How Blockchain Startups Are Revolutionizing Venture Capital



The decentralization effects of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are hitting the venture capital industry in more ways than one. Whereas the traditional venture capital industry is boring, the crypto-tech industry has become more exciting.

Actually, I see the two models as diametrically opposed: one is a closed market, dominated by command-and-control practices, led by a few rich people on Sand Hill Road. The other is a widely open global market where anyone can play, and where the gains and risks are more evenly distributed.

This has led to a re-thinking of how startups who are operating in the blockchain space can raise money, and it has potential implications that will revamp the relationships that venture capital firms can hope to strike with these startups.

As an investor, advisor or board member, I have been closely associated with a variety of early stage companies that are tackling the innovation explosion around cryptocurrency and blockchain-based models, and have had the fortunate insights of seeing where we might be headed.

The upcoming shifts are encapsulated in the following table, covering nine variables.


VC table

What is new?

Return horizon: Whereas the return horizon for traditional VC funds is squarely in the 7-10 year horizon, we are currently at the beginning of an inflection point in cryptocurrency-led valuations, resulting in much shorter liquidity options for early investors, in the 1-5 year range.

Ownership model: Traditionally, VCs receive preferred shares by buying private equity. With the new models, they can acquire shares and/or tokens/cryptocurrency that have been issued by the startup.

Entry phases: Angel, Seed, Early to Late Stages (A-F) are the known trajectories for conventional startup investments. The new continuum has another progression lingo with it: pre-mine, genesis, initial cryptocurrency offering (ICO), listing on an exchange, or private sale of crypto-tokens directly from the company.

Business model: A traditional startup is typically focused on developing and marketing a tangible product or service. A blockchain-based startup could have a product/service as part of what they are developing, but their stride is best hit when they are also creating a self-sustaining circular economy that is supported by their own currency or tokens, and where there is a transactional loop between earning and spending these tokens within their ecosystem.

Legal structure: Startups typically incorporate as a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) or any other traditional way according to the corporate laws in their given jurisdiction. In the new environment, the LLC could be creating a base open source technology/protocol, but they will run a proprietary separate business on top of it or adjacent to it (e.g. IPFS and Filecoin), or they could create a valuable ecosystem around it (e.g. Ethereum). In extreme cases, the organization is non-registered and operates as a distributed autonomous organization on the blockchain (e.g. BitNation).

Limited partners mix: The same traditional mix of institutional, high net worth individuals, family offices and funds of funds that typically invest in venture capital funds will be attracted to this emerging segment, only if they are progressive, innovative and forward-thinking, with the ability to allocate discretionary funds under strategic considerations pretexts. In addition, given the more relaxed crowdfunding rules that exist in several jurisdictions around the world, a new venture fund could also get a mix of participation from a publicly crowdsourced segment of investors.

Fund currency: In addition to fiat currency, a new VC fund could also accept cryptocurrency (especially from the crowdsourced segment), because of the frictionless capabilities that exist for accepting cryptocurrencies online. However, it would be prudent to immediately convert these funds into fiat as the initial reference currency for investment vehicles, in order to avoid being caught in cryptocurrency value downturns, and to remove any perceived intent of currency speculation which is outside the mandate of a venture capital fund.

Market approach: The best candidates for this new model will be blockchain startups that are purposely creating new business models, and not supporting existing ones. The reason is that these new business models are more fertile grounds for innovative circular economies, new ecosystems, and new value creation, which are important conditions for success.

The nature of blockchain startups is changing, and this change should be accompanied by an evolution on how they are funded.

A new VC fund with the above characteristics has the luxury of having no baggage within an existing Limited Partners Agreement (LPA) where changes may be hard fought. Instead, these elements would be baked as part of the initial LPA, while properly addressing the legal and compliance considerations.


October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , , , , ,
The future of mobile payments is here, it’s just not evenly distributed


A consumer uses Apple Pay on the Apple Watch at a McDonald’s in Beijing, China.VCG / Getty  


If you’re anything like me, and you’ve made a payment at retail with your smartphone, you’ll feel this is the future of payments. But as the famous quote from William Gibson says, “the future is here. It is just not evenly distributed.” After conducting some research in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, it would be hard to find a more appropriate phrase for mobile contactless payments.

Last fall, the U.S. went through a drastic disturbance in consumer retail stores thanks to the EMV shift, which moved us from swiping our credit cards to inserting them into a terminal and waiting for the transaction to complete. With the average transaction time still taking between five and 10 seconds — down from 15 seconds six to eight months ago, U.S. consumers have had friction added to their checkout process.

It is with this retail experience in mind that we were hopeful, last fall, that mobile contactless payments would take off. Toward the end of 2015, roughly 17 percent of iPhone owners had used Apple Pay, and 7 percent of Android owners had used Android Pay. Part of this had to do with less than 50 percent of the iPhone installed base in these markets having devices that are Apple Pay-capable. An even smaller number of Android-based devices in use are NFC-capable. Here we are a year later, with exponentially more smartphones in the market NFC-capable and, interestingly, not a lot has changed.

When it comes to tap-to-pay terminals, the U.S. is well behind markets like the U.K. and Australia. While we are still in early days with consumers paying with their smartphone in those markets, as well, a majority of consumers there are already using tap-to-pay on a regular basis, using their bank-issued card with an NFC chip in it. We decided it would be interesting to study consumers in the U.K., Australia and the U.S. in order to see the contrast between mature contactless (tap-to-pay) payment markets and one like the U.S. where it is all brand-new.

We asked consumers in the U.S., U.K. and Australia if they have ever used a form of contactless payment, defined as tapping to pay with your bank-issued card or mobile phone.




As you can see, when it comes to contactless tapping to pay behaviors, markets like the U.K. and Australia, with bank-issued cards that have tap-to-pay functionality and the vast majority of merchants accepting tap-to-pay, it paints a very different picture than the U.S. market. Where ~80 precent of consumers in the U.K. and Australia have used a tap-to-pay method, 80 percent of consumers in the U.S. had not. Part of this has to do with minimal acceptance of contactless methods at U.S. retail, compared to many merchants accepting it in the U.K. and Australia.

To further highlight the stark differences of the U.S. market compared to the U.K. and Australia, where a form of contactless payment is a normal transaction behavior, 61 percent of U.S. consumers said they are not that familiar or not familiar at all with any kind of contactless payment method. One solid conclusion from our research is that we still have a lot of educating to do on the U.S. market.

Room to grow for mobile payments

After studying all three markets, what I found most interesting was, first, the disparity between consumers using contactless in the U.K .and Australia and those not using it in the U.S. as outlined above. The second thing that stood out was how all three markets were remarkably similar when it came to usage of mobile contactless payments —meaning using something like Apple Pay, Android Pay or Samsung Pay.



The chart shows the types of contactless transactions consumers have tried in all three markets. Interestingly, while tapping to pay with your credit/debit card is an established behavior in the U.K. and Australia (more than 50 percent of the market uses this method on a weekly basis), consumers in those markets have yet to fully transition their contactless payment behaviors from their credit/debit card to their smartphone, even though it is accepted almost universally in their country.

When it came to which mobile contactless payment was most popular among those who said they have used their mobile phone to tap and pay, Apple Pay is the most common form of mobile payment, with 62 percent usage share of mobile contactless methods, compared to less than 30 percent for Android Pay and Samsung Pay respectively.

While we are still new to paying for goods and services with our smartphones, the future seems bright. Our research found that consumers who have used Apple Pay, Android Pay and Samsung Pay had high satisfaction levels with the experience, with speed and convenience the biggest factors in their satisfaction, and a high propensity to use it more often in the future.

Security is still the largest barrier for non-users

The sleeper story for consumers is security. While this happens to be one of the single most important reasons to adopt contactless payments, it is also the one that is least understood by consumers. In all three markets, 40 percent of consumers listed security concerns of adding their credit/debit card to their smartphone as the main reason they have yet to try it, while 29 percent said not trusting the transaction was secure as their main reason.

In an era of heightened awareness of identity fraud, merchant breaches of credit card data and more, it is not surprising security concerns came up time and time again in our study. Yet, a data point that stood out was that 45 percent of consumers stated an increase in willingness to use mobile contactless payments if retailers and banks helped them understand the security benefits of using something like Apple Pay, Android Pay or Samsung Pay. This was listed as the single biggest thing retailers and banks could do to get them to use mobile contactless payments.

As I analyzed the data of more than 50 questions between all three markets, and the responses of 1,761 consumers, I’m convinced as ever mobile payments are the future. As more banks support it, merchants accept it and consumers understand the security benefits, I’m convinced we will get to an era where paying with our smartphones is the normal and most common behavior. However, our research strongly suggests that it is not consumers standing in the way of adoption. It is retailers and banks that need to make the appropriate moves to bring this safer and more secure way to pay to their customers.


October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , , , ,
Blockchain: what it is, how it really can change the world



Blockchain – the technology behind the bitcoin digital currency – is a decentralized public ledger of transactions that no one person or company owns or controls. Instead, every user can access the entire blockchain, and every transfer of funds from one account to another is recorded in a secure and verifiable form by using mathematical techniques borrowed from cryptography. With copies of the blockchain scattered all over the planet, it is considered to be effectively tamper-proof.

The challenges that bitcoin poses to law enforcement and international currency controls have been widely discussed. But the blockchain ledger has uses far beyond simple monetary transactions.

Like the Internet, the blockchain is an open, global infrastructure upon which other technologies and applications can be built. And like the Internet, it allows people to bypass traditional intermediaries in their dealings with each other, thereby lowering or even eliminating transaction costs.


By using the blockchain, individuals can exchange money or purchase insurance securely without a bank account, even across national borders—a feature that could be transformative for the two billion people in the world currently underserved by financial institutions. Blockchain technology lets strangers record simple, enforceable contracts without a lawyer. It makes it possible to sell real estate, event tickets, stocks, and almost any other kind of property or right without a broker.

The long-term consequences for professional intermediaries, such as banks, attorneys and brokers, could be profound—and not necessarily in negative ways, because these industries themselves pay huge amounts of transaction fees as a cost of doing business. Analysts at Santander InnoVentures, for example, have estimated that by 2022, blockchain technology could save banks more $20 billion annually in costs.

Some 50 big-name banks have announced blockchain initiatives. Investors have poured more than $1 billion in the past year into start-ups formed to exploit the blockchain for a wide range of businesses. Tech giants such as Microsoft, IBM and Google all have blockchain projects underway. Many of these companies are attracted by the potential to use the blockchain to address the privacy and security problems that continue to plague Internet commerce.

Because blockchain transactions are recorded using public and private keys—long strings of characters that are unreadable by humans—people can choose to remain anonymous while enabling third parties to verify that they shook, digitally, on an agreement. And not just people: an institution can use the blockchain to store public records and binding promises. Researchers at the University of Cambridge in the U.K., for example, have shown how drug companies could be required to add detailed descriptions of their upcoming clinical drug trials to the blockchain. This would prevent the companies from later moving the goalposts if the trial did not pan out as anticipated, an all-too-common tactic. In London, mayoral candidate George Galloway has proposed putting the city’s annual budget on the blockchain ledger to foster collective auditing by citizens.

Perhaps the most encouraging benefit of blockchain technology is the incentive it creates for participants to work honestly where rules apply equally to all. Bitcoin did lead to some famous abuses in trading of contraband, and some nefarious applications of blockchain technology are probably inevitable. The technology doesn’t make theft impossible, just harder. But as an infrastructure that improves society’s public records repository and reinforces representative and participatory legal and governance systems, blockchain technology has the potential to enhance privacy, security and freedom of conveyance of data—which surely ranks up there with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[World Economic Forum]

October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , , , , ,
Blockchain Can Disrupt the Disruptors in Uber and AirBnb



A blockchain is precisely designed to solve the problem that arises when the sharing economy attempts to expand its  system for recording and enforcing who owns what when the thing being owned is granular and fast-moving, a programmer, blockchain expert and widely known economics blogger, has told The Guardian.

Steve Randy Waldman says blockchain is a different way of keeping track of a normative set of information, making the storage of information in multiple copies and distributed across all the nodes of a network instead of in one central location – the county records office, say, or Airbnb’s database.




Uber and Airbnb are two of the few “sharing” startups that have hit it big. They represent the sharing economy which made it possible for smartphones to give consumers seeking new ways to save and workers looking for new ways to earn new ways to transact. They disrupted the slow ownership system under capitalism’s core requirements in a stable property regime. Ownership of real estate is recorded by a county records office; owned cars recorded by a state agency. These involve a lot of paperwork and labor on its own. Enforcing ownership requires more paperwork and labor.

Yet, the high fixed costs of the traditional property regime presents the sharing economy with certain challenges. As a result, sharing companies end up keeping necessary information themselves: a database at Airbnb or Zipcar holds the record of rentals instead of the government. These databases require plenty of labor of their own to build and maintain.

There comes the smart contract which gives blockchain the power to not only record property rights but enforce them. Once deployed, a dozen lines of computer code can fulfill the same role as the county records office, the courts and the police. Waldman explains: You can have “the function of a trusted bureaucracy without the expense of putting together a trusted bureaucracy.” You can also cut out the middleman who extracts a fee for coordinating the transaction: theoretically, your home rental could now involve only the homeowner and the renter, bypassing Airbnb.

Blockchain is viewed as capable of helping to democratize the sharing economy by making it cheaper to create and operate a platform. It could enable what a company such as Uber does to coordinate a transaction be performed by self-executing smart contracts while others could be performed at lower cost by a variety of small competing providers.

This might make it easier for workers to form cooperatives that have the capacity to compete against the VC-backed behemoths that dominate the sharing economy which could result in something resembling the “socialized Uber” proposed by economist Mike Konzcal: a viable worker-owned alternative, run for the benefit of the people who actually perform the work and not for a handful of rich investors. [Cryptocoinsnews]

October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , ,
ConsenSys, Synechron and BlockApps collaborate on financial services blockchain applications
BlockApps and ConsenSys will be collaborating with SynchronBlockApps
Financial services and technology consultancy Synechron has announced a blockchain collaboration with Ethereum production studio ConsenSys and the BlockApps blockchain.

The collaboration will focus on privacy in permissioned chains, interoperability and scalability issues, via a team of blockchain architects and financial services specialists. Through the collaboration, ConsenSys and BlockApps will gain access to Synechron’s 6,000-person global team of specialised financial services consultants, blockchain developers for hire, and front-end UX and CX design experts. This will allow clients to develop and rapidly scale production-ready blockchain applications, said a statement.

This collaboration follows the launch of Synechron’s blockchain accelerator programme which includes its first six modular applications for trade finance, KYC utilities, payments, smart margins, mortgage finance and processing and insurance claims processing. The accelerators deliver working code that financial institutions can plug into directly in order to accelerate their blockchain development initiatives and be up and running in weeks.

Synechron’s collaboration with ConsenSys and BlockApps provides an opportunity for development which could include accelerators related to total return swaps, call spreads, syndicated loans, bond issuance, tokenised securities and tokenised fiat currencies.

Additionally, ConsenSys will provide Synechron with access to its blockchain application development toolkits and Ethereum ecosystem to achieve unparalleled technical depth in development initiatives. BlockApps will offer its STRATO blockchain infrastructure product, adding further depth to Synechron’s already robust consulting and blockchain application development capabilities.

Faisal Husain, co-founder and CEO of Synechron, said: “While blockchain has the potential to be a transformative technology, financial institutions need highly-customized applications that take into consideration their business operations and unique technical requirements. We’re delighted to be working with ConsenSys and BlockApps.

“To collaborate with them on the next generation of blockchain infrastructure financial institutions will need to progress blockchain adoption. As those changes are made, Synechron will be the first to implement them and make them ready for financial services to accelerate adoption across banks.”

Joseph Lubin, founder and CEO of ConsenSys, said: “ConsenSys is advising providers and financial services firms on how to evolve the technologies to address evolutionary issues like scalability, interoperability and data privacy.

“Synechron will allow us to amplify the speed of adoption of these new technology capabilities as they are introduced to blockchain infrastructures so that their clients are working on the absolute latest blockchain infrastructures. In addition to this bandwidth extension, Synechron’s specialized financial services knowledge has already been a valuable feedback loop so that we are setting our agenda to prioritize how to evolve the technology to the unique needs of the financial services industry.”

Victor Wong, co-founder and CEO of BlockApps, said: “BlockApps continues to deploy within enterprises throughout the world, and we’ve found Synechron to be an ideal partner to help scale and further increase education and adoption of our customisable product. Synechron is a driving force in the financial services technology space, and their understanding of and commitment to Ethereum blockchain solutions continue to show their commitment to bleeding-edge technology.”

[International Business Times]

October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , , , ,
Cryptocurrency Industry Funding Hits an All Time Low



Cryptocurrency industry has seen a reduction in funding in the recent days.


Bitcoin and Blockchain technology based startups may soon find their fundraising avenues drying up. A recent analysis into the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry has shown a significant dip in the inflow of investments.

The analysis conducted by CB Insights has shown a 16% shortfall in the capital flow into the cryptocurrency industry for the first time since 2012. According to the report, the amount of seed funding received by cryptocurrency based startups has reduced by 60%. The huge fall in seed funding is however compensated by over 100% increase in the total series A funds raised since 2012.

While this report looks a bit shocking at first, it may not be as bad as it looks. The reason for a drop in the amount of seed funding received by cryptocurrency companies may be attributed to the growth of the industry itself. The companies which were in the seed funding stage until now have grown to raise Series A and B investments. This explains the doubling of series A funds this year. It also means that the number of startups emerging in the sector has drastically reduced as well. The fall in a number of new companies entering the cryptocurrency domain will lead to a reduction in the competition, which will allow incumbents to take the technology further at their own pace. This may not be a healthy situation for the digital currency and blockchain technology industry at the moment.

With more mainstream banking, financial and technology companies entering the blockchain domain, the venture capital requirements have gone down in the segment. These companies already have the much-required capital and in-house development teams. The global banking consortium led by R3, Hyperledger project and other individual initiatives by banks and financial institutions are good examples of the changing landscape.

In the current situation, we can expect a continued growth in the development of new cryptocurrency based technologies, which will come from well-established companies and not from startups as it used to until now. [InvestorsEurope]

October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , , ,
How to Tell If Your Business Will Be the Next $1 Billion Company

getty_502817416_115852 CREDIT: Getty Images


Learning what it takes to build a $1 billion company.


In the world of business, unicorns are a venture capitalist’s dream. Startups that are worth $1 billion or more were once exceedingly rare, but have seemingly been popping up everywhere now.

While many entrepreneurs act like unicorns are as random and impossible to predict as going viral, investors are looking for clear signs that a business has the potential to rise to the highest ranks of business valuation.

In 2015, the researchers at Shasta Ventures looked closely at the most well-known unicorn companies, unpacking the patterns they were seeing on the leadership teams, and in the companies overall.

By learning what teams have successfully created unicorns in the past, entrepreneurs can better understand what skills are necessary to create the next $1 billion company.

Here are four things I’ve learned:

1. Know how to work on a team

The vast majority of unicorn companies that Shasta Ventures looked at were not solo ventures. Only 16 percent of the companies reviewed had one founder. The vast majority had two, and slightly less than half had either three or four.

What we can see from this information is that one person alone is unlikely to do all the necessary work to create a business which has the scope and appeal to be worth a billion dollars.

Having a partner is ideal, but more than two partners may muddy the waters. A smaller percentage of unicorn companies had four founders than just one.

The takeaway: If you want to create a $1 billion company, make sure you have a business partner who shares your vision and complements your skills. But keep the initial team small, passionate, and committed.

2. Business school may not be necessary

In certain circles, it is something of a truism that if you expect to be successful in business, you need to have an MBA. Shasta Ventures found that not to be borne out by the numbers.

Just under half of the founders they studied had a BA, slightly more than a quarter had a BS, and only 16 percent had pursued an MBA.

The takeaway: Pursuing a business degree may give you connections and access to incubators that might help your business survive the early years. You might meet up with a business partner or learn more about the ins and outs of the business world there.

But if you’re waiting your brilliant idea on your MBA, don’t. Make your move now.

3. Work experience means more than degree

The vast majority of the founders surveyed had work experience in the field of IT and software before they created their companies. Other popular fields were venture capital, management consulting, and consumer electronics.

While school can be important and can teach you a lot of theory, for most people, there is no substitute for actual lived experience.

While some successful companies are started while founders are in school–Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg are all classic examples–many more companies are started when people have left school, spent some time in their industry, and have the expertise necessary to identify a niche that isn’t being served.

The takeaway: Don’t feel like you have to start a company when you’re 18 years old in order to be successful. Learn about the world around you, and how to serve it, so that you can move forward with expertise and experience.

Those connections you might get in business school can also be acquired by participating in your field, blogging, being active on social media, and attending cons and events.

4. You’re in it for the long haul

If your goal for your business idea is to make a billion dollars and then flee the scene, you might want to take a moment to reconsider. As Fortune notes, some 85 percent of unicorn companies cross the mark with their founder still in place as the CEO.

It used to be that the “ideas guy” would drop out once the company became profitable, and go on to their next venture. This is no longer the case for the most profitable companies.

This shift started with Mark Zuckerberg, who managed to retain control of the board at Facebook long after the company went public, no small feat. Since he made this happen, it has become the norm for exciting businesses.

The takeaway: Turning your business idea into a billion dollar company is going to take many years of work, and a lot of time and effort. It is not for the faint of heart, and not for someone who is looking to get rich quick.

But if you have the drive to stay with your company through all the ins and outs of scaling up, you just might be able to make it happen. [Inc]

October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , ,
Answers to 4 Big Questions About the Future [Video]



I give over 50 keynotes per year. My favorite part is fielding the crazy questions at the end.

In fact, I love answering questions about exponentials and abundance so much that I’ve been encouraging my community (that’s you) to tweet the questions at me using #AskPeterD.

This week, I thought I’d share my video answers to four of my favorite (recent) questions.

Check it out — here are the questions:

  1. Is there a future of blockchain in government voting?
  2. How can we incentivize people to work together to help solve the world’s biggest problems?
  3. How will VR change the business model of supermarkets in the future?
  4. How will AI, facial recognition, gaming, and other technologies change how companies hire?


Here are my answers:

Is there a future of blockchain in government voting?



How can we incentivize people to work together to help solve the world’s biggest problems?




How will VR change the business model of supermarkets in the future?




How will AI, facial recognition, gaming and other technologies change how companies hire?



October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , , , ,
This device can project ‘Star Wars’-like holograms in the air


The Holovect Mk II is a self-contained laser-based volumetric display system that fits on your lab bench or desktop. It is the perfect companion to a 3D printer and a stand-alone educational or promotional device. The Holovect Mk II is the first commercially available, laser-based desktop “holographic” display, capable of drawing 3D objects in air with light.






October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , , , ,
China Tried to Hack Dignitaries Touring a U.S. Aircraft Carrier



Foreign visitors to the ship were sent fake emails.


Chinese hackers attempted to gain information about an American aircraft carrier by sending fake emails to foreign government officials scheduled to tour the ship. Visitors to the USS Ronald Reagan were targeted with malware in an attempt to access their computers, according to the Financial Times. The technique, called “spear phishing,” is meant to trick people into installing malware on their computers by impersonating a trusted source.The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan has been a major part of the U.S. effort to counter China’ aggressive posture in the South China Sea. Based in Japan, the flat top has conducted exercises in the South China Sea, shown the flag, and hosted visits by dignitaries from foreign countries pressured by Beijing’s expansive claims in the region.

The day of one such visit in July, an official-looking email was sent to local government officials set to tour the carrier. The email contained Enfal malware, which can be used to gain entry to an infected computer. According to the Financial Times, the IP address from which the email originated has been used by Chinese intelligence before.

The country involved in the incident has not been named, but could be one of several countries in the region including Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, or Indonesia. The carrier was touring the South China Sea at the time and could have flown in dignitaries from any one of those countries.

What were the Chinese trying to find out? The U.S. Navy wouldn’t share classified information about the Reagan with foreign dignitaries, and it’s likely the attack wasn’t meant to dig up any information about the ship at all. Rather, the Chinese would be more interested in monitoring the communications of the tour members, their impressions of the ship, and how the trip might shape their opinions about their country’s relationship with the U.S. This sort of information would be useful at the strategic level, so that Chinese policymakers could work to figure out how to respond to U.S. diplomacy in the region.

The U.S. Navy said there was no indication the Ronald Reagan or Navy networks were compromised during the attack.

Source: Financial Times

October 25, 2016 / by / in , , , , , , , , ,
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons

IMPORTANT MESSAGE: is a website owned and operated by Scooblr, Inc. By accessing this website and any pages thereof, you agree to be bound by the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, as amended from time to time. Scooblr, Inc. does not verify or assure that information provided by any company offering services is accurate or complete or that the valuation is appropriate. Neither Scooblr nor any of its directors, officers, employees, representatives, affiliates or agents shall have any liability whatsoever arising, for any error or incompleteness of fact or opinion in, or lack of care in the preparation or publication, of the materials posted on this website. Scooblr does not give advice, provide analysis or recommendations regarding any offering, service posted on the website. The information on this website does not constitute an offer of, or the solicitation of an offer to buy or subscribe for, any services to any person in any jurisdiction to whom or in which such offer or solicitation is unlawful.