Connect with us


Terra collapsed because it used hubris for collateral — Knifefight – Cointelegraph Magazine



The rise and fall of the Terra blockchain and family of related tokens is both one of the most convoluted and one of the most important stories happening in crypto right now.

Assembled here is a plaintext explanation of what Terraform Labs built, why it got so big, why it imploded, what it means for the markets, and what you need to know to keep yourself safe from similar projects in the future.

What exactly is Terra?

That’s a great question, and we will answer it. But first, let’s found a bank.

Our bank will do all the usual bank things like take deposits, pay interest, enable payments and make loans. Obviously, we could restrict ourselves to only loaning out money we actually have, but that is tedious and unprofitable. So, like any bank, we will make more loans than we receive in deposits and keep only a fraction of our customers’ deposits available as cash to withdraw when they need it. The amount we will keep available as cash is 0%.

It will be fine! Since we are loaning out 100% of our reserves, we will be very profitable; and since we are very profitable, we will be able to pay very high interest rates. No one will want to withdraw! If we ever do need money, we can sell stock in our very profitable bank. When demand for our deposits grows, we can use the new money to do stock buybacks. Since everyone is confident in the value of our stock, they will know we can back up our deposits; and since everyone is confident in the demand for our deposits, they will value our stock. Nothing could go wrong.



Knifefight on Terra’s tragedy and the lessons learned.



Okay. One thing that could go slightly wrong is that this is all illegal for a variety of reasons, so we’ll need to run our bank on a blockchain and issue our deposits as stablecoins — but that’s fine. The difference between a bank deposit and a stablecoin is mostly regulatory optics.

That’s roughly the business model of the Terra ecosystem. Terra is a blockchain built by Terraform Labs that uses a stablecoin, TerraUSD (UST), and a reserve token, LUNA, to stabilize the stablecoin’s price. You can think of Terra as a digital bank, with UST representing deposits and LUNA representing ownership in the bank itself. Owning UST was like making a deposit in an uninsured bank offering high interest rates. Owning LUNA was like investing in one.

What makes a stablecoin stable?

Stablecoins themselves are not necessarily all that hard to build. There are a lot of them, and for the most part, they work in that they largely trade for around $1. But most surviving stablecoins are collateralized, meaning they represent a claim of some kind on a portfolio of assets somewhere backing the value of the coin. UST, on the other hand, was not backed by any independent collateral — the only thing you could exchange it for was LUNA.





To keep the price of UST stable, the Terra protocol used a built-in exchange rate where anyone could exchange 1 UST for $1 worth of LUNA. When demand for UST exceeded its supply and price rose above $1, arbitrageurs could convert LUNA into UST at the contract and then sell it on the market for a profit. When demand for UST was too low, the same traders could do the opposite and buy cheap UST to convert into LUNA and sell at a profit. In a sense, the Terra protocol tried to eliminate price movements in UST by using the supply of LUNA as a shock absorber.

The trouble with this arrangement (and with algorithmic stablecoins generally) is that people tend to lose faith in the deposits (UST) and the collateral (LUNA) at the same time. When Terra most needed LUNA to prop up the value of UST, both were collapsing, and the result was like offering panicking customers in a bank run shares in the failing bank instead of cash.

You could convert your deposit into ownership of the bank, but you couldn’t actually withdraw it because the bank itself didn’t own anything at all.



Terra experienced a crisis of confidence.



A brief history of catastrophic failure

TerraUSD was not the first attempt at building an uncollateralized stablecoin. The streets of crypto are littered with the bodies of previous failures. Some prominent examples include Ampleforth’s AMPL, Empty Set Dollar, DeFiDollar, Neutrino USD, BitUSD, NuBits, IRON/TITAN, SafeCoin, CK USD, DigitalDollar and Basis Cash. (Remember that last one in particular for later).

These arrangements “work” in a bull market because it is always possible to lower the price of something by increasing the supply — but they fall apart in bear markets because there is no equivalent rule that says reducing the supply of something will cause the price to go up. Reducing the supply of an asset nobody wants is like pushing a rope.

We have a word for that already

To bootstrap demand for UST, Terra paid a 20% interest rate to anyone who deposited it into its Anchor protocol. That also created demand for LUNA, as you could use it to create more UST. But since there was no revenue stream to pay for that interest, it was effectively paid for by diluting LUNA holders. In a sense, Terra used UST investors to pay LUNA investors and LUNA investors to pay Terra investors. In traditional finance, the term for that is “Ponzi scheme.”

Terra’s real innovation on the traditional Ponzi was splitting its targets into two symbiotic groups: a conservative group that wanted to minimize downside (UST) and an aggressive group that wanted to maximize upside (LUNA). Pairing Ponzi-like economics with a stablecoin let Terra market itself to a much wider range of investors, allowing it to grow much larger than previous crypto Ponzis.

The infamous Bitconnect Ponzi reached around $2.4 billion before imploding. PlusToken and OneCoin grew to about $3 billion and $4 billion, respectively, before their collapse. The Terra ecosystem peaked with LUNA at a $40 billion market cap and UST at $18 billion. By comparison, Bernie Madoff’s decades-long Ponzi “only” cost investors somewhere between $12 billion and $20 billion. A relative bargain!



If it looks like a Ponzi and it pays 20% interest…



Hubris as collateral

Most Ponzis lie to their investors about how they work, but Terra didn’t need to — the system was already complex enough that most investors were relying on someone they trusted to evaluate the risks for them. Crypto industry insiders familiar with the history of algorithmic stablecoins were sounding the alarm, but they were drowned out by the long list of venture capitalists, influencer accounts and investment funds that had invested in Terra in some way.

Ponzi schemes, algorithmic stablecoins and free-floating fiat currencies are all backed in some sense by pure confidence — and the key figures in the Terra ecosystem were all overflowing with confidence. Many retail investors simply trusted in the overwhelming confidence of leaders in the space, and the leaders drew their confidence from the rapid growth of retail investors.

Do Kwon, the charismatic, controversial founder of Terra, is somewhat famous (now infamous) for his brash dismissal of critics on Twitter. He made a $1 million personal bet on the success of LUNA back in March. He named his infant daughter “Luna.” And he was hardly alone — consider billionaire Mike Novogratz’s recent tattoo:

The history of algorithmic stablecoins and their danger is well known to industry insiders, and it certainly would have been obvious to Kwon. Remember Basis Cash from the above list of previously failed stablecoins? A few days after the Terra collapse, news broke that Kwon was one of the two anonymous founders of Basis Cash. Not only should Kwon have seen it coming, but he had done it before. 

So Kwon and his major investors weren’t oblivious to the risks of algorithmic stablecoins, they were just cocky enough to think they could outrun them. The plan was for Terra to become so large and interwoven with the rest of the economy that it was literally too big to fail.

This was ambitious but not necessarily insane. The free-floating fiat currencies of the world (like the USD) maintain their value because they are tethered to a large and functioning economy where that money is useful. The USD is useful because everyone knows it will be useful because there are so many people who use it. If Terra could jump start their native economy (and bind it together with the rest of crypto) perhaps it could achieve that same self-fulfilling momentum.





The first step was to build unshakeable confidence in the peg. As part of that strategy the Luna Foundation Guard or LFG (a non-profit dedicated to LUNA) began accumulating a reserve of ~$3.5B worth of Bitcoin, partially to defend the UST peg but mostly to convince the market that it would never need to be defended. The ultimate goal was to become the largest holder of Bitcoin in the world, explicitly so that the failure of the UST peg would cause catastrophic Bitcoin sales and the failure of UST would become synonymous with the failure of crypto itself.

To raise the funds needed to buy that Bitcoin LFG could have sold LUNA, but selling large quantities of LUNA into the market would interfere with the growth narrative that fueled the whole economy. Instead of selling LUNA directly, LFG converted it into UST and traded that UST for Bitcoin. The bank of Terra had expanded its liabilities (UST) and lowered its collateral (LUNA). They had increased their leverage.

Slowly at first, then suddenly

In theory one reason an investor might hold UST would be to use it in the Terra DeFi ecosystem, but in practice in April ~72% of all UST was locked up in the Anchor protocol. To a first approximation the only thing anyone really wanted to do with UST was use it to earn more UST (and then eventually cash out).

The plan was to grow Terra like a traditional Silicon Valley startup by bootstrapping growth with an unsustainable subsidy but then slowly winding it down as the market matured. At the start of May Terra began reducing the interest rate paid out to Anchor deposits, which caused billions of dollars of UST to begin exiting Terra and putting pressure on the UST peg. At first the price slipped only a few cents below the target, but when it did not recover the market began to panic.





At that point massive amounts of UST were sold into the market, perhaps by investors sincerely trying to escape their UST positions at any cost or perhaps by motivated attackers hoping to deliberately destabilize the peg. Either way the result was the same: the price of UST collapsed and the supply of LUNA exploded. The LFG tried to raise outside funds to rescue the peg but it was too late. The confidence that powered the whole system was gone.

Another thing that was gone was the ~$3.5B worth of Bitcoin LFG had raised to defend the UST peg. LFG claims the funds were spent defending the UST peg as intended, but they have not provided any kind of audit or proof. Given the amount of money involved and the lack of transparency people are understandably concerned that some insiders might have been given special opportunity to recover their investment while others were left to burn.

On May 16th Kwon announced a new plan to reboot the Terra blockchain with a forked copy of LUNA distributed to existing LUNA/UST holders and no stablecoin component. The price of both tokens stayed flat. Forking the Terra code is easy enough but recreating the confidence in Terra is not as easy.





Aftermath and Opportunity

The immediate destruction of wealth held in LUNA or UST is enormous enough — but it’s only the beginning. Unlike the other ponzis above, the Terra blockchain was home to the third largest DeFi economy (after Ethereum and Solana), with a rich ecosystem of startups and decentralized applications building on top of it. Investment firms held UST and LUNA in their funds, dApps used them as loan collateral, DAOs kept them in their treasuries. The real damage is still unfolding.

Damage has been done as well to the public’s understanding of the risks and opportunities of stablecoins and of crypto generally. Many will come away believing not just that Terra is a ponzi but that all stablecoins are — or maybe even all cryptocurrencies. That’s an understandable confusion given how complex the actual mechanics of UST and LUNA are.

All of this is going to complicate the regulatory story for stablecoins and DeFi for years to come. Regulators are already using Terra as an argument for greater intervention. The SEC was already investigating Terraform Labs for unrelated securities violations, they will undoubtedly be opening an investigation into UST as well. Do Kwon has been sued for fraud in Korean courts and called to testify by the Korean parliament. More legal action is probably on the way.





Bitcoin on the other hand is looking surprisingly resilient. The Bitcoin economy is largely independent from the DeFi economy and sheltered from the contagion of the collapse of UST and LUNA. The price dipped as it weathered ~$3.5B of sustained selling while the Luna Foundation Guard’s reserve was liquidated — but it has largely recovered since and in the process revealed a lot of deep pocketed buyers interested in accumulating at those prices. The collapse of Terra has mostly strengthened the case for owning Bitcoin.

How to spot a ponzi before they spot you

The lesson of Terra should be “don’t build an algorithmic stablecoin” but of course the lesson that many people will actually take away is “build your algorithmic stablecoin a little differently so no one recognizes it.” Justin Sun of Tron is already building and marketing a Tron-based clone of Terra. As the laundry list of examples in the history section above shows, more attempts to build a financial perpetual motion machine are coming. To invest responsibly in the crypto space you need to learn to be able to identify them before they collapse.





The simplest way to spot a ponzi is to remember this simple rule: if you don’t know where the yield comes from, you are the yield. Don’t be intimidated by complexity — you don’t need to understand all the mechanics of a system in order to understand who is paying for it. Profit always comes from somewhere. If there isn’t an obvious source of incoming revenue, the money is probably coming from incoming investors. That’s a ponzi scheme. Don’t buy in — even when the price is going up.

Knifefight is the author of the Something Interesting blog





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Here’s how pro traders could use Bitcoin options to buy the $20K BTC dip



Bitcoin hit a 2022 low at $17,580 on June 18 and many traders are hopeful that this was the bottom, but (BTC) has been unable to produce a daily close above $21,000 for the past six days. For this reason, traders are uncomfortable with the current price action and the threat of many CeFi and DeFi companies dealing with the loss of user funds and possible insolvency is weighing on sentiment.

The blowback from venture capital Three Arrows Capital (3AC) failing to meet its financial obligations on June 14 and Asia-based lending platform Babel Finance citing liquidity pressure as a reason for pausing withdrawals are just two of the most recent examples.

This news has caught the eyes of regulators, especially after Celsius, a crypto lending firm, suspended user withdrawals on June 12. On June 16, securities regulators from five states in the United States of America reportedly opened investigations into crypto lending platforms.

There is no way to know when the sentiment will change and trigger a Bitcoin bull run, but for traders who believe BTC will reach $28,000 by August, there is a low-risk options strategy that yields a decent return with limited risk.

The “Iron Condor” provides returns for a specific price range

Sometimes throwing a “hail Mary” pays off by leveraging ten times via futures contracts. However, most traders are looking for ways to maximize gains while limiting losses. For example, the skewed “Iron Condor” maximizes profits near $28,000 by the end of August, but limits losses if the expiry is below $22,000.

Bitcoin options Iron Condor skewed strategy returns. Source: Deribit Position Builder

The call option gives its holder the right to acquire an asset at a fixed price in the future. For this privilege, the buyer pays an upfront fee known as a premium.

Meanwhile, the put option provides its holder the privilege to sell an asset at a fixed price in the future, which is a downside protection strategy. On the other hand, selling this instrument (put) offers exposure to the price upside.

The Iron Condor consists of selling the call and put options at the same expiry price and date. The above example has been set using the August 26 contracts, but it can be adapted for other timeframes.

The target profit area is $23,850 to $35,250

To initiate the trade, the investor needs to short 3.4 contracts of the $26,000 call option and 3.5 contracts of the $26,000 put option. Then, the buyer needs to repeat the procedure for the $30,000 options, using the same expiry month.

Buying 7.9 contracts of the $23,000 put option to protect from an eventual downside is also required. At another purchase of 3.3 contracts of the $38,000 call option to limit losses above the level.

This strategy yields a net gain if Bitcoin trades between $23,850 and $35,250 on August 26. Net profits peak at 0.63 BTC ($13,230 at current prices) between $26,000 and at $30,000, but they remain above 0.28 BTC ($5,880 at current prices) if Bitcoin trades in the $24,750 and $32,700 range.

The investment required to open this strategy is the maximum loss, hence 0.28 BTC or $5,880, which will happen if Bitcoin trades below $23,000 or above $38,000 on August 26. The benefit of this trade is that a reasonable target area is covered, while providing a 125% return versus the potential loss.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.

Source link

Continue Reading


Bitcoin miner ‘capitulation event’ may have already happened — Research



Bitcoin (BTC) miners may have already sparked a “capitulation event,” fresh analysis has concluded.

In an update on June 24, Julio Moreno, senior analyst at on-chain data firm CryptoQuant, hinted that the BTC price bottom could now be due.

BTC price bottom “typically” follows miner capitulation

Miners have seen a dramatic change in circumstances since March 2020, going from unprecedented profitability to seeing their margins squeezed.

The dip to $17,600 — 70% below November’s all-time highs for BTC/USD — has hit some players hard, data now shows, with miner wallets sending large amounts of coins to exchanges.

This, CryptoQuant suggests, precedes the final stages of the Bitcoin sell-off more broadly in line with historical precedent.

“Our data demonstrate a miner capitulation event that has occurred, which has typically preceded market bottoms in previous cycles,” Moreno summarized.

Miner sales have been keenly tracked this month, with the Bitcoin Twitter account even describing the situation as miners “being drained of their coins.”

“For miners, it’s time to decide to stay or leave,” CryptoQuant CEO, Ki Young Ju, added in a Twitter thread last week.

The situation is tenuous, but the majority of miners remain active, as witnessed by network fundamentals dropping only slightly from all-time highs of over 30 trillion.

Bitcoin network fundamentals overview (screenshot). Source:

Mixed signals over buyer interest

When it comes to other large BTC holders, however, the picture appears less clear.

Related: ‘Foolish’ to deny Bitcoin price can go under $10K — Analysis

After whales bought up liquidity near $19,000, CryptoQuant’s Ki this week heralded the arrival of “new” large-volume entities.

Outflows from major United States exchange Coinbase, he noted, reached their highest since 2013.

Trader and analyst Rekt Capital, nonetheless, reiterated doubts about the strength of overall buyer volume, arguing that sellers were conversely still directing market movements.

Bitcoin’s 200-week moving average (MA), a key support level during previous bear markets, has yet to see significant interest from buyers despite the spot price being around $2,000 below it.

“Current BTC buy-side volume following the extreme sell volume spike is still lower than the 2018 Bear Market buyer follow-through volume levels at the 200-week MA. Let alone March 2020 buy-side follow-through,” he told Twitter followers.

BTC/USD annotated chart. Source: Rekt Capital/ Twitter

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Every investment and trading move involves risk, you should conduct your own research when making a decision.

Source link

Continue Reading


Buy Bitcoin or start mining? HashWorks CEO points to ‘attractive investment yield’ in BTC mining



Recently, bad news has abounded, and the resulting fear is real. DeFi is looking dead, altcoins completed their lifecycle by returning back to $0 (I guess that’s a joke), and Bitcoin’s (BTC) price fell lower than even the smartest brains in the room expected. 

A unifying theme of the most recent bull market appears to have been greed. Everyone got too confident and too greedy, and it shows by the amount of debt and leverage that is being unwound as 3AC, Celsius, BlockFi and Voyager contend with the real threat of going belly up.

It seems Bitcoin miners and BTC mining companies also were not immune to the sentiment of over-exuberance and the belief that “up only” was a fact until Bitcoin’s price hit the long-awaited $100,000 target most analysts stuck to.

Historically, Bitcoin miners are an elusive species that are quiet and unwilling to spill the sauce to the public, but Cointelegraph had some success in securing a moment with HashWorks CEO and founder Todd Esse to discuss the current state of the mining industry and his predictions on where the market might head over the next year.

Cointelegraph: Bitcoin is trading below the realized price, and it is also below the miners’ cost of production. The price is also below the previous all-time high and the hash rate is dropping. Typically on-chain analysts pinpoint these metrics hitting extreme lows as a generational purchasing opportunity, thoughts?

Todd Esse: I do believe that current prices represent an investment opportunity as current prices likely don’t reflect profitable mining margins as the industry is currently structured. In our opinion though, prices may continue to remain under pressure as the mining industry and associated leverage around it is reset or re-configured.

CT: What is the state of the BTC mining industry right now? We’ve heard that leveraged miners are going bust, sub-optimal, inefficient miners are turning off, gear could be in the process of being seized or liquidated at firesale. Listed miners’ stock price and cash flow is also looking pretty bad right now. What’s happening behind the scenes and how do you see this impacting the industry of the next six months to a year?

TE: In our opinion, mining still offers an attractive investment yield for those who are selective about approach and have long term goals. Much of the mining capacity currently installed is with ASICs in the sub 85 TH/s range and with energy contracts that haven’t been managed as a traditional large scale energy consumer would.

We’ve seen this movie before, right? Easy money + poor discipline = unbalanced risks. We could easily see a protracted period here where the mining industry consolidates and allows different investment capital to enter into the market.

Related: Friday’s $2.25B Bitcoin options expiry might prove that $17.6K wasn’t BTC’s bottom

CT: Exactly why is now a good or bad time to start mining? Are there particular on-chain metrics or profitability metrics that you’re looking at or is it just your gut feeling?

TE: Typically periods of distress and shifts in the accepted paradigm will offer advantages to new entrants. Our sole focus is to take advantage of these emerging opportunities.

CT: If I have $1 million in cash, is it a good time to set up an operation and start mining? What about $300,000, $100,000, $10,000? At the $40,000 to $10,000 seed fund range, why might it not be a good time to set up an at home or industrial-sized mining farm?

TE: If you had $1 million cash, it might be a good time to opportunistically pick up some BTC. Fully loaded production prices for the major miners aren’t far from these levels. I see it as difficult to maintain these levels until ASICs drop further in value. I think the time for home mining has largely passed as a result of new dynamics in the energy industry.

I would encourage those looking for yield to seek mining opportunities with companies like Compass Mining or other “cloud” miners whose equipment and energy contracts may yield an attractive investment as these dynamics change.

We believe as a result of current and expected disruptions in the market as well as greater acceptance of immersion solutions, there will continue to be attractive opportunities to build mining operations at scale.

CT: Does Bitcoin price dropping below its previous all-time high for the first time ever have any significant future ramification on the fundamentals of the asset and industry?

TE: In our opinion, no. Historical comparisons are difficult to rely on when dealing with an emerging commodity, and transformative technical asset such as BTC. Miners are producing BTC, given a set of inputs (computing power, access to capital, and energy) and the output price doesn’t always reflect the cost of production at all.

Mining BTC at scale, fundamentally, isn’t very different from producing oil and gas or other commodities. Improvements in drilling technology transformed North America’s position in global energy markets.

When oil and gas prices crashed during the early stages of the pandemic, no one questioned whether or not we needed to drive cars or heat our homes anymore. Mining supports the blockchain, and proof-of-work computing will prove to offer our grid the ability to transition to a renewable energy future.

We are committed to being an innovative and constructive participant in this industry as it continues to mature.

Disclaimer. Cointelegraph does not endorse any content of product on this page. While we aim at providing you all important information that we could obtain, readers should do their own research before taking any actions related to the company and carry full responsibility for their decisions, nor this article can be considered as an investment advice.

Source link

Continue Reading
Markets1 min ago

Top Story with Tom Llamas – June 20 | NBC News NOW

Economy29 mins ago

Travel chaos and cost of living leave Britons holidaying at home

Tech33 mins ago

Snoop Dogg and Eminem’s Bored Ape music video is here to try and sell us on tokens

Metaverse43 mins ago

Metaverse at Cannes—marketers show off virtual worlds on the Croisette

Real Estate50 mins ago

Rae-Ann Nursing and Rehabilitation Center sells Northeast Ohio properties

Opinion1 hour ago

Ralfy The Plug – Hater Opinion [OFFICIAL AUDIO]

Markets1 hour ago

ZeeIndia360° 06 April 2022| Business & Financial News | Stock Market Update |

Tech2 hours ago

Paralyzed race driver completes Goodwood hill climb using head movement to steer

Metaverse2 hours ago

Cap Off Pride Month with the Metaverse Pride Parade and Drag Queen Bingo | News

Real Estate2 hours ago

Why Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor says Silicon Valley is a place no more

Opinion2 hours ago

Saving and investing during risky times | The Exchange

Markets2 hours ago

KSR Live Show | Political Analysis Vijaya Babu Fires on Yellow Media over Venkaiah Naidu | Sakshi TV

Tech3 hours ago

Juul can keep selling e-cigarettes, after an appeals court paused the FDA’s ban

Metaverse3 hours ago

Here’s why a multi-million toy business is venturing into the metaverse

Real Estate3 hours ago

Pacific Park Plaza sells for $57.6M

Opinion3 hours ago

Benefits of ICEA LION's Medical Second Opinion

Markets3 hours ago

Steve Forbes: This should be the Fed's next move

Tech4 hours ago

Court OKs lawsuit by woman who says she helped create Pinterest

Metaverse4 hours ago

Online Learning Newsletter | May – June 2022: Andreessen Horowitz, Metaverse, UC San Diego, 1EdTech Consortium, Universities…

Real Estate4 hours ago

President Ford’s Vail Winter White House Hits The Market For $13 Million

Metaverse4 weeks ago

2B3D, Metaverse for Veteran PTSD Therapy, Sends Gratitude

Metaverse4 weeks ago

Exclusive: Meesho to look at metaverse, web3, other blockchain use cases for e-commerce sellers, buyers

NFT2 weeks ago

Unity and Gala Games Join Forces to Build the VOXverse

Tech2 weeks ago

FAA wants dozens of changes before SpaceX expands Texas launch site

Opinion2 weeks ago

Electric switchboard manufacturer Expert Opinion | Best Plastic manufacturing business Idea

Opinion2 weeks ago

SOS Opinion | A fresh offering to the market

Metaverse2 weeks ago

KaraStar: A Metaverse Game with Specific Benefits For New Users

Metaverse2 weeks ago

REALM Metaverse Gaming to Launch Mobile Beta App on June 21 By CoinQuora

Economy2 weeks ago

Echoes of 1970s for UK economy

Metaverse2 weeks ago

L’Oréal’s Chief Digital Officer on Web3, the Metaverse – WWD

Metaverse2 weeks ago

Podcast: What does worship feel like in the Metaverse?

Tech2 weeks ago

Blizzard claims it won’t monetize ‘Diablo IV’ like ‘Diablo Immortal’

Opinion2 weeks ago

MAD Armut & Mac Opinion On FNC vs G2 | LEC Post Game Lobby Interview

Metaverse2 weeks ago

ISG Launches Advisory Business to Help Clients Explore and Prepare for Web3, Metaverse Opportunities

Tech2 weeks ago

Resident Evil Village Winters’ Expansion arrives on October 28th

Metaverse2 weeks ago

Here’s a Complete Guide to Investing in the Metaverse

Bitcoin2 weeks ago

The CFTC’s action against Gemini is bad news for Bitcoin ETFs

Economy2 weeks ago

FirstFT: The yen continues descent to 24-year low

Economy2 weeks ago

UK job vacancies at record high despite stalling economy

Bitcoin2 weeks ago

Bitcoin price drops to lowest since May as Ethereum market trades at 18.4% loss