Jonathan Gibson

The cryptocurrency community has thanked Changpeng Zhao (CZ) after his decision to step down as the CEO of Binance, the...

The recognised investor PlanB believes that Bitcoin is behaving like clockwork and that it is on track to the Market Cycle Model (MCM). The analyst shared on X Source link

Macro investor Dan Tapiero is sure about Bitcoin’s future. According to the famous and recognised investment manager, Bitcoin could surpass $100,000 in 2025, a key psychological level for Source link

Bitcoin (BTC) continues to move higher as mainstream media starts to pay attention once again to the largest cryptocurrency in the world. There are multiple

Reuters reports that a US Bitcoin ETF could soon be approved. As per the recently released report, discussions between the U.S. Securities and Exchange

BlackRock asset management warned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about classifying Bitcoin (BTC) as a security. Bitcoin has multiple times been considered a commodity, but changing its asset classification could cause problems, as per BlackRock. This comes at a moment in which Bitcoin seems to be starting a new bull run that pushed the digital currency to new highs this year.

Ledger, one of the largest and most popular hardware wallet producers in the cryptocurrency industry has identified a malicious version of the Ledger Connect

Bitcoin (BTC) fees have reached their highest level in years. To be more precise, according to BitInfoCharts, fees are at their highest point since April 2021 when Bitcoin Source link

Michael Saylor, the CEO of MicroStrategy, announced on X that the company purchased 14,620 BTC at a price of $42,110 per coin. Thanks to this purchase, MicroStrategy now holds more than 189,000 BTC. In this way, the company holds 0.901% of the total Bitcoin supply that will ever be issued (21 million BTC).

Background: Research activity usually improves outcomes by being translated into practice. However, there is developing evidence that research activity itself may improve the overall performance of health care organisations. However, evidence that these relationships represent a causal impact of research activity is less clear. Additionally, the bulk of the existing evidence relates to hospital settings, and it is not known if those relationships would also be found in general practice, where most patient contacts occur. Aim: We sought to (a) test whether there were significant relationships between research activity in general practice and organisational performance (b) test whether those relationships were plausibly causal. Design and Setting: We analysed national data between 2008 and 2019 using cross sectional and longitudinal analyses, on general practices in England. Methods: We used cross-sectional, panel and instrumental variable analyses to explore relationships between research activity (including measures from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners) and practice performance (including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, prescribing quality and hospital admissions) Results: In cross-sectional analyses, research activity was positively associated with several measures of practice performance, including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, and reduced hospital admissions. The associations were generally modest in magnitude. However, longitudinal analyses did not support a reliable causal relationship. Conclusion: Similar to findings from hospital settings, research activity in general practice is associated with practice performance. There is less evidence that research is causing those improvements, although this may reflect the limited level of research activity in most practices. We identified no negative impacts, suggesting that research activity is a potential marker of quality and something that high quality practices can deliver alongside their core responsibilities.