=600
    │   │       ├── 20210729_1507_0001.jpgw=600
    │   │       └── Ukraine__Food_and_History_Cover.jpgw=600
    │   ├── publications
    │   │   ├── full
    │   │   │   ├── Krimean_Tatar_Cuisine_Book.jpg
    │   │   │   └── Ukraine_Food_and_History.jpg
    │   │   └── small
    │   │       ├── Krimean_Tatar_Cuisine_Book.jpg
    │   │       └── Ukraine_Food_and_History.jpg
    │   └── videos
    │       ├── medium
    │       │   ├── %D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%87%D0%B6%D0%B0-%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%86%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D1%8F.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── 1st_event_v2.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── 20200629_hrn_000_19201080.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── 20210225_0001.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── 2nd_event_v2.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── Cook_diplom_UA_2-01.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── USTYT.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── USTYT1.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── dtMDcD7zRCM.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── jCxypraDXXs.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── maxresdefault.jpgw=600
    │       │   ├── maxresdefault_(1).jpgw=600
    │       │   └── maxresdefault_(2).jpgw=600
    │       └── small
    │           ├── %D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%87%D0%B6%D0%B0-%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%86%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D1%8F.jpg
    │           ├── 1st_event_v2.jpg
    │           ├── 20200629_hrn_000_19201080.jpg
    │           ├── 20210225_0001.jpg
    │           ├── 2nd_event_v2.jpg
    │           ├── Cook_diplom_UA_2-01.jpg
    │           ├── UST001YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST003YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST004YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST005YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST006YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST007YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST008YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST008YT1.jpg
    │           ├── UST009YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST010YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST012YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST013YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST014YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST015YT.jpg
    │           ├── UST016YTT.jpg
    │           ├── UST017YT.jpg
    │           ├── USTYT.jpg
    │           ├── USTYT1.jpg
    │           ├── dtMDcD7zRCM.jpg
    │           ├── hqdefault.jpg
    │           ├── hqdefault_(2).jpg
    │           ├── hqdefault_(3).jpg
    │           ├── jCxypraDXXs.jpg
    │           ├── maxresdefault.jpg
    │           ├── maxresdefault1.jpg
    │           ├── maxresdefault_(1).jpg
    │           ├── maxresdefault_(2).jpg
    │           ├── maxresdefault_(3).jpg
    │           ├── maxresdefault_(4).jpg
    │           └── maxresdefault_(5).jpg
    └── wysiwyg
        └── images
            ├── %D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0.png
            ├── %D0%94%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82.jpg
            ├── %D0%A3%D0%9A%D0%A4jpg.jpg
            ├── %D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B0_pdf2.jpg
            ├── %D0%A6%D0%93%D0%94.jpg
            ├── %D0%B2%D1%96%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0.jpg
            ├── 01.jpg
            ├── 02.jpg
            ├── 03.jpg
            ├── 04.jpg
            ├── 04_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%96%D1%97_lq22.jpg
            ├── 05.jpg
            ├── 06.jpg
            ├── 07.jpg
            ├── 08.jpg
            ├── 09.jpg
            ├── 10.jpg
            ├── 20180813_002.jpg
            ├── 20180813_003.jpg
            ├── 20180813_004.jpg
            ├── 20180823_002.jpg
            ├── 20180823_003.jpg
            ├── 20180823_004.jpg
            ├── 20180823_005.jpg
            ├── 20180918_002.jpg
            ├── 20180918_003.jpg
            ├── 20180918_005.jpg
            ├── 20181005_002.jpg
            ├── 20181005_003.jpg
            ├── 20181005_004.jpg
            ├── 20181005_005.jpg
            ├── 20181005_006.jpg
            ├── 20181112_002.jpg
            ├── 20181112_003.jpg
            ├── 20190125_004.jpg
            ├── 20190125_005.jpg
            ├── 20190125_007.jpg
            ├── 20190131_002.jpg
            ├── 20190131_003.jpg
            ├── 20190131_004.jpg
            ├── 20190131_005.jpg
            ├── 20190131_006.jpg
            ├── 20190131_007.jpg
            ├── 20190210_002.jpg
            ├── 20190210_003.jpg
            ├── 20190210_004.jpg
            ├── 20190210_005.jpg
            ├── 20190210_006.jpg
            ├── 20190210_007.jpg
            ├── 20190210_008.jpg
            ├── 20190210_009.jpg
            ├── 20190222_002.jpg
            ├── 20190222_003.jpg
            ├── 20190222_004.jpg
            ├── 20190222_005.jpg
            ├── 20190222_006.jpg
            ├── 20190307_0022.jpg
            ├── 20190307_0031.jpg
            ├── 20190307_004.jpg
            ├── 20190310_005.jpg
            ├── 20190403_002.jpg
            ├── 20190403_0032.jpg
            ├── 20190403_004.jpg
            ├── 20190403_005.jpg
            ├── 20190403_006.jpg
            ├── 20190403_007.jpg
            ├── 20190403_008.jpg
            ├── 20190403_009.jpg
            ├── 20190430_002.jpg
            ├── 20190430_003.jpg
            ├── 20190511_002.jpg
            ├── 20190511_003.jpg
            ├── 20190511_004.jpg
            ├── 20190511_005.jpg
            ├── 20190511_006.jpg
            ├── 20190531_002.jpg
            ├── 20190531_0031.jpg
            ├── 20190531_004.jpg
            ├── 20190617_002.jpg
            ├── 20190617_003.jpg
            ├── 20190617_004.jpg
            ├── 20190617_005.jpg
            ├── 20190617_006.jpg
            ├── 20190617_007.jpg
            ├── 20190618_0022.jpg
            ├── 20190618_0032.jpg
            ├── 20190618_0042.jpg
            ├── 20190618_0052.jpg
            ├── 20190623_002.jpg
            ├── 20190623_003.jpg
            ├── 20190623_004.jpg
            ├── 20190623_005.jpg
            ├── 20190623_006.jpg
            ├── 20190705_0021.jpg
            ├── 20190705_003.jpg
            ├── 20190705_004.jpg
            ├── 20190705_005.jpg
            ├── 20190705_006.jpg
            ├── 20190705_007.jpg
            ├── 20190705_008.jpg
            ├── 20190715_0021.jpg
            ├── 20190715_0031.jpg
            ├── 20190715_0041.jpg
            ├── 20190715_0051.jpg
            ├── 20190715_0061.jpg
            ├── 20190722_002.jpg
            ├── 20190722_003.jpg
            ├── 20190722_004.jpg
            ├── 20190722_005.jpg
            ├── 20190722_006.jpg
            ├── 20190814_002.jpg
            ├── 20190814_003.jpg
            ├── 20190814_004.jpg
            ├── 20190814_005.jpg
            ├── 20190814_006.jpg
            ├── 20190814_007.jpg
            ├── 20190820_002.jpg
            ├── 20190820_003.jpg
            ├── 20190820_004.jpg
            ├── 20190820_005.jpg
            ├── 20191108_003.jpg
            ├── 20191108_004.jpg
            ├── 20191108_005.jpg
            ├── 20191115_002.jpg
            ├── 20191115_004.jpg
            ├── 20191231_002.jpg
            ├── 20191231_003.jpg
            ├── 20191231_004.jpg
            ├── 20191231_005.jpg
            ├── 20191231_006.jpg
            ├── 20191231_007.jpg
            ├── 20191231_008.jpg
            ├── 20191231_009.jpg
            ├── 20191231_010.jpg
            ├── 20191231_011.jpg
            ├── 20191231_012.jpg
            ├── 20191231_013.jpg
            ├── 20191231_014.jpg
            ├── 20191231_015.jpg
            ├── 20191231_016.jpg
            ├── 20191231_017.jpg
            ├── 20191231_018.jpg
            ├── 20191231_019.jpg
            ├── 20191231_020.jpg
            ├── 20191231_021.jpg
            ├── 20191231_022.jpg
            ├── 20191231_023.jpg
            ├── 20192816_002.jpg
            ├── 20192816_003.jpg
            ├── 20192816_004.jpg
            ├── 20192816_005.jpg
            ├── 20192816_006.jpg
            ├── 20200219_0012.jpg
            ├── 20200219_0022.jpg
            ├── 20200219_0032.jpg
            ├── 20200219_0042.jpg
            ├── 20200229_002.jpg
            ├── 20200229_003.jpg
            ├── 20200229_004.jpg
            ├── 20200328_002.jpg
            ├── 20200513_001.jpg
            ├── 20200513_002.jpg
            ├── 20200513_003.jpg
            ├── 20200513_004.jpg
            ├── 20200707_002.jpg
            ├── 20200730_0011.jpg
            ├── 20200730_002.jpg
            ├── 20200730_003.jpg
            ├── 20200730_004.jpg
            ├── 20200823_001.jpg
            ├── 20201026_002.jpg
            ├── 20201026_003.jpg
            ├── 20201026_004.jpg
            ├── 20201026_005.jpg
            ├── 20201026_006.jpg
            ├── 20201105_002.jpg
            ├── 20201105_003.jpg
            ├── 20201111_002.jpg
            ├── 20201111_003.jpg
            ├── 20201111_004.jpg
            ├── 20201111_005.jpg
            ├── 20201125_002.jpg
            ├── 20201128_002.jpg
            ├── 20201202_002.jpg
            ├── 20201202_003.jpg
            ├── 20201221_002s.jpg
            ├── 20201221_003s.jpg
            ├── 2020314_0021.jpg
            ├── 2020314_003.jpg
            ├── 2020314_004.jpg
            ├── 2020314_005.jpg
            ├── 2020314_006.jpg
            ├── 2020314_007.jpg
            ├── 2020405_002.jpg
            ├── 20210126_0021.jpg
            ├── 20210126_0031.jpg
            ├── 20210126_0042.jpg
            ├── 20210126_0051.jpg
            ├── 20210202_002.jpg
            ├── 20210210_002.jpg
            ├── 20210219_002.jpg
            ├── 20210310_1833_002.jpg
            ├── 20210314_0919_002.jpg
            ├── 20210314_0919_003.jpg
            ├── 20210324_1501_002.jpg
            ├── 20210326_2052_002.jpg
            ├── 20210326_2052_003.jpg
            ├── 20210326_2052_004.jpg
            ├── 20210326_2052_005.jpg
            ├── 20210401_2206_002.jpg
            ├── 20210402_1805_002.jpg
            ├── 20210411_0156_0022.jpg
            ├── 20210411_0156_003.jpg
            ├── 20210602_1703_002.jpg
            ├── 20210622_1108_003.jpg
            ├── 20210702_1936_0021.jpg
            ├── 20210702_1936_003.jpg
            ├── 20210702_1936_004.jpg
            ├── 20210702_1936_005.jpg
            ├── 20210709_0049_002.jpg
            ├── 20210709_0049_003.jpg
            ├── 20210709_0049_004.jpg
            ├── 20210709_0049_0051.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_0011.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_002.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_003.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_004.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_005.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_006.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_007.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_008.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_009.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_010.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_011.jpg
            ├── 20210729_1507_012.jpg
            ├── 20210811_0829_002.jpg
            ├── 20210901_0744_002.jpg
            ├── 20210918_1211_002.jpg
            ├── 20210929_1443_002.jpg
            ├── 20211008_2050_002.jpg
            ├── 20211008_2050_003.jpg
            ├── 20211008_2050_004.jpg
            ├── 20211008_2050_005.jpg
            ├── 20211022_1521_0021.jpg
            ├── 20211022_1521_0032.jpg
            ├── 20211025_1044_002.jpg
            ├── 20211028_0317_002.jpg
            ├── 20211028_0317_003.jpg
            ├── 20211029_0928_002.jpg
            ├── 20211029_0928_003.jpg
            ├── 20211029_0928_004.jpg
            ├── 20211029_0928_005.jpg
            ├── 20211106_1256_002.jpg
            ├── 20211112_1112_002.png
            ├── 20211112_1112_0031.png
            ├── 20211124_1400_002.jpg
            ├── 20220105_0111_0022.jpg
            ├── 20220105_0111_0031.jpg
            ├── 20220105_0111_0041.jpg
            ├── 20220105_0111_0051.jpg
            ├── 20220105_0111_0061.jpg
            ├── 20220105_0111_0071.jpg
            ├── 20220105_0111_0081.jpg
            ├── 20220105_0111_0091.jpg
            ├── 20220107_1500_0022.jpg
            ├── 20220107_1500_0031.jpg
            ├── Big_Idea.jpg
            ├── CFS_logos_all_2020-04.png
            ├── FHKNU1.jpg
            ├── HBSlogo.png
            ├── Honchar_Museum.jpg
            ├── LSM_pdf.jpg
            ├── Logo_RGB-01.jpg
            ├── Magenta-art-books-Logo.jpg
            ├── Ukraine_pdf2.jpg
            ├── Yizhak_2_Logo.jpg
            ├── cfs.jpg
            ├── imagetools07.jpg
            ├── imagetools08.jpg
            ├── imagetools09.jpg
            ├── imagetools12.jpg
            ├── yizhak_logo.png
            └── yizhakultura_logo.png

Some image trackers use very long URL query strings that can exceed the operating system’s maximum file name size (depending on your file system). The program above simply logs these errors and continues along, but depending on what you are doing you could get fancier with the file name generation.

The program is also available in this gist. I wanted to write about it here because this seems like it might be a nice generalized feature to add to the py-wacz utility–to be able to extract content from a WACZ file to the file system. But there are details to work out, especially what to do with multiple crawls of the same URL, since those can occur in WARC data. If you have ideas please let me know.

Economic Model Revived / David Rosenthal

Five years ago, at the urging of the Internet Archive, I implemented a simple interactive version of the Economic Model of Long-Term Storage in Python. It estimated the endowment needed to store a Terabyte for 100 years based on a set of parameters that people could vary. It ran on a Raspberry Pi at the end of our Sonic DSL home Internet connection. The endowment is the capital which, together with the interest it earns, is enough to cover the costs incurred stoing the data for the century.

Alas, the Pi became a casualty when, early in the pandemic, we upgraded to the wonderful Sonic gigabit fiber (Best ISP Evah!), needed to support multiple grandkids each in a different virtual school.

Fortunately, Sawood Alam at the Internet Archive has forked the code, re-implemented it in Javascript, improved the user interface, and deployed it at Github. This new version is once again available here. I'm very grateful to Sawood and the team at the Internet Archive, both for pushing me to do the initial implementation, and now for bringing it back from the dead.

Below the fold I have a couple of caveats.

It is important to note that the model is somewhat simplistic. At the bottom of the page is a set of assumptions that users should understand before taking the result too seriously.

One more critique is that the model assumes hard disk as the storage medium for the whole century. This unlikely to happen, but it results in a conservative estimate of the endowment needed. This is because if a technology is to displace hard disk as the medium at some point in the future, it will have to be cheaper.

Weeknote 27 / Mita Williams

Today marks my first work week back at the Leddy Library after my sabbatical. It would have been a better experience had I not developed infections in both my ears from my newly acquired enthusiasm for swimming laps.

EITI Datathon: Innovative solutions for a data-driven energy transition – Send your proposals before July 31st / Open Knowledge Foundation

Open Knowledge Foundation is thrilled to announce the launch of a global open call for proposals as part of the EITI Datathon: Innovative solutions for a data-driven energy transition. The Datathon is organised by the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative, which partnered with OKF and Thibi to deliver the event. The applicants selected as part of the open call will have the opportunity to prototype their idea during a 2-day event on September 10 and 11, taking place entirely online.

Since its inception in 2003, EITI reporting has generated rich data, including on the economic contribution of the extractive sector in more than fifty countries around the world. This event aims to encourage innovation in the use of EITI and extractives industry data to contribute to policy and public debate on energy transition pathways. 

The datathon is structured as a design challenge, where each participant chooses a proposed scenario to work on to produce a solution that matches the current needs of EITI stakeholders. The four scenarios are: 

* Scenario 1: Officials considering how to invest government revenues to support long-term development plans in the context of the energy transition

* Scenario 2: Empowering citizens to give their voice in the debate around energy transition

* Scenario 3: Improving how local populations engage with social spending data to ensure sustainable investments in their communities

* Scenario 4: Strengthening public disclosure of revenue data by government agencies in a context of uncertainty

Applicants will be provided with resources like related datasets as well as mentors with relevant domain expertise to tackle data and technical challenges, allowing applicants to work on prototypes that could make a real impact in the field of energy transition. 

Prizes will be awarded to the teams who come up with the best solutions during the event.
Do you have data, design or development skills? The open call is now open, and the selected teams for the mentoring phase and final event will be announced by August 8, 2022. Send us your proposal via the application form until July 31st and if you have any questions write to us at or attend one of the Q&A sessions on July 19th, 2022 at 11:00 AM and 5:00 PM and July 20th, 2022 at 5:00 PM, all in Central Europe Summer Time (CEST).

Frictionless Planet and Lacuna Fund discuss gaps in climate datasets for machine learning / Open Knowledge Foundation

On 24 June we hosted a conversation with the Lacuna Fund about datasets for climate change where we heard all about the Lacuna Fund’s recently launched Request for Proposals around Datasets for Climate Applications. We were joined by climate data users and creators from around the globe. This conversation is a part of Open Knowledge Foundation’s recent work on building a Frictionless Planet by using open tools and design principles to tackle the world’s largest problems, including climate change.

A lacuna is a gap, a blank space or a missing part of an item. Today there are gaps in the datasets that are available to train and evaluate machine learning models. This is especially true when it comes to specific populations and geographies. The Lacuna Fund was created to support data scientists in closing those gaps in machine learning datasets needed to better understand and tackle urgent problems in their communities, like those linked to the  climate crisis.

Lacuna Fund is currently accepting proposals for two climate tracks: Climate & Energy and Climate & Health. The first track is looking at the intersection between energy, climate, and green recovery, and the second focuses on health and strategies to mitigate the impact of the climate crisis. Proposals should focus on machine learning datasets, either collecting and annotating new data, annotating and releasing existing data, or expanding existing datasets and increasing usability. Lacuna Fund’s guiding principles include equity, ethics, and participatory approach, and those values are very important for this work. Accordingly, proposals should include a plan for data management and licencing, privacy, and how the data will be shared. The target audience for this call is data scientists, with a focus on under-represented communities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

During the call, we also discussed if participants have specific data gaps in their fields, like a lack of data on how extreme heat events affect human health. The response was a strong “Yes”! Participants described working in “data deserts” where there is often missing data, leading to less accurate machine learning algorithms. Another common issue is data quality and trust in data, especially from “official” sources. Tackling data transparency will be important for creating impactful climate policy. We’d like to ask you the same question: If your group could have access to one data set that would have a large impact on your work, what is that data set?

If you are interested in applying for the Lacuna Fund’s open requests for proposals (RFP), please check out these resources here: 

It's Still Not About The Technology / David Rosenthal

I, like many others, signed the Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy, saying:
We strongly disagree with the narrative—peddled by those with a financial stake in the crypto-asset industry—that these technologies represent a positive financial innovation and are in any way suited to solving the financial problems facing ordinary Americans.
In response, famed cryptographer Matthew Green, who I'm told HODLs ZCash and is involved in a blockchain startup, posted In defense of crypto(currency), basically arguing against regulating cryptocurrencies because, although their current state is rife with crime and is cooking the planet, better technology is possible.

Bruce Schneier responded with On the Dangers of Cryptocurrencies and the Uselessness of Blockchain. Below the fold, I argue that both of them have missed the most important point.

Schneier starts by summarizing Green's points:
  1. Yes, current proof-of-work blockchains like bitcoin are terrible for the environment. But there are other modes like proof-of-stake that are not.
  2. Yes, a blockchain is an immutable ledger making it impossible to undo specific transactions. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be some governance system on top of the blockchain that enables reversals.
  3. Yes, bitcoin doesn’t scale and the fees are too high. But that’s nothing inherent in blockchain technology—that’s just a bunch of bad design choices bitcoin made.
  4. Blockchain systems can have a little or a lot of privacy, depending on how they are designed and implemented.
Schneier doesn't really disagree with these points, although I definitely disaagree with point #3, but instead writes:
To me, the problem isn’t that blockchain systems can be made slightly less awful than they are today. The problem is that they don’t do anything their proponents claim they do. In some very important ways, they’re not secure. They doesn’t replace trust with code; in fact, in many ways they are far less trustworthy than non-blockchain systems. They’re not decentralized, and their inevitable centralization is harmful because it’s largely emergent and ill-defined. They still have trusted intermediaries, often with more power and less oversight than non-blockchain systems. They still require governance. They still require regulation. (These things are what I wrote about here.) The problem with blockchain is that it’s not an improvement to any system—and often makes things worse.
I agree with Schneier here, but I argue that here he falls into the trap Green lays by framing the problem as being about the quality of the technology. He gets closer to the real argument against Green when he writes:
blockchain does nothing to solve any existing problem with financial (or other) systems. Those problems are inherently economic and political, and have nothing to do with technology. And, more importantly, technology can’t solve economic and political problems. Which is good, because adding blockchain causes a whole slew of new problems and makes all of these systems much, much worse.
As I argued in Can We Mitigate Cryptocurrencies' Externalities? the real question that needs to be answered is "how to reduce the harms the technology is imposing on the world?"

It would not be a surprise if Green's startup could produce better technology than Bitcoin or Ethereum. Since their advent, many thousands of cryptocurrencies have launched. Many of them can credibly claim better technology than either Bitcoin or Ethereum. None of them have made a significant dent in Bitcoin's or Ethereum's market share. So why would Green think that the fix for the current problems is better technology? It is because he has a hammer and sees the problem as a nail.

Back in 2018, in the context of discussions of decentralizing the Web, I wrote It Isn't About The Technology, arguing that the problem wasn't developing better technology, which already existed, and it wasn't even inventing a viable business model, which didn't exist, but that even if you had those things, the problem was persuading people to switch.

We have the same problem in cryptocurrencies. The reasons for cryptocurrencies to exist, and thus to cause all the harms, are the speculation and the scams. Speculators go where the other speculators are. Scammers go where their victims are. Launching yet another cryptocurrency with better underlying technology but no speculators and no victims would have no effect on the harms. Launching a better permissionless blockchain without a cryptocurrency won't work, as I pointed out in You Can't Have One Without The Other.

And in any case, the arena for the big-time speculators and scammers isn't the Bitcoin and Ethereum spot market, where the technology might be thought to matter, but in the roughly ten times bigger derivatives market, where it clearly doesn't. Nothing will dent the market share of Bitcoin and Ethereum unless it is rife with speculators and victims. Even if you could create yet another arena for speculation and scams it wouldn't be a solution to the problem we face.

Green's plea that regulation not suppress the potential for better technology to emerge is, based on the history of better technology emerging, futile. Even if the potential better technology emerges it would not solve the problems Green concedes, because It Isn't About The Technology.

Finally, I have to thank Schneier for this:
EDITED TO ADD: Nicholas Weaver is also adamant about this. David Rosenthal is good, too.