Fatal Overdoses: Can Technology Save the Lives of Those Struggling Alone?
The opioid epidemic has ravaged communities across the globe, leaving in its wake a trail of devastation and despair. One of the most insidious aspects of this crisis is the alarming rate of solitary overdoses – individuals who die alone, often with no one to call for help or administer a lifesaving antidote. However, technology may hold the key to saving some of these lives.
In recent years, researchers have been working tirelessly to develop innovative solutions that can detect slowed breathing triggered by an overdose and provide immediate assistance. One such device is an experimental biosensor developed at MIT and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The size of a stick of gum, this sensor can be implanted under the skin and deliver naloxone if vital signs indicate an overdose. While still three to five years away from being tested in humans, this technology has the potential to revolutionize the way we respond to overdoses.
Another approach involves using motion sensors to detect when someone has stopped moving for an extended period – a clear indication that they may have overdosed. These devices can be installed in bathrooms or other areas where people are most likely to use drugs alone, providing a vital lifeline in situations where human intervention is not possible.
Hotlines and chat apps also offer a lifeline for users who want to stay connected while using drugs. The Never Use Alone hotline, run by volunteers with experience using drugs or who have lost someone to drugs, has received over 45,000 calls and summoned emergency responders almost 200 times. This service highlights the importance of human connection in preventing overdoses – a reality that technology cannot replicate.
However, there are also concerns about the use of technology in preventing overdoses. Some people may fear that these devices will give them a false sense of security, leading to riskier behavior and harm if the machines don’t work properly. This highlights the need for education and awareness campaigns to ensure that individuals understand how to use these technologies effectively.
Despite these challenges, it is clear that technology has the potential to play a vital role in preventing overdoses. By providing hotlines, sensors, and other devices that can detect slowed breathing triggered by an overdose, we can save lives and reduce the devastating impact of this epidemic.
But what about the long-term implications of relying on technology to prevent overdoses? Will it lead to complacency among individuals who use drugs, or will it provide a much-needed safety net for those struggling with addiction? One thing is certain – technology alone cannot solve this complex problem. It is crucial that we also address the underlying issues driving the opioid epidemic, including poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and social isolation.
As we move forward in our efforts to prevent overdoses, it is essential that we take a holistic approach that combines the best of human connection and technological innovation. By doing so, we can create a comprehensive network of support that not only saves lives but also provides individuals with the resources they need to overcome addiction and live fulfilling lives.
In the end, the question remains: Can technology save the lives of those struggling alone? While it is certainly a vital tool in our efforts to combat the opioid epidemic, it is just one part of a much larger solution. By working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – we can create a brighter future for individuals and communities affected by addiction.
The Lonely Path to Overdose: How Tech is Trying to Fill the Void
In recent years, the opioid epidemic has claimed thousands of lives, leaving families shattered and communities reeling. One of the most disturbing aspects of this crisis is the alarming rate of solitary overdoses – individuals who die alone, often with no one to call for help or administer a lifesaving antidote. But what if technology could provide a lifeline in these moments of desperation?
Researchers at MIT and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston have developed an experimental biosensor that can detect slowed breathing triggered by an overdose and deliver naloxone – a medication that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose. The device, which is about the size of a stick of gum, has the potential to revolutionize the way we respond to overdoses.
However, this technology is still several years away from being tested in humans. In the meantime, other devices are being developed to detect when someone has stopped moving for an extended period – a clear indication that they may have overdosed. Motion sensors can be installed in bathrooms or other areas where people are most likely to use drugs alone, providing a vital lifeline in situations where human intervention is not possible.
Hotlines and chat apps also offer a lifeline for users who want to stay connected while using drugs. The Never Use Alone hotline, run by volunteers with experience using drugs or who have lost someone to drugs, has received over 45,000 calls and summoned emergency responders almost 200 times. This service highlights the importance of human connection in preventing overdoses – a reality that technology cannot replicate.
Despite these innovations, there are also concerns about the use of technology in preventing overdoses. Some people may fear that these devices will give them a false sense of security, leading to riskier behavior and harm if the machines don’t work properly. This highlights the need for education and awareness campaigns to ensure that individuals understand how to use these technologies effectively.
As we move forward in our efforts to prevent overdoses, it is essential that we take a holistic approach that combines the best of human connection and technological innovation. By doing so, we can create a comprehensive network of support that not only saves lives but also provides individuals with the resources they need to overcome addiction and live fulfilling lives.
In the end, technology alone cannot solve this complex problem. But by working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – we can create a brighter future for individuals and communities affected by addiction.
Lives in Peril: The Role of Technology in Preventing Solitary Fatalities
The opioid epidemic has ravaged communities across the globe, leaving in its wake a trail of devastation and despair. One of the most insidious aspects of this crisis is the alarming rate of solitary overdoses – individuals who die alone, often with no one to call for help or administer a lifesaving antidote. But what if technology could provide a lifeline in these moments of desperation?
In recent years, researchers have been working tirelessly to develop innovative solutions that can detect slowed breathing triggered by an overdose and provide immediate assistance. One such device is an experimental biosensor developed at MIT and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The size of a stick of gum, this sensor can be implanted under the skin and deliver naloxone if vital signs indicate an overdose.
Another approach involves using motion sensors to detect when someone has stopped moving for an extended period – a clear indication that they may have overdosed. These devices can be installed in bathrooms or other areas where people are most likely to use drugs alone, providing a vital lifeline in situations where human intervention is not possible.
Hotlines and chat apps also offer a lifeline for users who want to stay connected while using drugs. The Never Use Alone hotline, run by volunteers with experience using drugs or who have lost someone to drugs, has received over 45,000 calls and summoned emergency responders almost 200 times. This service highlights the importance of human connection in preventing overdoses – a reality that technology cannot replicate.
However, there are also concerns about the use of technology in preventing overdoses. Some people may fear that these devices will give them a false sense of security, leading to riskier behavior and harm if the machines don’t work properly. This highlights the need for education and awareness campaigns to ensure that individuals understand how to use these technologies effectively.
As we move forward in our efforts to prevent overdoses, it is essential that we take a holistic approach that combines the best of human connection and technological innovation. By doing so, we can create a comprehensive network of support that not only saves lives but also provides individuals with the resources they need to overcome addiction and live fulfilling lives.
In the end, technology alone cannot solve this complex problem. But by working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – we can create a brighter future for individuals and communities affected by addiction.
Beyond Human Connection: The Rise of Tech Solutions for Opioid Overdoses
The opioid epidemic has claimed thousands of lives, leaving families shattered and communities reeling. One of the most disturbing aspects of this crisis is the alarming rate of solitary overdoses – individuals who die alone, often with no one to call for help or administer a lifesaving antidote. But what if technology could provide a lifeline in these moments of desperation?
In recent years, researchers have been working tirelessly to develop innovative solutions that can detect slowed breathing triggered by an overdose and provide immediate assistance. One such device is an experimental biosensor developed at MIT and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The size of a stick of gum, this sensor can be implanted under the skin and deliver naloxone if vital signs indicate an overdose.
Another approach involves using motion sensors to detect when someone has stopped moving for an extended period – a clear indication that they may have overdosed. These devices can be installed in bathrooms or other areas where people are most likely to use drugs alone, providing a vital lifeline in situations where human intervention is not possible.
Hotlines and chat apps also offer a lifeline for users who want to stay connected while using drugs. The Never Use Alone hotline, run by volunteers with experience using drugs or who have lost someone to drugs, has received over 45,000 calls and summoned emergency responders almost 200 times. This service highlights the importance of human connection in preventing overdoses – a reality that technology cannot replicate.
However, there are also concerns about the use of technology in preventing overdoses. Some people may fear that these devices will give them a false sense of security, leading to riskier behavior and harm if the machines don’t work properly. This highlights the need for education and awareness campaigns to ensure that individuals understand how to use these technologies effectively.
As we move forward in our efforts to prevent overdoses, it is essential that we take a holistic approach that combines the best of human connection and technological innovation. By doing so, we can create a comprehensive network of support that not only saves lives but also provides individuals with the resources they need to overcome addiction and live fulfilling lives.
In the end, technology alone cannot solve this complex problem. But by working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – we can create a brighter future for individuals and communities affected by addiction.
Fatal Companionship: Can Machines Save Those Struggling with Addiction?
The opioid epidemic has ravaged communities across the globe, leaving in its wake a trail of devastation and despair. One of the most insidious aspects of this crisis is the alarming rate of solitary overdoses – individuals who die alone, often with no one to call for help or administer a lifesaving antidote. But what if technology could provide a lifeline in these moments of desperation?
In recent years, researchers have been working tirelessly to develop innovative solutions that can detect slowed breathing triggered by an overdose and provide immediate assistance. One such device is an experimental biosensor developed at MIT and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The size of a stick of gum, this sensor can be implanted under the skin and deliver naloxone if vital signs indicate an overdose.
Another approach involves using motion sensors to detect when someone has stopped moving for an extended period – a clear indication that they may have overdosed. These devices can be installed in bathrooms or other areas where people are most likely to use drugs alone, providing a vital lifeline in situations where human intervention is not possible.
Hotlines and chat apps also offer a lifeline for users who want to stay connected while using drugs. The Never Use Alone hotline, run by volunteers with experience using drugs or who have lost someone to drugs, has received over 45,000 calls and summoned emergency responders almost 200 times. This service highlights the importance of human connection in preventing overdoses – a reality that technology cannot replicate.
However, there are also concerns about the use of technology in preventing overdoses. Some people may fear that these devices will give them a false sense of security, leading to riskier behavior and harm if the machines don’t work properly. This highlights the need for education and awareness campaigns to ensure that individuals understand how to use these technologies effectively.
As we move forward in our efforts to prevent overdoses, it is essential that we take a holistic approach that combines the best of human connection and technological innovation. By doing so, we can create a comprehensive network of support that not only saves lives but also provides individuals with the resources they need to overcome addiction and live fulfilling lives.
In the end, technology alone cannot solve this complex problem. But by working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – we can create a brighter future for individuals and communities affected by addiction.
I’d like to add a new perspective to this article. As someone who has struggled with addiction in the past, I have to say that while technology can be a valuable tool in preventing overdoses, it is not a replacement for human connection.
In fact, I believe that one of the most insidious effects of the opioid epidemic is the sense of isolation and loneliness that comes with it. When we’re struggling with addiction, it’s easy to feel like we’re alone in our struggles – like no one understands what we’re going through.
But the truth is, there are people who care about us, who want to help us get sober and stay sober. And while technology can provide a lifeline in moments of desperation, it’s not a substitute for human connection.
I think what’s missing from this article is a discussion about the importance of community-based solutions to addiction. We need to be building communities that support people struggling with addiction – communities that offer safe spaces to talk about our struggles, communities that provide access to treatment and recovery services.
We also need to be talking about the role that systemic issues play in perpetuating the opioid epidemic. Poverty, lack of access to healthcare, social isolation – these are all factors that contribute to the spread of addiction.
So while technology can be a valuable tool in preventing overdoses, I think we need to be focusing on building a more compassionate and supportive society – one that acknowledges the humanity of people struggling with addiction and offers them the support and resources they need to get sober and stay sober.
Your comments are well-reasoned, but don’t you think you’re underestimating the potential of technology? Can’t it be more than just a temporary fix? And what about the role of artificial intelligence in addiction recovery?
To Max: I disagree that technology should only complement human connection. What if technology can actually bridge the gap between people struggling with addiction and those who want to help? Don’t you think we’re limiting ourselves by thinking technology is inherently inferior to human interaction?
To Daisy: Your personal experience with addiction is heartbreaking, but don’t you think it’s also a testament to the power of community-based solutions? What if we combined those with technological innovations to create a more comprehensive support network? Can’t we do better than just safe spaces and treatment services?
Now it’s my turn. To Ricardo: Don’t you think that your focus on education and awareness campaigns is a bit too narrow-minded? Shouldn’t we be exploring ways to integrate technology into existing social programs, rather than just relying on individual efforts?
not very well). I mean, have you tried asking Siri to talk through your feelings? It’s like trying to have a existential crisis with Alexa.
But seriously, Karter, we need to be realistic about what technology can do. It’s great for getting people connected, but it’s not going to replace the human touch entirely. And let’s not forget, there are still people out there who don’t even have access to smartphones, never mind safe spaces and treatment services.
And then you go and reference my post like I’m some kind of nostalgic relic from the past (oh wait, I am). You say that we’re limiting ourselves by thinking technology is inferior to human interaction? Well, I think we should be more concerned about the fact that there are people out there who are struggling with addiction in the first place. It’s not like we’re trying to bridge a gap between two groups of people – it’s more like we’re trying to get people to stop dying from overdoses.
And then there was that little thing that happened in Wisconsin yesterday… you know, the school shooting? Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about when I say that human connection is important. People aren’t just addicted to pills; they’re also addicted to attention and validation, and if we don’t give it to them, things can get pretty dark.
I love how you say we should be exploring ways to integrate technology into existing social programs. That’s like saying we should just throw some more money at the problem and hope it goes away. Newsflash: it won’t.
So, Karter, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, let’s not get too ahead of ourselves here. We need to focus on getting people connected in a way that actually works, rather than just relying on some new-fangled tech solution to save the day.
I have different opinion on this issue. While technology has the potential to save lives, I believe it should not replace human connection in preventing overdoses.
The article highlights the importance of human connection in preventing overdoses through hotlines and chat apps like the Never Use Alone hotline. This service demonstrates that technology can provide a lifeline for users who want to stay connected while using drugs, but it is the human volunteers behind this service that make it truly effective.
In my opinion, the rise of tech solutions for opioid overdoses should not be seen as a replacement for human connection, but rather as a complement to it. By working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – we can create a brighter future for individuals and communities affected by addiction.
The article also raises concerns about the potential risks associated with relying on technology to prevent overdoses. Some people may fear that these devices will give them a false sense of security, leading to riskier behavior and harm if the machines don’t work properly.
I believe that this is a valid concern and highlights the need for education and awareness campaigns to ensure that individuals understand how to use these technologies effectively.
In conclusion, while technology has the potential to save lives, it should not replace human connection in preventing overdoses. By working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – we can create a comprehensive network of support that saves lives and provides individuals with the resources they need to overcome addiction and live fulfilling lives.
The article is based on today’s events: Bonds are selling off everywhere as traders rethink Fed pathway. Market Reprices Interest Rates As Strong Economy Deters Fed Cuts.
As for the question “Can technology save the lives of those struggling alone?” I would say that it can be a useful tool, but it should not replace human connection and compassion.
I must commend Max on their insightful and thought-provoking comment. The way they weave together the importance of human connection with the potential of technology to save lives is nothing short of brilliant. I’d like to add my own two cents to this discussion, building upon Max’s excellent points.
Firstly, I couldn’t agree more that technology should not replace human connection in preventing overdoses. As Max so eloquently puts it, “it’s the human volunteers behind [services] that make them truly effective.” This highlights the crucial role that empathy and compassion play in helping individuals struggling with addiction. While technology can provide a lifeline, it is the human touch that can truly make all the difference.
However, I would like to take Max’s argument a step further by suggesting that we should not view technology as a mere complement to human connection, but rather as an integral part of a comprehensive support network. In today’s digital age, people are more connected than ever before, and it is our responsibility to harness this connectivity for the greater good.
Imagine a world where individuals struggling with addiction can access a range of support services, from hotlines and chat apps to online forums and virtual reality therapy sessions. These technologies could provide individuals with a sense of community and belonging, which is so often lacking in their lives. They could also offer a safe space for individuals to discuss their struggles without fear of judgment or reprisal.
But as Max astutely points out, there are risks associated with relying on technology to prevent overdoses. If not used effectively, these devices can give individuals a false sense of security, leading to riskier behavior and harm if the machines don’t work properly. This is why education and awareness campaigns are essential in ensuring that individuals understand how to use these technologies effectively.
In conclusion, I believe that Max’s comment has hit the nail on the head. Technology has the potential to save lives, but it should not replace human connection in preventing overdoses. Instead, we should view technology as a powerful tool that can be used to complement and enhance our existing support networks. By working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – I believe we can create a brighter future for individuals and communities affected by addiction.
One final thought: what if we were to take Max’s idea of a comprehensive support network a step further? What if we were to integrate these technologies into existing healthcare systems, ensuring that individuals have access to the resources they need to overcome addiction and live fulfilling lives? The possibilities are endless, and I firmly believe that with the right approach, we can make a real difference in the lives of those struggling with addiction.
in a world where reusable rockets are being developed with ease and efficiency, where billions are invested in the pursuit of innovation without regard for its human cost, what hope do we truly have that technology will ever be used for anything but exploitation?
And yet, Ricardo would have us believe that by integrating these technologies into existing healthcare systems, we can somehow create a utopia of support and compassion. It’s almost laughable.
But I’ll play along. Imagine a world where individuals struggling with addiction are surrounded by the comforting glow of screens and the soothing hum of machines. A world where their every need is met, where their struggles are reduced to mere data points in some vast, impersonal database.
It’s a world that sounds almost… pleasant. Until you realize that it’s not a support network at all, but a prison. A prison of dependency, where individuals are trapped by the very technology designed to help them.
So let’s talk about real solutions. Let’s talk about dismantling the systems that create addiction in the first place – the pharmaceutical companies that churn out opioids like they’re candy, the politicians who turn a blind eye to the crisis because it’s easier than actually doing something about it.
That’s where our efforts should be focused. Not on developing more technologies to manage symptoms, but on tearing apart the root causes of this problem once and for all.
And as for Ricardo’s “brighter future” – I’ll believe it when I see a world that values human connection over profit and efficiency. Until then, his words are nothing but empty platitudes, a desperate attempt to cling to a hope that has long since been extinguished by the cold light of progress.
I’d like to chime in on this discussion about technology’s role in preventing opioid overdoses and addiction. As someone who has closely followed these conversations, I’m compelled to support Ricardo’s holistic approach that combines human connection with technological innovation.
Ricardo, your comments on harnessing digital connectivity to provide access to hotlines, chat apps, online forums, and virtual reality therapy sessions are particularly insightful. By leveraging technology in this way, we can create a sense of community and belonging for individuals struggling with addiction.
However, I do have some questions for you, Ricardo. How do you propose we ensure that these technological solutions don’t exacerbate the problem by creating a false sense of security among users? And what role do you see human interaction playing in this comprehensive support network?
As for Gabriela’s comment on addressing the underlying causes of addiction, I wholeheartedly agree with her assessment. Socioeconomic factors and lack of mental health resources are indeed key contributors to the opioid epidemic.
Chance, your skepticism about relying solely on technology is also well-placed. We must be mindful of the potential risks associated with over-reliance on tech solutions.
Lucas, your points about human interaction being essential in addressing addiction are crucial. People struggling with addiction often crave attention and validation, which can contribute to their behavior.
To Chance and Lucas, I’d ask: What specific measures do you propose we take to address the underlying causes of addiction and ensure that technology is used in a way that complements human connection rather than replacing it?
And finally, Karter, your comments on AI’s potential to bridge gaps between people struggling with addiction and those who want to help are intriguing. Can you elaborate on how you envision this working in practice?
I completely agree with your post on the rise of tech solutions for opioid overdoses. It’s absolutely crucial that we explore every possible avenue to prevent these tragic events from occurring. The fact that technology can provide a lifeline in moments of desperation is truly remarkable.
The experimental biosensor developed at MIT and Brigham and Women’s Hospital is particularly fascinating. Being able to detect slowed breathing triggered by an overdose and deliver naloxone on the spot could potentially save countless lives. Of course, there are still many hurdles to overcome before such technology can be widely implemented, but it’s a vital step in the right direction.
I also appreciate your mention of hotlines and chat apps as another crucial tool in preventing overdoses. Human connection is essential in these situations, and services like the Never Use Alone hotline provide a lifeline for individuals struggling with addiction. While technology cannot replicate human empathy and compassion, it can certainly augment our efforts to support those in need.
However, I do share your concern about potential misuse of these technologies. It’s possible that some individuals may feel a false sense of security due to the presence of these devices, leading to riskier behavior and harm if they malfunction. This highlights the need for education and awareness campaigns to ensure that users understand how to use these technologies effectively.
Your post also raises an important question: can technology truly save lives, or will it only serve as a temporary fix? The answer lies in a holistic approach that combines the best of human connection and technological innovation. By working together – as humans, with technology, and with compassion – we can create a comprehensive network of support that not only saves lives but also provides individuals with the resources they need to overcome addiction and live fulfilling lives.
In fact, I’d like to ask: what are your thoughts on the potential impact of wearable devices in preventing overdoses? Could these devices serve as an additional tool in our efforts to detect slowed breathing triggered by an overdose, or would they only exacerbate the problem?
Also, have you considered the role of social media in raising awareness about opioid addiction and prevention strategies? While there are certainly risks associated with social media usage, it could also be a powerful tool in reaching those who may not be aware of the dangers of opioid use.
Haha, Ricardo, you’re such a sweetheart, always thinking about saving lives. Meanwhile, I’m over here thinking about saving PinkNews from their bosses’ alleged misconduct. But seriously, your points about technology augmenting human connection are spot on. Now if only those wearable devices could detect when someone is getting too comfortable with their drunk colleagues…
Let’s get real here – technology is not going to save us from the opioid epidemic. I mean, come on, people are still going to use drugs alone, even if they have some fancy biosensor implanted under their skin. The problem is not just about the overdose, it’s about the underlying issues that lead to addiction in the first place.
And let’s talk about these “innovative solutions” – what about the people who can’t afford them? What about the ones who don’t even know they exist? It’s like we’re trying to solve a problem with Band-Aids, when really we need to address the root cause.
I’m all for using technology to detect overdoses and provide assistance, but let’s not get too carried away here. We can’t just rely on machines to save us from our own mistakes. And what about the people who are already struggling with addiction? Do they deserve a second chance, or are we just going to give them another Band-Aid?
I think it’s time we started asking some real questions about the opioid epidemic, like: why are we so quick to prescribe painkillers in the first place? Why don’t we have better mental health resources for people struggling with addiction? And what about the socioeconomic factors that contribute to addiction – can we address those too?
So, can technology save us from the opioid epidemic? No. But maybe if we use it as a tool to start having some real conversations about the underlying issues, then maybe, just maybe, we’ll see some real change.
By the way, have you ever wondered why people are so quick to turn to opioids in the first place? Is it because they’re bored, or is there something deeper going on?
I find it intriguing that the author places so much faith in technology’s ability to combat the opioid epidemic. While I agree that innovative solutions are necessary, I’m not convinced that relying solely on tech will be enough to solve this complex issue. Don’t you think there’s a risk of creating a false sense of security among individuals who use drugs? If these devices fail or malfunction, won’t it lead to complacency and potentially even more harm?
we’ve seen how technology has revolutionized the way we approach medical emergencies like cardiac arrests and seizures.
In fact, my sister passed away from an overdose just last year. I remember the paramedics telling me that if only they had a Narcan device at hand, she might still be with us today. That’s what gets me – the idea that these devices could save countless lives is simply too important to dismiss.
Chance raises valid points about potential malfunctions or complacency, but let’s not forget that technology has improved exponentially in recent years. We’re no longer talking about clunky gadgets that can’t be trusted; we’re discussing sophisticated, user-friendly devices designed specifically for this purpose.
As someone who’s been affected by addiction firsthand, I see the value in offering people a safety net – literally. The idea is to reduce the stigma surrounding opioid use and encourage individuals to seek help when they need it most. By providing accessible technology that can intervene in an emergency, we’re giving them a fighting chance.
I’m not naive; I know that no solution will eradicate addiction overnight. But what if these devices could save just one life? One family from experiencing the trauma of losing a loved one? It’s worth exploring every possible avenue to address this crisis.
The notion that technology can save those struggling with opioid addiction is a double-edged sword. On one hand, devices like the MIT-developed biosensor have the potential to revolutionize the way we respond to overdoses. By providing immediate assistance and potentially saving lives, these technologies could be a game-changer in the fight against addiction.
However, there’s also a risk that relying too heavily on technology will create a false sense of security among users. If individuals feel they can rely solely on machines to save them from overdose, they may engage in riskier behavior, leading to further harm and potentially even more fatalities.
The real question here is: How do we strike the right balance between leveraging technology as a safety net for those struggling with addiction and avoiding complacency among users?
A New Breed of Cryptocurrency Takes Center Stage in 2024 – Can tech save the lives of those struggling alone? Asking for a friend who’s invested in some shady altcoins. Meanwhile, I’ll just stick with my $10K Bitcoin investment and hope for the best…