• Breaking News

    Wednesday, June 16, 2021

    Home Unlabelled Cryptocurrency Daily Discussion - June 16, 2021 (GMT+0)

    Cryptocurrency Daily Discussion - June 16, 2021 (GMT+0)

    June 16, 2021

    Cryptocurrency Daily Discussion - June 16, 2021 (GMT+0)

    Daily Discussion - June 16, 2021 (GMT+0)

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 05:00 PM PDT

    Welcome to the Daily Discussion. Please read the disclaimer, guidelines, and rules before participating.

    Disclaimer:

    Though karma rules still apply, moderation is less stringent on this thread than on the rest of the sub. Therefore, consider all information posted here with several liberal heaps of salt, and always cross check any information you may read on this thread with known sources. Any trade information posted in this open thread may be highly misleading, and could be an attempt to manipulate new readers by known "pump and dump (PnD) groups" for their own profit. BEWARE of such practices and exercise utmost caution before acting on any trade tip mentioned here.

    Please be careful about what information you share and the actions you take. Do not share the amounts of your portfolios (why not just share percentage?). Do not share your private keys or wallet seed. Use strong, non-SMS 2FA if possible. Beware of scammers and be smart. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose, and do not fall for pyramid schemes, promises of unrealistic returns (get-rich-quick schemes), and other common scams.

    Rules:

    • All sub rules apply in this thread. The prior exemption for karma and age requirements is no longer in effect.
    • Discussion topics must be related to cryptocurrency.
    • Behave with civility and politeness. Do not use offensive, racist or homophobic language.
    • Comments will be sorted by newest first.

    Useful Links:

    submitted by /u/AutoModerator
    [link] [comments]

    Coinbase forced me to hold when I was 16

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 12:25 PM PDT

    I bought Bitcoin when I was 16 on Coinbase, and almost immediately after they changed their policy so you had to be 18 to use the exchange. They locked my account, so I was forced to hold. I'm sure they would have let me withdraw my funds if I contacted them but I figured I would just come back when I'm 18. Well I forgot about it until I noticed the bull run in february, I logged on and damn... 1,000 percent gains on my 20 dollars. Best investment of my life. Since then I emailed them, they unlocked my account, and I've been DCAing weekly.

    Edit: Holy crap just got out of work and seeing this post blow up made my day! Thanks everyone!

    submitted by /u/Figfogey
    [link] [comments]

    China is kicking out more than half the world’s bitcoin miners – and a whole lot of them could be headed to Texas

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 02:09 PM PDT

    New Bitcoin bull market hodlers are refusing to sell at $40K, data suggests

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 02:34 AM PDT

    For the first time in my life I could purchase Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and Monero from a crypto ATM here in Geneva (Switzerland). Mass adoption is really starting!

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 05:00 AM PDT

    For the time first time ever I used a crypto ATM here in Geneva - although hidden in the manor store, four coins were available for purchase with a 1000 chf limit per person per day. Cash only, you are given a qr code with a public key to send and receive the amount your purchased. The machine was operated by Bity, and for any purchase of Bitcoin I was asked a fee of 4 chf.

    This is truly astonishing considering that 10 years ago buying Bitcoin was almost like using limewire. Gradually, I hope to see more ATMs pop up and enable people to invest without having to disclose all your personal information on sites like coinbase or binance.

    Mass adoption is really around the corner, and with more and more people jumping on board, I do believe crypto ATM will be a bridge of accessibility. When crypto will become a useable currency in major stores these will become essential!

    Edit: Thank you all for taking the time to leave a comment and for the awards and upvotes! I must clarify that the reason I made this post was literally because I think it's useful for all of us to hear, discuss and argue about crypto ATMs and debate on accessibility of crypto to the public and investors, and also to help fellow noobs (like myself) and non-noobs discover something we didn't know much about until now. I literally found out about this ATM not even two days ago.... Also, how freaking cool is it that you can buy crypto from an ATM?! Come on, that's just awesome (with pros and cons I hear you).

    Edit2: For all those that are upset I didn't cross post from the other subreddits I posted at - my bad, didn't know I could do that!

    submitted by /u/Mr_Wolf9
    [link] [comments]

    Why delegated-type proof-of-stake is unsustainable

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 01:58 AM PDT

    Essentially, a delegated-type proof-of-stake consensus mechanism is one where the chain is validated by a smaller cabal of entities on the behalf of many others. In this setup, you run a validator, and need to canvass for delegations from other stakeholders, and your validation duties are decided by how much stake votes for you. As you might have guessed, this includes pretty much all smart contract chains, including Cosmos, Cardano, Solana, Tron, EOS etc. albeit with significant variations. Here, I'll explain why all of these chains might be ticking time bombs. I try to keep my posts as simple as possible, but this topic is very important to me and very few seem to be talking about it, so I'll go into more details. It's very hard to be succinct here because there's just so much so wrong with delegated-type proof-of-stake consensus mechanisms. Please note that this is still a personal rant, rather than a research piece. I don't expect anyone to read this or do anything about it, and delegated-type proof-of-stake chains will continue to be the norm, but I must get this off my chest.

    But first, a bit of personal context. I debated about including this bit, but I thought it'd be interesting. One of my interests in this space was I always believed proof-of-work to be unsustainable long term. This is why I first got interested in BitShares (the first dPoS chain), and later was heavily involved in the Steem community (the second dPoS chain). I always knew this consensus mechanism was highly centralized, but it was a straight up trade-off. They used a fraction of energy, silicon and other resources, enabled 3 second block times and 1,000 TPS in 2015, all of which is something most chains still can't do today. Some may recall Steem was the #3 project in mid-2016 and in the top 10 for most of the year.

    In 2016 I co-founded a DAO (shout out to Curie folks, still going strong!) that went on to run a consensus witness (top 20) on Steem. While no one knows about it, I'd claim Curie was one of blockchain space's first successful DAOs (ironically, it was formed right after TheDAO melted down), and had built up seven figure holdings within a year or so (a lot of which evaporated in the bear market...). In 2017, I walked away from Curie and Steem when I realized that, actually, delegated proof-of-stake was not the solution. The trade-offs were not worth it. Indeed, the eagle-eyed might find hundreds of comments from me in 2016-17 heavily criticizing Steem and its consensus mechanism, on Steem itself. I wasn't the only one, of course, but our criticisms went largely ignored, to devastating consequences.

    In March 2020, Justin Sun acquired Steemit Inc - chief developers of Steem - and his first action was to get CEXs to collude and take control over Steem. He succeeded, and to this day, as far as I'm aware, Steem remains under attack. There has never been a greater failure of consensus mechanisms in blockchain history. I'll note that the original Steem community forked away to Hive, but this is not a solution. What was once the #3 project behind only Bitcoin and Ethereum is ostensibly split up into two (and actually, multiple other smaller forks) at #220 and #260. Anyway, my point is that I'm probably the only person in the world that ran a consensus validator on a delegated-type chain and voluntarily walked away from it, so I do think I offer a unique perspective here. I know Vitalik has commented on the Steem attack multiple times, but he wasn't an integral part of the Steem community, and missed some of the nuances that I observed.

    EOS and Tron were the last chains to share the Graphene-lineage from BitShares and Steem. Starting with chains like Cosmos and Tezos, they significantly improved on the dPoS concept. Of course, due to the stigma associated with dPoS, they started calling them just "proof-of-stake". Call it whatever you will, the fact is these remain delegated-type proof-of-stake chains. I'd rather just call them delegated instead of delegated-type, but I'd rather avoid the ire of shills of those chains. As an aside, correct me if I'm wrong: Binance can take over the Tron blockchain and its $30B in USDT at any time they want.

    Anyway, here are the improvements made by modern delegated-type chains, and why I contend it's still a terrible idea:

    Plutocracies and cabals - not trustless or permissionless

    The first thing was to increase the consensus validator count from 20-30 to a few hundred or perhaps removing limits entirely. This is definitely a big step forward, but it doesn't really address the issue that delegations are nothing but popularity contests or plutocratic elections. Whether you have 20 consensus validators or 1,000: the most popular few dozen to a hundred validators will always garner the most votes. And these validators can absolutely collude to form cabals. In most (but not all) delegated-type chains, They have nothing (or relatively very little) at stake and nothing (or very little) to lose - they are just abusing stake delegated to them from others. As such, this is not actually PoS, but more like Poos - proof-of-others'-stake.

    The average validator has no chance, few if any would vote for them. If you run a CEX, are a popular influencer, or know a bunch of whales, you win, everyone else loses. It's absolutely not a trustless and permissionless system: you're trusting the whales to elect the right validators, require their permission to validate the network on an even playing field, and the whales are then trusting the validators. Granted, as the token distribution decentralizes, the first bit becomes less problematic, but at this point most delegated-type chains also have very centralized token distributions where a supermajority of validation is undertaken by a small cabal of validators and whales. Given that many of these chains have very centralized token distributions, all you need is a few validators to convince a few whales, and the chain is yours.

    This gets worse and more centralized over time, as the top validators and their delegators grow their relative holdings. Cardano has a bizarrely naïve mitigation for this with the saturation limit, but this has proven to be utterly useless. You can't prevent sybil attacks. Case in point: Binance runs over 70 fully saturated validators. If anything, this just makes things more centralized as regular stakeholders have more cognitive overhead to figure out which validator of many held by a single entity to vote for; while centralized entities like Binance can easily automate this process, spinning up as many validators as they want, self-voting for themselves. Fortunately, other chains have avoided this trap, but my above point holds: plutocratic elections where the winners are paid to consolidate their dominance is plain abysmal.

    Bribery markets

    One of the biggest issues with earlier dPoS chains were that validators could just bribe delegators to vote for them, creating a market of bribery. The second innovation these newer chains made was to "pre-bribe" delegators. It's been marketed nicely as "staking rewards", but make no mistake: it's merely just a bribe to keep you in check, so you'd not accept bribes directly from validators. Of course, validators are free to create a secondary bribery market over and above this, from their own rewards, but it does help. The other problem was that there was limited incentive to delegate your stake. With incentivizing delegations, much more of the stake is now delegated. This makes newer delegated-type chains significantly more secure.

    Harsh recovery from attacks

    It's definitely much more difficult to attack a modern delegated-type chain for the reasons stated above, but it's still possible. Now, different delegated-type chains have different methods and I'll acknowledge some which do things better than others later, but let's consider the typical delegated-type chain like Cardano. If you do manage to attack a typical delegated-type chain like this, it's lost forever. The only recourse then becomes a massive social coordination effort.

    High inflation, economically unsustainable

    For a delegated-type chain to operate sustainably, you have to both keep your stakeholders bribed, and your validators incentivized. This means very high inflation rates, typically above 10%. Talk about crypto being an inflation hedge to fiat - these delegated-type chains are even worse. They'll claim that the plan is to reduce inflation rates over time, but actually, that's not how it works. Delegators will stop accepting the pre-bribes if the inflation rate falls below a certain level. Worse still, if the high-TPS delegated-type chains actually gain the activity they claim, it'll be very expensive to run validators over time, as state bloat bites hard. Validators would need serious incentives over a long term. Of course, the token's price will also appreciate, but it's not clear where an equilibrium can be found.

    No culture of verification

    Another drawback to high-TPS delegated-type chains are they are not actually trustless. The high system requirements means the average user or developer will never be able to run a full node or verify the chain - so you're trusting the validators, over and above the fact mentioned above that they are elected by plutocracy. Consider this perfect quote by Hasu: "You defend against malicious protocol changes by having a culture of users validating the blockchain / Not by having PoW or PoS". Of course, not all delegated-type chains are high-TPS. You have low-TPS chains like Cardano and sharded chains like Polkadot that this particular critical issue doesn't apply to as much. However, even these chains require validators to be online 24x7x365 and could have high system requirements anyway.

    Potential solutions

    Frankly, there are many more related issues that come with the territory of plutocratic cabals, but I'll stop here.

    Am I being paranoid? Yes, absolutely. The probability of a modern delegated-type chain being attacked is low, but it's possible, and when they stop being ghost chains and have substantial value, there might even be an incentive to do so. Only the paranoid survive, as Grove said, but even beyond that, we should strive for better solutions. There's no reason not to.

    So, what are the solutions? Clearly, proof-of-work has its own issues. Potentially, "true" proof-of-stake without delegations might be it.

    Chains like Polkadot include hybrid solutions, where they take the requirement for validators posting a significant bond with slashing mechanisms from "true" proof-of-stake, while continuing to be a delegated-type consensus mechanism. The advantage here is that unlike most delegated type chains, if its attacked, the validator and delegators will be slashed, so the chain will be able to recover. Another interesting solution is Algorand, which randomizes its delegations, so that mitigates the bribery attack vector from validators to delegators.

    But the best solution, so far, is to simply remove delegations entirely. This is easier said than done, as we needed new tech like weak subjectivity and signature aggregations to make it happen, which didn't exist before 2020 or so. Currently, there's only one chain that does this, and that is Ethereum beacon chain. (Yes, I know there are older chains that don't have delegations, but beacon chain the first one that mitigates some of their issues at scale without succumbing to delegations). Beacon chain eliminates a lot of the risks mentioned above, and is a fully trustless and permissionless system where each validator has an equal and predictable responsibility to validate the chain, and only needs to be online ~60% of the time to turn a profit. You don't need to ask whales for votes, you just stake and are just as relevant as any other validator. Economically, this is much more sustainable, with Ethereum's issuance rate for validators being 0.5% currently, up to a maximum of ~0.85% when the proposed active validator cap hits. There's no need to bribe anyone. Needless to say, this is an order of magnitude improvement over the typical delegated-type chain. However, it has its own issues:

    - It's still a plutocracy, and whales can run an arbitrary number of validators. Unfortunately, this is simply an inherent flaw of proof-of-stake. What works in Ethereum's favour is that its token distribution is significantly decentralized already, after 6 years of high inflation proof-of-work mining. I'd say this is the best mitigation possible: run your network as proof-of-work for several years before transitioning to proof-of-stake.

    - 32 ETH is too much. Even if Ethereum has a culture of users verifying the chain, and the system requirements are reasonable for the average user, very few people can afford to stake 32 ETH in an experimental platform. This in turn leads to delegated-type pools form on top of beacon chain.

    Now, one line of thought would be that delegations and staking rewards are natural, and it's what people want. I'd argue that everyone wants free money, but whether it benefits the network in the long term is an entirely different question. No, we don't need delegations, and the goal would be to eliminate them as far as possible. I'm hardly a cryptographic researcher, so please don't take my solutions seriously, but here's one possible way we can overcome all of this and finally make a sustainable consensus mechanism, once and for all:

    - Start with beacon chain.

    - Introduce an active validator cap. Ethereum researchers currently propose this at 1.048 million, but it could be much lower than that given what comes next.

    - Introduce a smart, dynamic rotation mechanism, while dramatically dropping the staking requirement to 1 ETH or so. There can be 50 million validators, but only a small fraction of those are active at any given time, managed pseudorandomly by the rotation mechanism. It makes it nearly impossible to co-ordinate any form of attack. It's still not 100% perfect, and there'll still be delegations, but we'll get to a point where its so massively decentralized that it wouldn't matter.

    - Minimal viable issuance: Lower the rewards to the bare minimum. Like I said above, you don't need incentives for non-validating stakers: just enough so the network is secure, and has enough non-delegating validators on board. On a related note, mitigate MEV. Rollups will take the lead on this, and the best solutions can then be adopted on L1.

    To summarize, delegated-type proof-of-stake chains are by their very design plutocratic cabals that centralize over time, exposing a multitude of security vulnerabilities, and are very expensive to sustain with high inflation to mitigate some of those. Some delegated-type chains are more secure than others, but Ethereum's beacon chain proof-of-stake marks a giant leap forward, but still has its own issues fortunately with potential solutions. As an industry, we can, and must, do better.

    Lastly, I see one usecase for delegated-type proof-of-stake where it might be viable. Ironically, on chains that make almost all of these delegated-type chains obsolete: rollups. On rollup chains, because security and decentralization has already been contracted out to L1, sequencer decentralization only need to perform the task of liveness and censorship resistance. Delegated-type proof-of-stake can do this, without any of the security compromises mentioned above because it doesn't actually have to provide security, though even in this case I can see rollup developers adopt better solutions.

    PS: For those requesting, I'll now be cross-posting on Medium: https://polynya.medium.com/why-delegated-type-proof-of-stake-is-unsustainable-f18cf42e6112

    submitted by /u/Liberosist
    [link] [comments]

    Coffeezilla, a YouTuber whom covers scams, and fraud in the crypto market as well as the traditional markets just uploaded his video on Tether.

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 03:35 PM PDT

    The Media Warns You to Stay Away From Bitcoin when it's Low, But Celebrates When it hits New All Time Highs.

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 08:38 PM PDT

    Like this article from March of 2019.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/02/dont-buy-bitcoin-says-wealth-manager-peter-mallouk.html

    $5000BTC? Oh no.
    Some expert outlining the fact that there are 1000s of shitcoins as the reason it will collapse.

    Funny because he's not mentioning that there have been, and still are 1000s of shit stocks out there. "1000s of" doesn't determine the value of Ethereum, Bitcoin, XLM or whatever credible crypto.

    But come time for New ATHs.

    What's this?....it's hit $50K? HODL?

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/17/bitcoin-btc-price-smashes-through-51000-to-hit-new-all-time-high.html

    This is amazing. Let's talk about how amazing it is at $50K

    They started off with...

    Major investment banks appear to be warming to bitcoin, while Tesla and other firms have also shown support for the cryptocurrency

    Basically hinting that big things are happening.

    Articles like that FOMO people into it.

    The media does this with the housing market too.

    I will never forget hearing clips from 2007.. Houses going up, Everyone is buying and taking out equity...look this one guy flipped his home and is now looking good

    Then the market crashed. When the market was at its low. They tell you to stay away from real estate. 😂

    So in other words. The media seems like a bigger risk to me. It really is true. Run when they FOMO, buy when they are scared.

    submitted by /u/JuicySpark
    [link] [comments]

    Chainlink is one of the safest crypto investments

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 02:21 PM PDT

    I love Bitcoin and Ethereum as much as the next guy, and consider them incredible investments. However, I feel that Chainlink is at least as safe of an investment as these two, with just as much potential for growth

    For one, Chainlink has incredible real-world applications that aren't going away anytime soon. Yes, they have competition with what they're doing, but they are, at least in my opinion, far and away one of if not the best choice for what it does. This is evidenced by the fact that even during the bear market last year Chainlink was seeing prices as high as $18 (only 28% less than what it is now - and this was around the same time Bitcoin was over 80% less than what it is now).

    What makes this even more appealing is that despite seemingly having a floor that's higher than most cryptos even mid-bear market, it has incredible growth potential. Just last month the price topped $50, over double what it is now. This also makes the current price a great entry point.

    Anyway.... I don't normally shill coins on here (check my history if you don't believe me), but I have a lot of love and respect for LINK and wanted to share it with you all - ignore if you want!

    submitted by /u/BoundariesAreFun
    [link] [comments]

    So one of the biggest BTC holders sold today - now what?

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 04:38 AM PDT

    They sold around 1500 BTC, so basically a fraction of their holdings.

    This address.

    Sold 1.5k BTC at the price of 40520. Now has "only" 111k left of BTC (not $, actual BTC). Hardly can call them a whale anymore... /s

    ​

    Make no mistake, they are taking advantage of a pump, and their team of analysts (best guess) probably decided today would be a good day to sell some. This is a textbook example of a DCA sell order.

    ​

    If you go deep into their purchase and sell history, they regularly sell when there's a pump and regularly buy when there's a dump. Only once have they been "hurt" by the decision to sell (that was in Jan and Feb '21 when BTC was going wild breaking through 30k and 40k in 10 days). Apart from that, they predict dumps and weekly ATHs spot on. sells in increments of 1500 BTC (3k or 6k if he predicts a larger dump).

    ​

    We'll see what they do tomorrow, they usually buy on Tuesdays, scratch that, it's Wednesdays.

    Edit: added "they" due to popular demand. My bad, again. A big sorry for all the dudettes here on the sub.

    Edit: thank you for all the awards. I have no idea what to do with them, but they sure look pretty.

    Edit: seriously, gold?? anonymous kind redditor, thank you, but I really don't know what to do with gold. Don't spend your money on that. Buy a satoshi or sth.

    submitted by /u/giddyup281
    [link] [comments]

    Roubini, Krugman, Yellen oppose crypto, not because they are old, but because they are Keynesians

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 01:40 AM PDT

    Every time there is a discussion about Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, Janet Yellen, Elizabeth Warren and others, I see terrible ageist/generational arguments like "this old man can't understand new technology", "this old woman stuck in the past", "these boomers" etc.

    These are not only counterproductive and naive arguments but also distracting from real reason why these people are so much against crypto. The real reason why all these people against crypto is not their age (or being part of previous generation). In short, these people are so against crypto because they are statists to the core.

    For example, Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman and Janet Yellen are followers of New Keynesian economics. It's even in their bio in Wikipedia (check "School or tradition" section). The only way for them to accept crypto is to completely throw away their Keynesianism because it's inherently statist. That's not going to happen and it has nothing to do with their age or generation but with their desire for state controlled economy.

    Furthermore, one of godfathers of crypto is actually Friedrich Hayek who wrote famous book called "The Denationalization of Money" in 1976:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denationalization_of_Money

    Here is a short video with quotes from Hayek:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uo-KfnkhI

    By the time, he gave this interview (1984), he was 85 years old man and he was way ahead of his time!

    Cryptocurrencies are just modern embodiment of almost century old debate - Keynes vs. Hayek.

    Milton Friedman also predicted rise of cryptocurrencies (he called them - anonymous e-cash):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlwxdyLnMXM#t=14m40s

    He gave this interview (1999) when he was 87 years old.

    Timothy May wrote his famous essay called "The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto" in 1988. This essay had a big influence on Wei Dai:

    http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

    By the way, this essay is the first link in original Bitcoin whitepaper. Timothy May would turn 70 this year. Unfortunately, he passed away in 2018.

    Even long before, Hayek and Friedman, Carl Menger wrote free market theory of money called "On the Origins of Money" (1892).

    In short, crypto can't be inherently generational thing because its philosophical/economical foundation created by 100+ year old men (if they were still alive today). The real reason why all these modern "economists" oppose crypto is because they are statist to the core and they will never accept the idea that something can exist outside of state control (especially money!).

    So real debate isn't between generations but between different schools of thought and free market theory of money is very old idea which found itself in cyberspace.

    submitted by /u/omgcoin
    [link] [comments]

    Bitcoin Spiked to a 26-Day High Above $41,000

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 02:17 AM PDT

    SEC Announced it Will Not Tackle Cryptocurrency Regulation this Year

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 11:16 AM PDT

    •Late Monday afternoon, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) made public its regulatory agenda for 2021.

    •This is an unexpected development for many market watchers because the chairman made repeated public comments, including a broadcast interview last month, where he stated that the cryptocurrency space needed oversight to protect investors.

    •The regulatory omission of crypto from the SEC's possible policy punch list is surprising given recent news regarding cryptocurrency miner energy consumption, increasing ransomware attacks

    source

    submitted by /u/olderfucker1
    [link] [comments]

    Court denies SEC request for info on Ripple's recent XRP transactions

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 12:08 AM PDT

    Why you shouldn’t listen to what most news media has to say about crypto

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 07:32 PM PDT

    I'm an Australian and pretty much until a couple months ago all the majority of news media over here did was just bash cryptocurrency stating that it's just people having a lucky punt and that's all, literally never anything good was said about it. This is why I was incredibly surprised when suddenly one day they completely changed their tune on it and actually starting talking about it somewhat positively. This is a surprise up until the point where you realise majority of the news media here is owned by Rupert Murdoch. I had my suspicions and what do we know today it's announced he is investing $100m into some NFT project. I already knew a lot of the media here was a joke but this just frustrates me even more how someone is so blatantly able to push the narrative they want. Even more frustrating that once they changed their tune some of the people in the older generations did too. Also he can just change his mind one day and the it'll just return to how it was before. Always take what you see with a grain of salt as a lot of the time there will be someone behind it wanting to push a narrative that they will benefit out of.

    submitted by /u/LWOS101
    [link] [comments]

    VET holders - staking is available on Binance.com right now

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 12:51 AM PDT

    I check available staking option every day on Binance to see if there is anything I hold which is eligible for staking rewards. My VET has been sitting in flexible savings for the last 6 months earning negligible returns. Today I was surprised to see that staking options had opened for VET (and a couple other cryptos I hold as well!)

    Figured I'd post about it in case anyone else has their VET on Binance.com (don't think it's available for US users, sorry) and wants to get a bit better than the less than 1% returns from flexible savings.

    submitted by /u/thegooddocgonzo
    [link] [comments]

    El Salvador Considers Paying Workers Salaries in Bitcoin

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 01:59 PM PDT

    Shiba Inu price shoots up more than 35% after Coinbase Pro listing

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 02:25 PM PDT

    Yes, that’s correct. Banks should be scared decentralised financial projects - crypto is the future

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 12:04 AM PDT

    I do not remember seeing Elon Musk support the blockchain space in such a way! The recent blog article by Mark Cuban is one of the most bullish things you'll read. It could drive a lot of new investors to the market. We need to make more noise around it.

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 03:07 AM PDT

    There are responsibilities on those in wealthy countries who want global adoption

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 10:24 PM PDT

    Before I head back out into the field I wanted to leave this here. It's long by this sub's standard, but you can do it.

    Having lived in Africa for the better part of three decades I've witnessed oppression, dictatorships, and genocide, all up close. It's a far cry from the comfortable life I had growing up in the US.

    I've also witnessed the "Leapfrog Generation" in real time as they have transformed life on this continent (Leapfrog Generation is the massive youth population who skipped landlines and computers and went straight to mobile platforms due to lack of access to the former).

    The future of blockchain and cryptocurrency isn't "starting" because a Latin American authoritarian made Bitcoin legal tender so he can enrich himself and avoid sanctions, or because someone saw Bitcoin on a formula one car, the potential future has been playing out in Africa for years in a meaningful way.

    Here virtual money is as commonly understood as growing up without a proper banking system. Because of this everything cryptocurrencies aim to solve is naturally baked into the economies of places like South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and many more.

    -A large population without traditional bank access

    -A massive population under 30

    -Tech-Savvy

    -Already have a virtual money infrastructure that's been "easily" adapted to actual payment-for-goods plugins for cryptocurrencies

    There's no reason to look anywhere else for a "bullish" and fertile testing ground than right here in the countries of Africa.

    Some statistics:

    Total value of Bitcoin transactions under $10,000 (USD):

    January 2020: 306K ($154.5M)

    June 2020: 601K ($316.1M)

    with continued growth

    ~60% of Africans are under 25

    -By 2045 African continent will have the largest workforce on the planet

    -33% of Nigerians (largest population and economy) use cryptocurrency, and not just for remittances but for paying for goods

    -54% of Africans surveyed were willing to adopt a "one-world cryptocurrency."

    Luno was early to the market and has worked to expand crypto adoption by educating people about the technology, and it's paid off because now almost 5 million of their 7 million users are in Africa.

    This is where cryptocurrencies are actually experimenting with the true purpose of the technology, but there's a dark side that's completely out of their hands, and if you're reading this it likely involves you.

    There's no question that crypo's adoption has been accompanied by a plethora of scams and illicit activity. This is the unavoidable consequence of an emerging and unregulated technology, but crime is manageable with time.

    People in this community like to casually throw around things like "crypto is freedom to the people" largely from the comfort of their developed nation, from behind the protection of their prolific militaries, and within a system where if cryptocurrency fully collapsed they would still be living better than most of the 1.37 billion people here. There are exceptions, of course.

    The reality of the "freedom from oppression" provided by cryptocurrencies is much different looking from the outside in. At the end of the day many of these people are using cryptocurrency much differently than you are. While it does serve as a speculative investment vehicle here, it also represents much more. "Diamond hands" (cringe af btw) aren't an option when you use it for purchasing food.

    All the hope for the technology's future isn't in their hands, though. No matter how much it may improve lives, no matter how much it may increase access to a global financial system, at the end of the day wealthy countries determine how much, if at all, this technology will be part of their future.

    This is for three reasons:

    -Wealthy nations have the people who control the bulk of the investment that determines its value and funds future investment

    -Wealthy nations have the power to decimate said value with regulations/bans that would dramatically affect the markets, leaving poor people holding nearly worthless assets (this could shift but right now the future is controlled by wealthy nations and citizens of those nations)

    -Their own governments cracking down for a variety of reasons, many of which are about control

    The first two are a result of the reality of life in historically impoverished nations who disproportionately affected by the decisions of wealthy countries in a global economy, but with respect to cryptocurrency this impact is huge.

    The last one is too complicated for this post but it's greatly influenced by the first two.

    One of the most frustrating things about this sub is how casually people disregard these realities while acting against their own best interest by pushing terrible narratives while ignoring the interest of those who are becoming increasingly dependent on this tool.

    Like it or not what's said in this echo chamber matters. This subreddit is quoted across publications that are read internationally, and it's increasingly becoming a source of dissuading people's interest in the space.

    The endless "diamond hands, "to the moon," and "hodle" posts and comments may appear "funny" but they come off to everyone else as a group of people incapable of intelligent, nuanced discourse.

    Add to this the celebrations, not to mention justifications, of propping up some of the world's most oppressive leaders and it comes across as a special type of tone deaf to people who have lived through, or currently live under oppressive conditions.

    This type of behavior only lends credit to those who believe the entire idea of cryptocurrency is a joke, while giving them ample ammunition to use against it. This has real-world implications in a country like the US where media fight for clicks that shape the public narrative.

    "Bukele uses Bitcoin to avoid sanctions after tightening his grip on El Salvador"

    This wouldn't be a good look in the headlines for the people trying to get cryptocurrency adoption, especially after praising him. It also only serves to convince wealthy nations to ban cryptocurrencies. The answer is no, you cannot separate Bukele from the action. That's not how the real world works.

    This is especially sad because there are so many other stories happening in other parts of the world worthy of public attention.

    I have no illusions this will change behavior here. Monetizing karma makes forms a nearly impenetrable echo chamber of misinformation and confirmation bias regardless of consequence. After all, the same financial incentives that have degraded news coverage in the US are on full display in this subreddit.

    I do hope that at least a couple of you will look into some of the wonderful things happening in Africa and talk about those, and their challenges. It's an early, even if incomplete, potential real-world "proof-of-concept."

    It's far from perfect, it may ultimately fail, but it's an example of actual real-world utility beyond speculative investment and remittances on a relatively large scale. It's also doing amazing things such as helping to stabilize smaller economies.

    Finally, it's okay that cryptocurrency doesn't have all the answers, and people should stop pretending it does. It's also not perfect, and that's okay too. Nothing ever will be.

    tl;dr: some discussion can't and shouldn't be reduced to two sentences. Stop being lazy and read

    submitted by /u/Drown_In_The_Void
    [link] [comments]

    More people invested in crypto last year than stocks and shares

    Posted: 15 Jun 2021 05:47 AM PDT

    Just set up the Algorand wallet on my wife's phone!

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 02:48 AM PDT

    Gonna start sending my Mrs a few ALGO each week. I have asked her not to spend any for now. I just want her to share in the wealth that crypto is creating. And that juicy 6% APY! Good luck to all you Algonauts out there!!!

    submitted by /u/Small_Floor7106
    [link] [comments]

    Simple logic why Safemoon is absolute trash

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 03:29 AM PDT

    I just found a few comments talking about the Merch they are selling.

    Which in itself is already kinda fishy but the following info takes the cake.

    You know you can pay in fiat from aaaaalllll over the world.. but you know what cryptoCURRENCY you cant use to pay for ?

    Safemoon.

    The irony in that is just amazing. The "fans" now try to defend this with saying the devs just save them from future profit loss.

    If that coin would be worth so much in the future they sure as hell would accept it as payment.

    Next time someone tries to talk down on you ask them this question

    "If your coin is the Future why dont your own dev´s accept it as payment?"

    Watch their heads explode.

    Edit : Here the icing on the cake

    You know .. from sending it from the UK to the UK makes a lot of sense having that shipping cost.

    submitted by /u/Wowfan121231
    [link] [comments]

    El Salvador's Bitcoin Plan Is Stealth De-Dollarization

    Posted: 16 Jun 2021 02:55 AM PDT
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment