YOUR CART
- No products in the cart.
Subtotal:
$0.00
BEST SELLING PRODUCTS
Published
4 months agoon
By
Urban Moolah
All cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin (BTC) were first described as altcoins for a single reason: There was a rise of projects that copied and pasted Bitcoin’s source code. The cryptocurrencies in the early stages weren’t unique enough to have a distinctive term, so “altcoin” (alternative coins) best fit their description. The community, at that point, didn’t put too much thought into other cryptocurrencies due to Bitcoin’s potential advancement — its future price growth, use cases, mainstream adoption, etc. It was the leading head in crypto.
But things changed when people caught onto Ethereum’s smart contract platform, as it can produce “smart contract tokens” — cryptocurrencies with the ability to perform intelligent tasks autonomously.
This led the community to distinguish altcoins from tokens. Altcoins were now coins that had their own blockchain, and tokens were defined as cryptocurrencies created on smart contract platforms. The other factor now at work is that there are many blockchain projects that are scaling rapidly and decreasing Bitcoin’s dominance.
The community started noticing weaknesses in Bitcoin’s correlation to other coins as other interesting new projects popped up, which provoked the crypto world to rethink how it sees cryptocurrencies.
Now, every altcoin distinguishes itself on the market by offering a unique set of features related to things such as transaction management, scripting language, mining mechanisms and consensus algorithms. Although altcoins’ superior features may outperform Bitcoin in one way or another, their value is still completely dependent on Bitcoin’s market capitalization.
Related: Where does the future of DeFi belong: Ethereum or Bitcoin? Experts answer
The community started to envision a world where various cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin, can disrupt the world. Now, with Ether’s (ETH) growing dominance in the market, it’s clear that Ethereum is the leader of crypto innovation. A large percentage of tokens today are Ethereum ERC-20 smart contracts, so the ways token minters classify their projects are easily normalized in the community.
Ethereum’s ecosystem is responsible for every crypto advancement and for mainstream interest, starting with initial coin offerings (ICOs) — which disrupted the initial public offering model by allowing anyone to buy a project’s coin at launch. The attention from ICOs led to many use cases for ERC-20 tokens, with developers making their next cryptocurrency an Ethereum-based token and crypto users having an incentive to learn more about the tech. With a wide variety of ERC-20 tokens, our human nature must intervene to categorize and associate things.
The term “altcoin” is no longer an acceptable way to define a project, as it’s ambiguous — especially now with decentralized finance (DeFi). People want to know what type of coin it is, whether it be a staking coin, liquidity mining coin, crypto derivative, stablecoin, utility token, etc. They’re aware that cryptocurrencies do much more than send and receive payments.
“Meme token” is a term most crypto users are familiar with due to Elon Musk tweeting to the world about Dogecoin (DOGE). But the crypto community had to make the distinction between tokens and meme tokens, as cryptocurrencies are capable of highly intellectual activity. Tokens based on social media content could potentially affect how the crypto sector is perceived, so a further classification had to be established.
The rise of nonfungible tokens (NFTs) proved that the crypto community is ready to onboard and learn about new definitions. Imagine if NFTs were described as altcoins? By definition, they technically are, but there’s so much that NFTs can do that demonstrates their difference. The community acknowledges that NFTs are ERC-721 tokens and recognizes the capabilities they possess. For starters, they’re structured to make cryptocurrencies unique, with no two tokens sharing the same value.
Related: DeFi and Web 3.0: Unleashing creative juices with decentralized finance
“GameFi” (gaming DeFi) is another term that was added to the crypto dictionary. It deals with merging blockchain technology with NFTs, liquidity mining and other DeFi protocols. The result is games where people can earn real crypto and trade assets. GameFi is still new, so there’s a chance that something trendy will come into existence and result in further classifications within the space.
The crypto community’s collective understanding of the space is improving rapidly. Content creators, influencers and YouTubers are also good at converting complex jargon into easy-to-digest information. The community recognizes that correctly classifying cryptocurrencies increases the chances of finding good new projects early. For example, telling someone that a revolutionary NFT is just an altcoin will influence their first impression and possibly give the NFT less worth.
Classifying cryptocurrencies helps with comparing them. To effectively compare cryptocurrencies, you must know what they are and whether others are doing the same thing. That’s why you can’t compare Dash to something like ADA — one is a payment cryptocurrency, while the other is the utility token of a proof-of-stake smart contract platform.
Another argument for the collapse of the classification of Bitcoin vs. altcoins is the varying correlations between BTC and other coins. While the correlation is high within some pairs, others demonstrate weaker dependence on each other. For instance, ADA and XRP show a lower correlation with other digital assets, not to mention that stablecoins such as Tether (USDT) show negative correlations.
Related: Bull or bear market, creators are diving headfirst into crypto
Classifications also help with diversification. You can have your crypto distributed between several coins, but the phrase “don’t put all your eggs all in one basket” can apply to you if all your coins are under the same classification.
Although a growing number of new crypto concepts are emerging, we can still put them all — DeFi, GameFi, NFTs and meme tokens — under the umbrella of altcoins. From the traders’ perspective, many believe that altcoins will have a larger return in the future, though maybe there is a weaker consensus than there is with Bitcoin, for now.
As a Bitcoin maximalist and the CEO of a crypto exchange, I’m happy to see more classifications arising, as the industry can hardly achieve mass adoption with just Bitcoin.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Johnny Lyu is the CEO of KuCoin, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges, which was launched in 2017. Before joining KuCoin, he had accumulated abundant experience in the e-commerce, auto and luxury industries.
Bitcoin price drops under $29K as Walmart, Target stock lose most since 1987
Gold May Lose its Shine as Fed Chair Powell Talks Bigger Rate Hikes Amid Crude Oil Surge
A detailed guide on how to lose all your Bitcoin investments
Bitcoin price flatlines as XRP hits $1 with ‘massive’ altcoin move set for 2022
5 spectacular altcoin rallies with one thing in common
Bitcoin eyes third weekly close above $60K as Ethereum fuels new altcoin market cap record
Published
7 hours agoon
May 21, 2022By
Urban Moolah
Bringing closure to the long-awaited judgment related to the money laundering activities over the BitMEX crypto exchange, one of the four federal district courthouses in New York reportedly sentenced two-year probation and six months of home detention to founder and ex-CEO Arthur Hayes.
Arthur Hayes, along with the other BitMEX co-founders — Benjamin Delo and Samuel Reed — and the company’s first non-employee Gregory Dwyer, pleaded guilty to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) violations on Feb 24, admitting to “willfully failing to establish, implement and maintain an Anti-Money Laundering (AML) program at BitMEX.”
Pleading guilty to supporting money laundering is a punishable offense, often carrying a maximum penalty of five years prison time. However, both Hayes and Delo made their guilty pleas ahead of the March trial date and had agreed to pay $10 million in criminal fines each.
On April 7, Cointelegraph reported that Hayes voluntarily surrendered to US authorities in Hawaii six months after federal prosecutors first levied charges, to which his lawyers stated:
“Mr. Hayes voluntarily appeared in court and looks forward to fighting these unwarranted charges.”
According to the indictment, public court filings, and statements made in court, Hayes was released after posting a $10-million bail bond pending future proceedings in New York. However, prosecutors from the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit found the entrepreneurs to be guilty of not implementing AML safeguards, including not fulfilling know-your-customer (KYC) obligations.
Despite the imminent possibility of serving jail time, owning up to the allegations resulted in Hayes being sentenced to a home confinement sentence that requires him to spend the first six months of his sentence from home. In addition, he also agreed to pay a fine of $10 million.
Related: Blockchain and crypto can be a boon for tracking financial crimes
Busting the myth related to the ease of laundering money using crypto, a new analysis highlights the potential of blockchain technology and crypto to track down financial crimes.
While numerous projects within the crypto ecosystem were victims of targeted attacks, bad actors continue to struggle when it comes to cashing out the stolen funds.
Speaking to Cointelegraph, Dmytro Volkov, chief technology officer at crypto exchange CEX.IO, said that the notion of crypto being primarily used by criminals is outdated, adding:
“In the case of Bitcoin (BTC), whose blockchain ledger is publicly available, a serious exchange with a competent analytics team can easily monitor and thwart hackers and launderers before the damage is done.”
Published
16 hours agoon
May 20, 2022By
Urban Moolah
Whoever coined the phrase “sell in May and go away” had brilliant insight and the performance of crypto and stock markets over the past three weeks has shown that the expression still rings true.
May 20 has seen a pan selloff across all asset classes, leaving traders with few options to escape the carnage as inflation concerns and rising interest rates continue to dominate the headlines.
Data from Cointelegraph Markets Pro and TradingView shows that the price of Bitcoin (BTC) taking on water below $29,000 and traders worry that losing this level will ensure a visit to the low $20,000s over the coming week.
As reported by Cointelegraph, some analysts warn that BTC could possibility decline to $22,700 based on its historical price performance following a death cross.
Further evidence of muted expectations from traders can be found in the put/call ratio for BTC open interest, which hit a 12-month high of 0.72 on May 18 according to the cryptocurrency research firm Delphi Digital.
Delphi Digital said,
“A high put/call ratio indicates that investors are speculating whether Bitcoin will continue to sell off, or it could mean investors are hedging their portfolios against a downward move.”
May 20 brought more pain to the traditional markets as the S&P 500 fell another 1.62%, marking a more than 20% decline from its January 2022 all-time high and further stoking recession fears. If the index manages to close the day down 20% from the all-time-high, that would officially put the benchmark index in bear market territory.
The Nasdaq Composite and Dow have also seen significant losses amid the widespread weakness, with the Nasdaq losing 275 points for a 2.42% loss, while the Dow has fallen 362 points, marking a decline of 1.28%.
Related: Crypto veterans extend a helping hand to bear market newbies
Altcoins also sold off sharply as BTC, Ether and stocks pulled back, reversing the gains seen earlier on the day.
The few bright spots were Ellipsis (EPS), Persistence (XPRT) and 0x (ZRX), which gained 30%, 13.92% and 12.34% respectively.
The overall cryptocurrency market cap now stands at $1.234 trillion and Bitcoin’s dominance rate is 44.6%.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. Every investment and trading move involves risk, you should conduct your own research when making a decision.
Published
1 day agoon
May 20, 2022By
Urban Moolah
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Beware of protocols with cyclical economic pressures. If they reward richly during upcycles when lots of people buy in, they also likely punish quickly during downcycles when most are looking to exit.
— Do Kwon 🌕 (@stablekwon) July 26, 2020
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!
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:
— Mike Novogratz (@novogratz) January 5, 2022
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.
The endgame of @stablekwon attaching @terra_money‘s success to bitcoin is becoming clearer:
As the largest single holder of bitcoin behind only Satoshi, could UST become too big to fail?
“The failure of UST is equivalent to the failure of crypto itself”pic.twitter.com/m5hVQFr60G
— Zack Guzmán (@zGuz) March 30, 2022
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.
Do Kwon: “95% are going to die [coins], but there’s also entertainment in watching companies die too”
8 days ago. Ironic. pic.twitter.com/fEQMZIyd9a
— Pedr🌐 (@EncryptedPedro) May 11, 2022
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.
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.
If you get burned by a textbook ponzi scheme you have noone but yourself to blame.
Don’t FOMO in after crypto influencers.
Most of them are dumber than you.
— Do Kwon 🌕 (@stablekwon) July 26, 2020
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
About Google Data Analytics Professional Certification | Includes my opinion
‘Selling Sunset’ Star Christine Quinn And Tech Entrepreneur Husband Have Plans To Disrupt The Real Estate Industry
Everything You Need to Know About the Solana Blockchain and NFTs
Location, celebrity partners unveiled for $150M sports destination coming to Miami-Dade
NYC Amazon Workers Vote Against Unionizing; Warren Buffett Reveals Big Investments | NTD Business
22 Rising NFT Artists to Watch in 2022
Apple marks Black History Month with a ‘Black Unity’ Watch strap
Business News | Stock and Share Market News | Finance News