Putting an End to the Bitcoin Store of Value Fallacy Op ...
Putting an End to the Bitcoin Store of Value Fallacy Op ...
Bitcoin Price Today 📈 Live Bitcoin Value - Charts & Market ...
Bitcoin Store of Value: What Makes BTC Have Long-Lasting ...
Bitcoin Investment Thesis: Bitcoin as an aspirational ...
Bitcoin Falls Off A Cliff To Reach Lowest Since July
Hello! We're here to discuss merchant accounts, services and everything in between. Looking to accept payments for your business online? Try using Bitcoin and reduce your interchange rates drastically!
Bullion (CBX) | Est 2013 | Masternodes Coming Soon!
Released in late June 2013, Bullion was designed primarily for the purpose of storing wealth. Bullion is the first to employ its pioneering Proof-of-Stake-Participation (PoSP) algorithm which has taken the strength of traditional proof-of-stake implementations, extreme energy efficiency, and injected revolutionary designs to configure the algorithm for maximum security and function.
@binance: Today @binance 🔸#Binance Chain (@binance_dex) Community Releases Whitepaper for Enabling Smart Contracts 🔸Added support for @TomoChainANN $TOMO Staking 🔸P2P Adds Support for Venezuela Bolivar $VES 🇻🇪 🔸Is #Bitcoin a store of value? - @BinanceAcademy #BUIDL https://t.co/zN9ynAhYeF
All the altcoins are rallying today. I have a feeling that all those gains will pour into bitcoin tomorrow. We are in a cycle of pump and dump right now. Buying on the dips, spreads, and market price gaps. All of this is coming back to bitcoin as THE store of global value.
What are some options today to use bitcoin to send someone fungible stores of value that aren't btc? (i.e. disinterested in bitcoin)
Old hodlr here from 2012, I stopped paying attention to anything when the blocksize debate was raging and got downright rabid in 2015 early 2016, and I have really lost touch with what trusted (vetted?) options are available today for sending money to people. Fiat maybe? Gift card maybe? (but there has been rampant fraud there). You decide, point is I know the technical side of bitcoin far better than actually how to use it in everyday life anymore, so don't worry about that. Anyway, point is.. this person basically wants Paypal but I canceled that account long ago and this isn't worth opening another account for. I want to offer something as fungible as possible for a video card, and it's across the country, and he is completely disinterested in even the idea of bitcoin (actively, not ignorantly). So yeah, I could sell some BTC on Gemini or something and get fiat for it, but then there's the issue of getting that fiat to him then which brings you back to Paypal. I probably have a few days because we're acquaintances, and he's patient, but not much more. I don't think it's fair asking him to accept a gift card that could potentially have been originally purchased with a stolen credit card / other fraud either..... What does this look like in 2017? Has it gotten worse, better? What are my options?
All the altcoins are rallying today. I have a feeling that all those gains will pour into bitcoin tomorrow. We are in a cycle of pump and dump right now. Buying on the dips, spreads, and market price gaps. All of this is coming back to bitcoin as THE store of global value. /r/Bitcoin
12-16 12:02 - 'Gold has been used as store of value for 6000+ years, Bitcoin less than ten. A currency lives and dies based on its transactional utility. Bitcoin Cash is usable today as a transactional currency.' by /u/bitcoincoreclowns removed from /r/Bitcoin within 5-15min
Putting $400M of Bitcoin on your company balance sheet
Also posted on my blog as usual. Read it there if you can, there are footnotes and inlined plots. A couple of months ago, MicroStrategy (MSTR) had a spare $400M of cash which it decided to shift to Bitcoin (BTC). Today we'll discuss in excrutiating detail why this is not a good idea. When a company has a pile of spare money it doesn't know what to do with, it'll normally do buybacks or start paying dividends. That gives the money back to the shareholders, and from an economic perspective the money can get better invested in other more promising companies. If you have a huge pile of of cash, you probably should be doing other things than leave it in a bank account to gather dust. However, this statement from MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor exists to make it clear he's buying into BTC for all the wrong reasons:
“This is not a speculation, nor is it a hedge. This was a deliberate corporate strategy to adopt a bitcoin standard.”
Let's unpack it and jump into the economics Bitcoin:
Is Bitcoin money?
No. Or rather BTC doesn't act as money and there's no serious future path for BTC to become a form of money. Let's go back to basics. There are 3 main economic problems money solves: 1. Medium of Exchange. Before money we had to barter, which led to the double coincidence of wants problem. When everyone accepts the same money you can buy something from someone even if they don't like the stuff you own. As a medium of exchange, BTC is not good. There are significant transaction fees and transaction waiting times built-in to BTC and these worsen the more popular BTC get. You can test BTC's usefulness as a medium of exchange for yourself right now: try to order a pizza or to buy a random item with BTC. How many additional hurdles do you have to go through? How many fewer options do you have than if you used a regular currency? How much overhead (time, fees) is there? 2. Unit of Account. A unit of account is what you compare the value of objects against. We denominate BTC in terms of how many USD they're worth, so BTC is a unit of account presently. We can say it's because of lack of adoption, but really it's also because the market value of BTC is so volatile. If I buy a $1000 table today or in 2017, it's roughly a $1000 table. We can't say that a 0.4BTC table was a 0.4BTC table in 2017. We'll expand on this in the next point: 3. Store of Value. When you create economic value, you don't want to be forced to use up the value you created right away. For instance, if I fix your washing machine and you pay me in avocados, I'd be annoyed. I'd have to consume my payment before it becomes brown, squishy and disgusting. Avocado fruit is not good money because avocadoes loses value very fast. On the other hand, well-run currencies like the USD, GBP, CAD, EUR, etc. all lose their value at a low and most importantly fairly predictible rate. Let's look at the chart of the USD against BTC While the dollar loses value at a predictible rate, BTC is all over the place, which is bad. One important use money is to write loan contracts. Loans are great. They let people spend now against their future potential earnings, so they can buy houses or start businesses without first saving up for a decade. Loans are good for the economy. If you want to sign something that says "I owe you this much for that much time" then you need to be able to roughly predict the value of the debt in at the point in time where it's due. Otherwise you'll have a hard time pricing the risk of the loan effectively. This means that you need to charge higher interests. The risk of making a loan in BTC needs to be priced into the interest of a BTC-denominated loan, which means much higher interest rates. High interests on loans are bad, because buying houses and starting businesses are good things.
BTC has a fixed supply, so these problems are built in
Some people think that going back to a standard where our money was denominated by a stock of gold (the Gold Standard) would solve economic problems. This is nonsense. Having control over supply of your currency is a good thing, as long as it's well run. See here Remember that what is desirable is low variance in the value, not the value itself. When there are wild fluctuations in value, it's hard for money to do its job well. Since the 1970s, the USD has been a fiat money with no intrinsic value. This means we control the supply of money. Let's look at a classic poorly drawn econ101 graph The market price for USD is where supply meets demand. The problem with a currency based on an item whose supply is fixed is that the price will necessarily fluctuate in response to changes in demand. Imagine, if you will, that a pandemic strikes and that the demand for currency takes a sharp drop. The US imports less, people don't buy anything anymore, etc. If you can't print money, you get deflation, which is worsens everything. On the other hand, if you can make the money printers go brrrr you can stabilize the price Having your currency be based on a fixed supply isn't just bad because in/deflation is hard to control. It's also a national security risk... The story of the guy who crashed gold prices in North Africa In the 1200s, Mansa Munsa, the emperor of the Mali, was rich and a devout Muslim and wanted everyone to know it. So he embarked on a pilgrimage to make it rain all the way to Mecca. He in fact made it rain so hard he increased the overall supply of gold and unintentionally crashed gold prices in Cairo by 20%, wreaking an economic havoc in North Africa that lasted a decade. This story is fun, the larger point that having your inflation be at the mercy of foreign nations is an undesirable attribute in any currency. The US likes to call some countries currency manipulators, but this problem would be serious under a gold standard.
Currencies are based on trust
Since the USD is based on nothing except the US government's word, how can we trust USD not to be mismanaged? The answer is that you can probably trust the fed until political stooges get put in place. Currently, the US's central bank managing the USD, the Federal Reserve (the Fed for friends & family), has administrative authority. The fed can say "no" to dumb requests from the president. People who have no idea what the fed does like to chant "audit the fed", but the fed is already one of the best audited US federal entities. The transcripts of all their meetings are out in the open. As is their balance sheet, what they plan to do and why. If the US should audit anything it's the Department of Defense which operates without any accounting at all. It's easy to see when a central bank will go rogue: it's when political yes-men are elected to the board. For example, before printing themselves into hyperinflation, the Venezuelan president appointed a sociologist who publicly stated “Inflation does not exist in real life” and instead is a made up capitalist lie. Note what happened mere months after his gaining control over the Venezuelan currency This is a key policy. One paper I really like, Sargent (1984) "The end of 4 big inflations" states:
The essential measures that ended hyperinflation in each of Germany,Austria, Hungary, and Poland were, first, the creation of an independentcentral bank that was legally committed to refuse the government'sdemand or additional unsecured credit and, second, a simultaneousalteration in the fiscal policy regime.
In english: *hyperinflation stops when the central bank can say "no" to the government." The US Fed, like other well good central banks, is run by a bunch of nerds. When it prints money, even as aggressively as it has it does so for good reasons. You can see why they started printing on March 15th as the COVID lockdowns started:
The Federal Reserve is prepared to use its full range of tools to support the flow of credit to households and businesses and thereby promote its maximum employment and price stability goals.
In english: We're going to keep printing and lowering rates until jobs are back and inflation is under control. If we print until the sun is blotted out, we'll print in the shade.
BTC is not gold
Gold is a good asset for doomsday-preppers. If society crashes, gold will still have value. How do we know that? Gold has held value throughout multiple historic catastrophes over thousands of years. It had value before and after the Bronze Age Collapse, the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and Gengis Khan being Gengis Khan. Even if you erased humanity and started over, the new humans would still find gold to be economically valuable. When Europeans d̶i̶s̶c̶o̶v̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ c̶o̶n̶q̶u̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ g̶e̶n̶o̶c̶i̶d̶e̶d̶ went to America, they found gold to be an important item over there too. This is about equivalent to finding humans on Alpha-Centauri and learning that they think gold is a good store of value as well. Some people are puzzled at this: we don't even use gold for much! But it has great properties: First, gold is hard to fake and impossible to manufacture. This makes it good to ascertain payment. Second, gold doesnt react to oxygen, so it doesn't rust or tarnish. So it keeps value over time unlike most other materials. Last, gold is pretty. This might sound frivolous, and you may not like it, but jewelry has actual value to humans. It's no coincidence if you look at a list of the wealthiest families, a large number of them trade in luxury goods. To paraphrase Veblen humans have a profound desire to signal social status, for the same reason peacocks have unwieldy tails. Gold is a great way to achieve that. On the other hand, BTC lacks all these attributes. Its value is largely based on common perception of value. There are a few fundamental drivers of demand:
Means of Exchange: if people seriously start using BTC to buy pizzas, then this creates a real demand for the currency to accomplish the short-term exchanges. As we saw previously, I'm not personally sold on this one and it's currently a negligible fraction of overall demand.
Criminal uses: Probably the largest inbuilt advantage of BTC is that it's anonymous, and so a great way to launder money. Hacker gangs use BTC to demand ransom on cryptolocker type attacks because it's a shared way for an honest company to pay and for the criminals to receive money without going to jail.
Apart from these, it's hard to argue that BTC will retain value throughout some sort of economic catastrophe.
BTC is really risky
One last statement from Michael Saylor I take offense to is this:
“We feel pretty confident that Bitcoin is less risky than holding cash, less risky than holding gold,” MicroStrategy CEO said in an interview
"BTC is less risky than holding cash or gold long term" is nonsense. We saw before that BTC is more volatile on face value, and that as long as the Fed isn't run by spider monkeys stacked in a trench coat, the inflation is likely to be within reasonable bounds. But on top of this, BTC has Abrupt downside risks that normal currencies don't. Let's imagine a few:
A critical software vulnerability is found in the BTC codebase, leading to a possible exploitation.
Xi Jinping decides he's had enough of rich people in China hiding their assets from him and bans BTC.
Some form of bank run takes hold for whatever reason. Because BTC wallets are uninsured, unlike regular banks, this compounds into a Black Tuesday style crash.
Blockchain solutions are fundamentally inefficient
Blockchain was a genius idea. I still marvel at the initial white paper which is a great mix of economics and computer science. That said, blockchain solutions make large tradeoffs in design because they assume almost no trust between parties. This leads to intentionally wasteful designs on a massive scale. The main problem is that all transactions have to be validated by expensive computational operations and double checked by multiple parties. This means waste:
BTC was estimated to use as much electricity as Belgium in 2019. It's hard to trace where the BTC mining comes from, but we can assume it has a huge carbon footprint.
A single transactions is necessarily expensive. A single transaction takes as much electricity as 800,000 VISA transactions, or watching 50,000 hours of youtube videos.
There is a large necessary tax on the transaction, since those checking the transaction extract a few BTC from it to be incentivized to do the work of checking it.
Many design problems can be mitigated by various improvements over BTC, but it remains that a simple database always works better than a blockchain if you can trust the parties to the transaction.
I like Square as a company and see a lot of people are bullish about it. However, a few things stop me from investing. Be interested to hear thoughts but at the moment I am a Square bear. Management Jack Dorsey is a visionary. I don’t think this is controversial. However, his track record at Twitter is worrying for shareholders. Be it daily active user growth, ambition with acquisitions but ultimately failure to monetise a fantastic platform where you have big corporations, celebrities and even the President reaching out to 200m daily active users for free. With Square, the closed loop business model of businesses and consumers is again a fantastic concept that could break the power of Visa/Mastercard. Execution remains to be seen, of course. Competition Square operate in a highly competitive field for consumers and businesses. Let’s take consumers based on Square’s fast-growing Cash App. It offers things a normal bank does like deposits, ATM access, money transfer. If it becomes a fully-fledged bank offering loans, credit; it is competing against the likes of big incumbents (e.g. JP Morgan, Bank of America). Granted they’re dinosaur firms but they already have a huge customer base that are older and, therefore, have more money and deposits. This means it is much easier for them to monetise their customers resulting in high ARPU. Why would these lucrative customers, en-masse, want to uproot their finances to Square when their existing providers will be providing the same service by copying Square, as JP Morgan have done this week? Link For businesses, Square’s provides software offering (invoicing, PoS, online store) but face strong competition from the likes of Shopify who are taking a fully integrated service approach to SMEs which allows them to take their business online but also manage all their backend processes, including payments. This is a highly convenient service for entrepreneurs. Shopify already has 6% share of the online retail market. Square also provides hardware products which make it easy for SMEs, in particular, to take payments. However, there is evidence that retail is facing a more permanent shift in the US vs. the rest of the world with 60% less footfall today than a year ago Link. 58% of Square’s GPV is from food/drink, retail and professional services. Square may have good market share but it is a shrinking industry. And as a final piece, competitors in both spaces are generally in very healthy financial shape: Paypal, Shopify, Global Payments, Western Union and big banks are well-capitalised. Valuation Perhaps you can get over the above with the fact that Square has strong network effects and are able to win customers cheaply. However, in my opinion, Square is priced for perfection. Simply looking at a price/sales metric, it is trading 13x LTM. This is high but maybe relatively reasonable for a fast-growing business. However, 25% of Square’s revenue is accounted by Bitcoin “revenue”. This brings little value to Square (2% gross profit) and even Square themselves discount this revenue in their KPIs because it is “out of their control and not reflective of Square’s performance”. Now onto profits. It is not fair to be too hard on Square’s profitability. After all, it is in high growth phase and its marketing costs were its highest opex line item at roughly 35% for YTD. However, a cursory look at it is Enterprise Value / EBITDA (forward look to Dec2020), it is 242x. If we give credit for Square’s business plan for a further two years, today’s Enterprise Value over broker consensus forecast EBITDA for 2022, it is still a heady 77x. This is when Square is supposed to have EBITDA of $1bn which is three times more than it is forecast for Dec 2020. Priced to perfection. If you compare it to Paypal, it is trading at 39x and 27x EV / EBITDA for Dec 2020 and 2022. Conclusion Square has formidable backers like Ark Invest. I am also not a great believer in “dumb retail” overvaluing a stock for a prolonged period of time. But for reasons above, I am cautious with Square and yet it keeps climbing so please tell me what I am missing…
You'd have to have at least one participant who has access to the paywalled content, but ideally many more than that who can all participate in tossing the content back over the paywall.
You would need to have an immutable and accessible place to put the paywalled content so that other people could point their browsers to that location and see the same content that they would if they were looking at the source.
As noted, you'd want to eliminate as much legal risk as possible. That goes for both the content "suppliers" and the content "consumers" (or, Robinhood and those he gives to).
I am not sure exactly what would happen if I just started copying and pasting paywalled content on, say, Reddit, but I am pretty sure it would catch up with me eventually because I am explicitly re-publishing. This solution would need to be so foolproof that it would put those who would otherwise enforce against it in an untenable position. So, bear with me, here's what I want to know: how flawed, immoral, antisocial, and generally lacking is the following idea? My suspicion is that it is a pretty bad idea and is also pretty naive, but it's still been fun to think about and maybe some of you would like to discuss it. I am interested in any implications that come to mind. ~ The idea: If you want to participate in this scheme, you install a browser extension. If you have access to any paywalled content, then every time you visit a page and view that content, the browser extension grabs the text and compresses it to its smallest possible representation. Next, the browser extension make the smallest possible arbitrary transaction on the blockchain (looks to be about $0.06 currently), and stores as much of the article as it can fit in the OP_RETURN field, which is basically just a blank field for arbitrary text and currently has a size limit of 256 bytes (Note: There are tons of similar ways to accomplish the same thing, any many better blockchains for this use case. I just don't really keep up with the smaller blockchains and think that we can use the Bitcoin blockchain as a simple way to demonstrate the idea). It may take a few transactions to store an entire article, but once it's part of the blockchain, it's there forever, and anyone who would want to subsequently view that article would only need to have access to the indices of the transactions and software that can de-compress the OP_RETURN values and reconstruct the article. I imagine this would also happen in the browser extension. In this way, it's a lot like private torrent trackers. Everybody shares what they have access to, and the pieces of data that comprise the underlying media fly around the network freely. The software client is responsible for piecing them together and making the data cohesive for a given end user. Today, a torrent client is completely legal, but having pirated media on your computer is not. Also, I'm pretty sure that opening your media collection to peers is also illegal, but I'm not actually sure. Using the blockchain as the storage mechanism changes the calculus a little bit. You're not storing any pirated data on your machine, rather, you are stashing bits and pieces of it in a decentralized ledger, which nobody owns, meaning that nobody is really accountable for it. It's also impossible to take down. The question of legality here is something like "are you allowed to include copyrighted works in transaction text on the blockchain?". And if not, how many chunks would the article need to be broken apart into to make it no long "The Article", but rather just pieces of arbitrary data which, if put together in the right order, would happen to reproduce "The Article"? Someone who is more knowledgable than I am would need to chime in here. ~ I wanted to get a sense of if this is even practical so I grabbed the text from a NYT article called "Opinion | No, the Democrats Haven’t Gone Over the Edge" by David Brooks. After running the text through 1000 rounds of compression I got it down to 2702 bytes. The current OP_RETURN size limit for a BTC transaction is 256 bytes, so you would need to make around 10 transactions to store this single article. And each transaction has a fee that goes to miners, which appears to be around 128 satoshis/byte according to https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimato The BTC sent in a given transaction is recoverable, because it could be sent to a wallet that is owned by the sender, but the fees are unavoidable. Given the current rate, storing a NYT Opinion article on the Bitcoin blockchain, forever, would cost about 2707 * 128 Satoshis, or roughly $37. So my immediate thought is wow that's expensive. I also know that it's frowned upon by the Bitcoin community and would be perceived as antagonistic by the miners. But my guess is that there's a better way to accomplish the same thing (again, off-chain transactions or using a totally different blockchain such as Ethereum, or BSV). In fact, in "The unfuckening of OP_RETURN", Shadders shows that one can practically store up to 100kb of text in a given BSV transaction (BSV is a fork of bitcoin, which aims to align more with Satoshi's "original" vision). The result of Shadders experiment? Well, here's the complete prequel to "Alice and Wonderland" in a single transaction, on the blockchain, forever: https://whatsonchain.com/tx/ef21e71d00b9fce174222e679640b09e29ac8a55f321c93e64b16cc3109959f8 Good thing Alice and Wonderland is in the public domain, right? Or... should it even matter what's "public" and what's "paywalled"? What do you think?
🔥Not your keys, not your coins : Why you should not use Paypal for Bitcoin
Today, PayPal announced that they will be launching a cryptocurrency digital wallet for buying, selling and storing Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin. This confirms rumors which circulated earlier this year, and it is seen as a significant milestone by many in the community. A milestone it may be, but it will impact millions of daily users who have, until now, never considered getting into cryptocurrency. For them, PayPal will be the leading authority in a space that it has long sought to discredit. Over 221 Billion dollars were transacted in Q2 of 2020 using Paypal. That represents a rise of 10% in volume in just six months. PayPal is growing and dominating online payments as well as other services such as credit and insurance. It has a long-established reputation of occasionally freezing user funds and censoring payments that conflict with its outlook but the payments giant continues to hold relevance where Bitcoin should have long overtaken it. Perhaps this news marks the beginning of a transition? Is PayPal’s announcement good news for Bitcoin? Until very recently, PayPal was anti-crypto. Writing in 2018, ex-CEO Bill Harris called Bitcoin “the greatest scam ever”, so what’s changed? This sudden turnaround is encouraging, especially as private companies like Microstrategy and Square make grandiose announcements about their own crypto diversification. Should the community embrace them with open arms? After all, this is the start of mass adoption we’ve all been waiting for, right? When a household brand like PayPal starts selling Bitcoin, it’s probably not because they want to spur healthy adoption. In the press release announcing their new cryptocurrency service, PayPal sends out mixed messages. On one hand, the service will be entirely custodial, meaning users will not have the key to their own coins, while on the other they intend to “provide account holders with educational content to help them understand the cryptocurrency ecosystem”. The idea that anyone informed about bitcoin would agree to not holding their private keys might indicate that this educational content will overlook the fundamental rule of “Not your keys; not your coins”. If millions of newcomers are onboarded to Bitcoin by PayPal, there could be a very serious information gap that jeopardizes their experience and undermines key principles of cryptocurrency. This statement from their FAQ is, in practical terms, false: “You own the Cryptocurrency you buy on PayPal but will not be provided with a private key.” No-one should consider money held entirely by a third party as owned by them. Time after time, exchanges have lost user funds, often leaving them with no recourse. A benefit for some will be a promise of greater regulation, where funds can be insured and new users may feel more comfortable than dealing with cryptocurrency exchanges directly, but they will be restricted from actually utilizing their coins. The only reasons to own Bitcoin which cannot be used, would be to invest for the long term, which is incredibly reckless to do when your funds are held by a third party, or speculate on its price, which again, would be introducing the masses to financial mechanisms they do not understand. Is PayPal positioned to be a cryptocurrency leader? As it steps into the forefront, PayPal will be closely watched by companies, institutions, and consumers. While they can boast of “digital payments expertise”, they have historically taken an aggressive stance against users who bought cryptocurrency on exchanges, citing their acceptable use policy, forbidding transactions which “involve currency exchanges or check cashing businesses”. The fact that this clause remains in their policy suggests that they intend to limit users to use only their platform for cryptocurrency, stifling competition and preventing users from ever withdrawing their cryptocurrency to the safety of a wallet they control the keys to. That said, there is something to be said for PayPal’s statement that they will “enable cryptocurrency as a funding source for digital commerce at its 26 million merchants”. Currently, the options for cryptocurrency funding are in their infancy, and Bitcoin loans could see future growth. There is only one thing about PayPal’s announcement that long-term hodlers will be celebrating today: the pump in price. Long-term, if PayPal proceeds without consulting the community and letting their users control their own keys, it offers no value to the space. The greatest risk is that the clout they carry in traditional electronic payments will be interpreted as expertise in crypto. This would threaten the expert advice so carefully crafted by our community, which could be drowned out by the misinformed masses that PayPal brings to the space. For now, no-one can tell how it will turn out, but there are big concerns to address before informed users will turn to PayPal. Welcome PayPal’s initiative with open arms, but by no means look to them for leadership. At best, this announcement indicates that they may fear sinking into irrelevance. *Do not use PayPal for Bitcoin; there are many other places to buy crypto which will let you keep ownership of your coins. * PayPal is conceding to Bitcoin, and the many other aspirational, educational projects within the community should be highlighted to prevent newcomers from falling into a trap of trusting one of Bitcoin’s greatest long-term adversaries. Source : https://blog.trezor.io/why-you-should-not-use-paypal-for-bitcoin-f6e2d436ca96
At this point, the chances of Bitcoin dying are next to impossible
The worst that could happen to Bitcoin was that it would become some obscure decentralized internet network with no real value. But at this point in the game, it's too big to shrink away into infamy. Wall Street is buying, hospitals are starting to accept it, banks are accepting it, stores are accepting it, PEOPLE are accepting it. It's too far adopted at this point for the dominos of adoption to stop falling. We're on a path that leans in an overwhelming direction towards Bitcoin's continued growth and adoption in this world. It was always a Binary equation when it started, and at this point, it's only got 1 way to go. Do you think Grayscale's clients who own the over 450 thousand Bitcoins are going to want to let them go? MicroStrategy who bought over 250 million dollars worth of Bitcoin as it's primary treasury financial reserve asset? Any of these guys who are, and will adopt in at the pro level of the financial world? We're at the brink of another parabolic run, and even if Bitcoin repeats history and 1000% jumps, then dumps 80%, do you think these guys would sell? Even after the drop, they'll still be over 200% on whatever they owned pre ATH(All-Time High Price). AKA, 20k$. These guys are going to see what we all saw after our first parabolic runs. They're going to see what happened, look at the history, and see that it does this every halving, realizing as we all did once, what Bitcoin truly is, and where it is headed. And these are hodlers who are already experienced in holding over 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100+F'ing years. These are the same institutional buyers pumping the stock market right now despite this pandemic. Once they get a taste of Bitcoin, they won't stop doing everything they can to get more. The volatility will slow down, the growth will become more consistent, boring, and predictable even, just as the stock market is today. But the math holds true; once these guys are fully adopted, and all the adoption dominoes have fallen; Bitcoin will be over 10 million per coin. By then, growth will probably be as boring and predictable as the stock market. The math will dignify it to still grow faster than the stock market does today, but boring, with no massive price swings as we see today; where you can buy Bitcoin at a 50% discount just 1 day, or 1 week later. By then, most companies will probably have already converted their stocks into their own cryptocurrencies of sorts. It's the only logical next step; cuts out the stockbroker middlemen, just like Bitcoin cuts out the banks. But, regardless of all that stuff that is likely to come with this path that we're on now, the one thing I know for most certain is, before this next run happens, you'll want to get in. Like now. Before this next run even starts pricing over 20k$. Because, after this whole next run up and drop is said and done, you'll be lucky if we ever see a 20k$ Bitcoin again. The best chances will be a drop to 30k$ if we break just over 100k$, or 70k$ if we break just over 300k$. That's if we even get the 80% drop that history has shown this time around, now with these old school investors joining the game before the parabolic run up even starts. Buy now, before we break 20k$. Hell, keep buying whenever you can until we hit 20k again. I can guarantee you; after 8 years of buying through these markets, there is no better time to buy than right before the start of a parabolic run. Sure, you'll wish you'd have bought when it was at an all-time low price period, but then, you'd have to wait potentially up to 4 years for the next parabolic run to start after a halving, in order to experience any of the crazy historical price run action you've heard so much about. Buying 6 months after a halving like now; puts you on the financial rocket ship that is Bitcoin, right before takeoff, making you able to experience the ride that has made thousands of people addicts to this decentralized network over the last 10 years. IN the next 10 years, it will be millions of addicts; in the next 30, it will be billions. And the price, well the price will be numbers we think today as impossible. Because if you think 10 million is where this bad boy is stopping, then you really don't understand what will happen when the owners of quadrillions in value, become addicted to a decentralized network that's capped out at 21 million coins, and those owners of those quadrillions in value begin to move their asset holdings into Bitcoin; in order to feed their addiction to this decentralized network that many of us have grown to know. Once they know what Bitcoin is, and they have experienced the supply shock that Bitcoin's halvings have on it's value, then they'll begin to move their assets into Bitcoin's network like a crackhead selling their mom's TV just to score an ounce of meth after experiencing its financial ride. Buy every chance you can, every paycheck; hop on this boat before it's too late and you miss another opportunity of insane ROI. Don't get me wrong, even in buying in on the next cycle, you'll still be exponentially profitable if you hold for the long run. But every time we have a parabolic run, that exponential potential becomes less and less. Although exponential none the less. The 10k$ dollars per Bitcoin range will be looked at in 30 years, just like we look at the days of Bitcoin being worth less than a penny per Bitcoin today. Hell, 10 years from now will be looking at a 10k$ per Bitcoin price range like we look at buying Bitcoin at 20$ a coin today.
MicroStrategy's $425M BTC investment thesis - "buy something that can either get cut in half or 10x"
Amidst all of the DeFi volatility, drama and excitement, Bitcoin has started to seem rather boring. Its price is more or less flat to where it was a year ago and you can’t even farm Yams with it. While some have started to view Bitcoin as a useless digital rock, someone did find an interesting use case for it. This week, more details surfaced around how MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor convinced the board of a publicly traded company to allocate nearly all of the company’s $500M cash position to bitcoin. Michael Saylor Saylor graduated from MIT in 1987 and founded Microstrategy at the age of 24. MicroStrategy is a “Business Intelligence” company, which basically creates software that allows companies to use their own data to drive decision making. Interesting side note - Saylor, like any good 90’s internet entrepreneur, also bought a bunch of internet domains and was the guy who ultimately sold Voice.com to Block.One (EOS) for $30M. MicroStrategy’s’ $500M Problem To most people, having $500 million in cash doesn’t sound like a problem. Up until recently, it wasn’t for large corporations either. There was a time before the ‘08 financial crisis when the risk free rate of return on cash was 5% a year. This means a company could sit on $500M, earn $25M a year for doing nothing, and have cash on hand for a rainy day. Fast forward to today, when the risk free rate of return has plummeted to 0.69% due to loose fiscal policies (money printer go BRRRR) alongside inflating asset prices, and it’s a different story. In Saylor’s own words, “we just had the awful realization that we were sitting on top of a $500 million ice cube that’s melting.” Cash is Trash So what’s a corporation to do with a $500M melting ice cube? It turns out it’s not that easy to unload half a billion dollars in a short amount of time. You could buy back half a billion of your own company’s shares. For a company like MSTR, Saylor estimated that would take 4 years. Time MiscroStrategy didn’t have. You could buy real estate. However, commercial real estate prices have collapsed post COVID while property owners still believe their assets are worth what they were in January. In other words, good luck getting a fair market price. You could buy blue chip equities. Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook. However, your risk is symmetric. They can each fall 50% just as easily as they can go up 50%. That left Saylor with silver, gold, Bitcoin, and other alternative assets. A move the company announced it was exploring on a July earnings call. A Bold Purchase Saylor ultimately wanted something that could either get cut in half, or go up by a factor of 10. An investment akin to what buying Amazon or Apple in 2012 was. In other words, asymmetric risk. As a student of technological history, Saylor observed that the winning strategy over the last ten years has been to find some kind of “digitally dominant network” that dematerializes something fundamental to society. Apple dematerialized mobile communications. Amazon dematerialized commerce. Google dematerialized the process of gathering information. Something Saylor noted was common to all recent 10X opportunities is buying when they’ve achieved $100B+ marketcaps and are ten times the size of their next biggest competitor. As Bitcoin is the dominant digital network dematerializing money that’s 10x the size of any cryptocurrency competing to be a store-of-value (not counting ETH here), it fit the bill. Making the purchase With the thesis in place, the next thing Saylor had to do was get everyone at MicroStrategy to sign-off on the unorthodox decision. To do this, he simply made everyone go down the same Bitcoin rabbithole that most people in the industry have gone down. He made everyone at the company watch Andreas Antonopoulous videos, read The Bitcoin Standard, watch Eric Vorhees debate Peter Schiff and listen to Pomp and NLW podcasts. With no strong detractors, MicroStrategy turned to execution. They first put $250M to work purchasing 21,454 BTC in August and another $175M (16,796 BTC) in September for a total $425M and 38,250 BTC. What’s fascinating is that MicroStrategy was able to open such a large position without really moving the market or anyone even taking notice. This speaks to just how liquid of an asset BTC has become. To acquire the September tranche of BTC, Saylor disclosed that they traded continuously for 74 hours, executing 88,617 trades of .19 BTC every 3 seconds. One for the history books Skeptics noted that shares of MSTR have been on the downtrend since 2013, as the real reason behind MicroStrategy’s bold move. Regardless, the move has interesting implications for the company’s shareholders. As TBI observed, MicroStrategy is now both a software company and with ⅓ of its marketcap in Bitcoin, a pseudo Bitcoin ETF. At the time of writing, MSTR is up 20% on the week. Only time will tell if history looks back on this move as a brilliant strategic decision or a massive corporate blunder. In the short term, it scores a massive win for Bitcoin’s digital gold investment thesis. Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones is in. A publicly traded corporation has made Bitcoin it’s primary treasury asset. As CFOs and fund managers around the world undoubtedly take notice, one has to wonder, who’s next? PS - I based a lot of this article on Pomp’s interview with Michael Saylor, which I recommend giving a listen. Original article Source
A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong. In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things. What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do. You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us. At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming. Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born. Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized. Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung. The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance. Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.
The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community. The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.
The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork. As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks. The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.
The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.
Maintain and enhance core Sia software
Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest. Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release. Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer. A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software. With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code. Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire. Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above. As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Support community services
We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours. Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.
Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins
Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.) Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion. Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants. Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Protect the ecosystem
When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary. The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU. In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.
Drive adoption of Sia
Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers. In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.
The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months. On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well. The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets. Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses. Addendum: Hardfork Timeline We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
Addendum: Inflation specifics The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve. Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
Just for discussion: what percentage of your net worth is in cryptocurrency?
Sitting there today, looking at the dip, and thinking "is there any coin you want to buy currently?" I started to look in earnest how much of my "net worth" is in crypto, and whether it's a comfortable amount (spoiler: it is). I'm 37, with about $40,000 (Australian dollaridoos) to my name. No mortgage or assets, basically I pays my rent and my bills, and my salary comes in each month. Probably getting used to the idea I won't be able to get on the property ladder. Anyway, I pondered this today. I have about $11k in Cryptos (probably half in bitcoin, and the rest scattered around altcoins where I believe the technology is good), which makes it about 25% of my savings. That's probably right by me. It's below the threshold "I could afford to lose", and below the threshold I might need to convert it to Fiat out of need or emergency. Frankly, I figure it's the comfortable level, for the money I have. I exited the stock market in June (sorry Buffet, although I'm sure my small contributions did not send shockwaves through the economy), and other than adding a small amount ($100) each week, I don't think it's the right time to invest that way. As I said, no mortgage or appreciable asset to my name. Or kids! And so the rest (let's call it $25,000) is in my bank account earning 1%. (Edit: This is only a temporary affair after pulling out of stocks, and deciding where to go next as the world wobbles). Anyway, that's my story, and I've decided I'm comfortable with 25% (no more) of my savings in crypto - again largely because there's no compelling alternatives, and bank interest is very bland. I wouldn't go much higher, but I am fairly comfortable to have moved that amount over in the last two years, and on the whole it's appreciated as a store of value by about (napkin maths) 10%. Just curious on other people's thoughts?
Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together. The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set. For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework. The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain. For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements. Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look
Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created
Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.
Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.
All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅ https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518
Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.
Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.
Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.
Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅ https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846
Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.
Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once. If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three
Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.
With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅ https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd
Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.
Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots. However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.
A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional
Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now. https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575
The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.
The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.
Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.
Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅. https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373
Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.
With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.
Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.
Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅. https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc
Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.
Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.
A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.
All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅. https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415
The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.
Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.
AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself. There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well. Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.
Recently I decided to change all my professional and personal plans. I left my job. I left my friends and family. I left my country. All for Bitcoin. Here is why.
Discovering my core values I was born and raised in an upper-middle income family in Mexico City under catholic values but turned agnostic as I grew older. I kept the values that made sense, such as the importance of charity and giving back, and threw away the ones that were outdated, such as the focus on guilt as a motivator of change. As a kid, I remember how conflicting it was to see other kids working in the streets, starving, drugged, and abused. I couldn’t understand why they couldn’t focus on their education the way I did. That planted a seed in my spirit that still grows. Seeing in economics hope As a teenager, I entered the rabbit hole of economics with hope. Economics seemed to be this mystical force capable of solving the world’s biggest problems: poverty, corruption, global warming, and many more. I knew that the way we were doing economics was wrong and I wanted to change that. Just think about the horrible things that have been done under the name of communism, such as the Cambodian genocide, or how the United States, the crown jewel of capitalism, makes of fundamental rights, such as healthcare and education, profitable businesses instead of granting everyone equal access to them. While studying my undergrad, I quickly fell out of love with the idealistic idea of economics as an almighty force that can conquer all evils. I saw how economics was often used as an excuse to force simplistic representations of culture and society into complex problems. I never understood how that approach of thinking about problems in a vacuum could be useful. Understanding the power of financial services Later in my life, while working as a consultant for McKinsey, I finally understood the importance of financial institutions. They decide who should do business and have access to goods and services and who shouldn’t. And financial institutions don’t grant everyone that right. It was clear to me that that was a problem that needed fixing. That’s why I devoted so much time studying this industry back then. I came to Berkeley to Business School more out of inertia than out of will. I was sponsored by McKinsey and had an offer to go back. I didn’t know exactly what to do with the experience, but I knew I wanted to keep exploring financial services. During my MBA, I heard about Bitcoin in a serious academic environment for the first time and it immediately caught my interest. Via Berkeley-SkyDeck, UC Berkeley's accelerator, I heard about lastbit (lastbit.io) for the first time. I read everything I could about the project and about the founder, this cool, heavy-metal lover, who wanted to change the world with the disruptive power of Bitcoin. I could see myself in him. I had to meet him. After failing to meet him in person at an event, I just cold emailed him praying for him to answer. He did. That’s how I came in contact with Prashanth for the first time, this impressive 25-year-old genius who managed to get Charlie Lee on board of his project with little more than a prototype. There’s a reason why he managed to do this. Today Bitcoin is almost impossible to spend. With Prashanth’s his solution, anyone will be able to swipe a card or tap their phone and pay with Bitcoin instantly anywhere where they are able to pay with their credit card today. Something not so long ago possible only in bitcoiners’ dreams. Through Prashanth I finally understood what Bitcoin really is. It blew my mind. Unveiling the real meaning of Bitcoin Bitcoin is not an investment asset, it’s the possibility of a new social contract. Bitcoin is a decentralized, transparent, and auditable network to store and transmit value to which everyone in the world can have access to. This presents a real opportunity to redefine money, which today is inherently centralized, first by central banks, and then by financial institutions. The centralization of money has at least three critical problems that Bitcoin solves. First, there is a macroeconomic problem that has to do with monetary policy and that today with the COVID-19 economic crisis is more relevant than ever. Money is supposed to be a reflection of real economic value, but some central banks print money arbitrarily. Bitcoin’s monetary supply is limited by design. Second, centralized financial services are discriminatory and don’t allow free access to everyone. Bitcoin is universal and free. This means that for the first time in human history, everyone will be able to participate in the global economy. And participation is the pillar of democracy. Third, central authorities control private information. The recent attacks to high profile account on Twitter illustrate how vulnerable private information is when stored in centralized networks. Bitcoin allows people to have full ownership and control of their personal and financial information, protecting both their identity and their wealth. As such, Bitcoin emerged in front of my eyes as a way to instrument basic democratic principles in a way in which everyone can have equal representation. Money as we know it will soon be a thing of the past because money as we know it not fair nor egalitarian and now people can choose. I had to quit McKinsey. I had to leave Mexico. I had to stay with lastbit. I had to give this project my all.
xBTC is a revolution in rebasing, we actually argue that we have found what rebasing was made for, the "killer app" for rebasing. On chain tokenized derivatives. xBTC rebases to reward holders when Bitcoin Dominance goes down. xBTC shares three traits with derivatives. xBTC: 1) insures against market movements; 2) increases market exposure; 3) allows access to otherwise hard to trade assets. The notional value of all derivatives is $640T - the real value is $12T. Robinhood made 63% of their revenue from options trading (a derivative). Through the derivatives lens, xBTC can be a price sensor for the demand of digital assets and a hedge against Bitcoin. With xBTC, traders can quickly and easily bet on the future of the market. 🔴 xBTC has five key features: 🔹Dominance Hedge- xBTC allows users to hedge against a fall in Bitcoin Dominance. 🔹Total Diversification- Conversely this means holders are betting on every single other digital asset out pacing Bitcoin. That's right, every. single. digital. asset. Regardless of market segment, technology, blockchain, etc. 🔹Rewarding Holders- Rebasing rewards holders through increasing their supply while the network grows. 🔹Effective Trading Pair and Store of Value- By being pegged to dominance, a number that does not move as sporadically as individual prices, a more stable price will be found which will make xBTC a more effective trading pair and store of value. 🔹One Token Access- One click, one token access, to all of the above. 🔴 xBTC Advisors:
Jeff Kirdeikis - Jeff is the founder and CEO of Uptrennd, the world's most enagaged blockchain based social media platform. His recent project Trustswap could potentially be project of the year.
Sam Rusani - Sam is the Chief Revenue Officer of ShipChain Inc. He is a serial entrepreneur, blockchain advocate and an investor. Sam has worked with some of the biggest brands in the world, such as Sony, Fender, Virgin, Universal Music, Ogilvy, Heineken, VISA, and Mercedes.
Lester Lim - Lester is a veteran digital marketing entrepeneur and a leader in startup incubation. He has operated multiple million-dollar digital marketing and ecommerce businesses, and is currently one of the most sought after incubators to lead the funding rounds for blockchain startups.
Mystery advisor (Will be unveiled soon)
1inch Exchange - xBTC has entered into an official partnership with 1inch exchange, for their first all exclusive launch, ever!
Tellor - xBTC has partnered with Tellor for their oracle service.
Trade Dog (TD)- xBTC has partnered with TD, its a subsidiary division run through O1Ex (a family oriented fund)
🔴 When token launch? Anytime today (24th Sept 2020, PDT timezone). 🔴 Where can I buy this token? From Mooniswap and Uniswap after listing. Follow the official announcement channel for the links. xBTCAnn Website: xbtc.fi Telegram: xBTC_Official Twitter: twitter.com/XBTC_Official
Meanwhile, a US Congressional candidate David Gokhshtein has called Bitcoin a store of value. ‘Bitcoin is pretty much a SOV’ A Republican Congressional candidate who is running in the election on November 3 this year, David Gokhshtein, has again taken to Twitter to comment on the flagship cryptocurrency – Bitcoin. Now, he seems to be a pro-crypto candidate for the US Congress as he has ... Bitcoin: The Absolute Store of Value. Census Open Finance Bitcoin, Economics, Explaining Bitcoin, Finance, History of Money, How Money Works, Hyperinflation, Quotes, Recession, Understanding Bitcoin April 21, 2020 May 27, 2020 3 Minutes. Here are the solid truths about Bitcoin compiled in our weekly News Byte for you to have a clear understanding and a strong realization to its advantages and ... Over the last few years, many have claimed that bitcoin core has turned into, or will soon become, a store of value (SoV).Proponents of the BTC-based SoV theory seem to think that money can ... Further along in the discussion, Cuban admitted that Bitcoin can indeed be a store of value. However, he is doubtful that Bitcoin could impact society and replace the current financial system largely supported by the Fed. Image via @mcuban. The investor points out that there are only three million BTC left unmined and says that only whales will be able to buy it but not average people with low ... Bitcoin lost more value today, reaching roughly $10,500. Will the cryptocurrency shed more blood, or will it bounce back quickly?
Hurry, buy Bitcoin? Why? According to Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve it's a store of value. Its storing capability is better than that of gold. It's time to stop the confusion. Join Us ... Live Bitcoin Trading With DeriBot on Deribit DeriBot Backup 538 watching Live now Gold, Silver & Crypto: Insurance Against a Corrupt Fed - Kiyosaki, Anthony Pompliano, Brien Lundin - Duration: 44:48. Squarespace link: Visit http://squarespace.com/techquickie and use offer code TECHQUICKIE to save 10% off your first order. Why did Bitcoin's value crash aft... Bitcoin Technical Analysis & Bitcoin News Today: I'll use technical analysis on the Bitcoin price to make a Bitcoin price prediction. Watch the video to learn more! 🧢Follow me on Twitter: https ... Bitcoin will be the new store of value and crypto will be the new technology evolution and I want to be a part of that trough this channel. I will be sharing my ideas about the future of Bitcoin ...