Tuesday, June 9, 2020

[Altcoin Discussion] Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Thread topics include, but are not limited to:

  • Discussion related to recent events
  • Technical analysis, trading ideas & strategies
  • General questions about altcoins

Thread guidelines:

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • All regular rules for this subreddit apply, except for number 2. This, and only this, thread is exempt from the requirement that all discussion must relate to bitcoin trading.
  • This is for high quality discussion of altcoins. All shilling or obvious pumping/dumping behavior will result in an immediate one day ban. This is your only warning.
  • No discussion about specific ICOs. Established coins only.

If you're not sure what kind of discussion belongs in this thread, here are some example posts. News, TA, and sentiment analysis are great, too.

Other ways to interact:


[Daily Discussion] Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Thread topics include, but are not limited to:

  • General discussion related to the day's events
  • Technical analysis, trading ideas & strategies
  • Quick questions that do not warrant a separate post

Thread guidelines:

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • Do not make posts outside of the daily thread for the topics mentioned above.

Other ways to interact:


Dump Incoming? Bitcoin Price Action Matches Wyckoff Distribution Model (current BTC/USD price is $9,760.41)

Latest Bitcoin News:

Dump Incoming? Bitcoin Price Action Matches Wyckoff Distribution Model

Other Related Bitcoin Topics:

Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain


The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools.


Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

Binance support number 1800-561-8025 CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number 1888-310-8025 brand. 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎 𝟓𝟔𝟏 𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number 1800-561-8025's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number 1800-561-8025had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number 1888-310-7194's headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number 1800-561-8025was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number 1800-561-8025is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number 1800-561-8025has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number 1800-561-8025has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number 1800-561-8025office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number 1800-561-8025office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number 1800-561-8025 announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number 1800-561-8025is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

Binance support number 1800-561-8025 CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number 1888-310-8025 brand. 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎 𝟓𝟔𝟏 𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number 1800-561-8025's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number 1800-561-8025had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number 1888-310-7194's headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number 1800-561-8025was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number 1800-561-8025is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number 1800-561-8025has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number 1800-561-8025has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number 1800-561-8025office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number 1800-561-8025office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number 1800-561-8025 announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number 1800-561-8025is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


First Mover: Crypto Broker Voyagers Stock Has Doubled This Year, Beating Bitcoin (current BTC/USD price is $9,727.60)

Latest Bitcoin News:

First Mover: Crypto Broker Voyagers Stock Has Doubled This Year, Beating Bitcoin

Other Related Bitcoin Topics:

Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain


The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools.


Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

Binance support number 1800-561-8025 CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number 1888-310-8025 brand. 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎 𝟓𝟔𝟏 𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number 1800-561-8025's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number 1800-561-8025had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number 1888-310-7194's headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number 1800-561-8025was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number 1800-561-8025is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number 1800-561-8025has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number 1800-561-8025has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number 1800-561-8025office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number 1800-561-8025office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number 1800-561-8025 announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number 1800-561-8025is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

Binance support number 1800-561-8025 CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.Binance Support Phone Number +(𝟣) 𝟖𝟎𝟎-𝟓𝟔𝟏-𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓 Customer Support Number

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number 1888-310-8025 brand. 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎 𝟓𝟔𝟏 𝟖𝟎𝟐𝟓

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number 1800-561-8025's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number 1800-561-8025had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number 1888-310-7194's headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number 1800-561-8025was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number 1800-561-8025is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number 1800-561-8025has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number 1800-561-8025has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number 1800-561-8025office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number 1800-561-8025office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number 1800-561-8025 announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number 1800-561-8025is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


OKEx: Bitcoin’s June 2 Flash Crash Made Some Exchanges Scramble — Here’s What Happened | June 09, 2020 at 03:39PM

Bitcoin’s June 2 Flash Crash Made Some Exchanges Scramble — Here’s What Happened

Last week, the price went on a roller coaster ride from the night of Monday June 1 until the afternoon of Tuesday, June 2 (UTC time). It surged to a three-month high of $10,396, per OKEx’s BTC Index Price , before plunging by $800 in less than 24 hours — causing a loop of liquidations alongside a Coinbase outage .

On June 1, the price of Bitcoin shot up from $9,450 to above $10,000, gaining eight percent. After the pump, the price made a correction and was changing hands between $10,050 and $10,200 — a very narrow range — over the next 10 hours. Around June 2, 2:45 PM UTC, the price suddenly plunged nearly $800 in ten minutes, dropping from $10,150 to below $9,400 while liquidating $347 million across derivatives exchanges in only one hour.

The sudden plunge left Bitcoin prices widely divergent on various derivatives exchanges. BitMEX was the most notable outlier, which had a perpetual swap contract with the lowest price of $8,600 during the volatile action. Perpetual swaps on other major exchanges once ranged as low as $9,232 to $9350, per ICO Analytics data.

The lowest levels across derivatives exchanges on June 2. Source:ICO Analytics

Why did Bitcoin’s price drop?

OKEx BTC Long/Short Ratio — 5/29 6:00 a.m. to 6/5 6:00 a.m. (UTC). Source: OKEx

Retail traders FOMO’d in

From OKEx’s trading data , we also risk accumulating after the aforementioned pump. The BTC Long/Short ratio spiked to 1.76 from 1.19 in less than six hours — indicating that retail traders were chasing the rally for Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) on it.

Moreover, the number of stablecoin Tether (USDT) transfers to exchanges spiked overnight and hit an all-time high of around 20,000, according to Glassnode data. Glassnode also pointed out on its Twitterthat,”given that the inflow exchange volume did not significantly increase, this implies a large amount of small-sized Tether deposits.”https://twitter.com/glassnode/status/1267573405517262848

Premium and funding rates attracted arbitrageurs

The June-expired futures premium on major exchanges reached an annualized range of 26.78 to 41.92 percent on Tuesday morning, as per data from crypto lending company . From OKEx’s BTC Quarterly Future, we have seen the premium rise to $160 from $70.

Since retail traders and investors started FOMO-ing in with high leverage, the funding rates across derivatives exchanges went crazy. All predicted funding rates went above 0.15 percent on Tuesday morning, according to aggregated derivative exchange data provider Bybt.

https://twitter.com/bybt_com/status/1267633740055904256

The high premium in futures and high funding rates in perpetual swaps attracted a lot of arbitrage traders, who stepped into short positions to take advantage of the price difference.

Technical indicators warned of a reversal

After the huge pump on June 1, several technical indicators displayed risk alerts.

QCP Capital pointed out right after the pump on its Telegram broadcast that” We see this as a possible near-term top with multiple TD reversal signals in play -a weekly TD 9 (confirmed), a daily TD 13 (confirmed).”

The TD 9/13 indicator tends to be accurate on higher time frames because it requires 13 candles to close within a certain structure.

Possible dump from an unknown BTC mining pool

CryptoRank detected that an unknown mining pool had moved a huge amount of BTC on June 2 — a total of 4,513 bitcoins (about $45 million). The same outflow from this mining pool on May 20 was in line with the price drop on May 20.

Furthermore, CryptoQuant noted on its Twitter that whales had moved coins to some derivatives exchanges just a few hours before the dump. https://twitter.com/cryptoquant_com/status/1267841852683649026

Open Interest (OI) on OKEx also revealed possible crypto whale movements. OI increased from 640 million contracts (1 contract = $100) to 810 million contracts when Bitcoin’s price shot up to above $10,300. The price spike triggered a huge amount of short position liquidations on Monday night but OI did not drop. This indicates that some whales opened short positions at the top of the range when liquidation orders pushed the price up.

Why was there such a wide price spread across perpetual swaps?

Then, on Tuesday afternoon (UTC), June 2, the price of Bitcoin suddenly crashed. While other BTC perpetual swaps fell to a price level near $9,300, the perpetual price on BitMEX plummeted to $8,600.

A spread of -5.98 percent between BitMEX’s perpetual swaps and Coinbase’s BTC price was recorded by data provider . A total amount of $96 million positions was liquidated on BitMEX in one hour.

_BitMEX — Coinbase Basis. 6/1–6/4. Source: Skew_In its June 5 report, Arcane Research said the situation was caused by overextended leverage, which led to large positions getting automatically sold when the price drops:

“These sell orders went all the way down to $8,600 before all got filled. This cascade of liquidations is what resulted in the $1,000 deviation on BitMEX from other exchanges.”

A crypto derivatives product manager, who wishes to remain anonymous, told OKEx Insights:

“Too many trailing stop loss orders and liquidations wiped out the liquidity in the order book, leading to a liquidation spiral. It wasn’t until $8,600 that orders were finally filled on BitMEX. After March 12, we noticed that the order book on BitMEX is not as deep as before — but it is not obvious in normal trading days.”

Yu Qing from SkyLine Capital told OKEx Insights in comments:

“A single very large liquidation could trigger a lot of small positions to go bust. This will lead to a liquidity drain and leave a long wick on the chart — but what price level could trigger a very large liquidation is more random.”

Looking into the BitMEX XBTUSD Liquidations chart, we can find a $10 million position getting liquidated at 14:46:46 UTC, followed by a series of liquidations. This $10 million liquidated position was the largest one across all exchanges on Tuesday.

BitMEX XBTUSD Liquidations. 6/1–6/4. Source: Skew

Ongoing liquidity issues at BitMEX

All of the aforementioned comments point to one thing: BitMEX was facing a liquidity issue.

According to CryptoDiffer , three other major derivatives exchanges — OKEx, Huobi and Binance — had about the same amount of liquidations as BitMEX on June 2. However, the perpetual swap price on these three exchanges were very similarly placed around $9,300.

Amount of liquidations by exchanges on June 2. Source:CryptodifferMoreover, looking at the average bid/offer spread to trade $10 million of BitMEX perpetual swaps on June 2, liquidity on BitMEX dried out, multiplying the bid-ask spread by 40 times — a big spread from an average of 0.16 percent to 6.36 percent for a $10 million buy order.

_BitMEX Perpetual Swap - — Tiered Price: $10 million($). Source: Skew_According to data provider Skew, daily trading volume on BitMEX fell significantly on March 14, two days after the price of Bitcoin plummeted 50 percent. Meanwhile, OKEx, Huobi and Binance began to outperform BitMEX in daily trading volume on the days that followed.

_BTC Futures — Aggregated Daily Volumes. Source: Skew_On June 8, for example, OKEx, Huobi and Binance traded $3.66 billion, $3.27 billion and $2.49 billion in futures in 24 hours, respectively. BitMEX traded $1.92 billion, as per data. Though OI remained at a high level of $0.83 billion on BitMEX, its 24-hour trading volume is barely ranked in the top three.

Exchange 24h BTC Futures Volumes vs. Open Interest ($bn). SkewBitMEX’s declining trading volume is correlated to its poor performance during periods of extreme market volatility.

During the events of March 12 to 13, Bitcoin’s flash crash triggered the most liquidations on crypto derivatives exchanges. The top cryptocurrency by market capitalization fell from $7,200 to sub $4,000. BitMEX interrupted trading for 25 minutes. At that time, the lowest trading price of perpetual swaps on BitMEX, Binance and OKEx was $3,596, $3,621 and $3,811, respectively. BitMEX was also trading at the lowest price across the exchanges.

In an with Cointelegraph, the Founder and CEO of Celsius Network (), Alex Mashinsky, said:

“I think they lost the customers they had to liquidate in March during the flash crash. Also, many other exchanges now offer exactly the same product and have many other features BitMEX does not have so it is harder for BitMex to rebuild the customer base.”

Earlier this year, BitMEX experienced another liquidity issue on its Ripple (XRP) trading pair. The XRP/USD price on BitMEX quickly collapsed from $0.33 to $0.13 — a drop of nearly 60 percent — around 14:00 UTC on February 13 . It recovered to $0.3277 within one minute.

OKEx Insights presents market analyses, in-depth features, and curated news from crypto professionals.Originally published athttps://www.okex.com?on June 9, 2020.


Bitcoin’s June 2 Flash Crash Made Some Exchanges Scramble — Here’s What Happened was originally published in OKEx Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

📖Continue reading..

👉Register on OKEx exchange


Bitcoin Options contracts worth $814M await expiry (current BTC/USD price is $9,677.28)

Latest Bitcoin News:

Bitcoin Options contracts worth $814M await expiry

Other Related Bitcoin Topics:

Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain


The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools.


I think I was just involved in a third party scam! Mods help please!

Dear Paxful Mods,

I think I have just unknowingly involved myself in a third party scam but I am not sure. On June 8th I started selling bitcoin to a user called “Fredickwells”. Account link: https://paxful.com/user/Fredickwells?status=all. Fredickwells told me that his friend, who is from Malaysia is buying bitcoin for him, and would transfer the money. His account looked trustworthy and I told him to put the Trade ID inside the bank description which he did. I received a bank transfer payment from “person x” and all was good ( We have since done about 5 trades since then ). However on June 9th, I was just contacted by another person, called: ‘armani00000’ profile link: https://paxful.com/user/armani00000?status=all, who was also trying to buy bitcoin from me. Upon verification, he gave me an IC which has the exact same name as the previous bank transfer I received from ‘Fredickwells’. The IC name given to me by ‘armani00000’ is ‘Chan Khoon Lin’ as well.

I am assuming they are doing a third party scam on ‘person x’ and the bank transfer may be disputed soon once the bank owner realises what is going on. Could you take a look into this as soon as possible and possibly lock up the bitcoin in their account in the event that this is a scam as the bank transfer payment may be reversed.

I can provide more detailed/personal information to moderators


Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number +𝟣𝟪𝟥𝟥-𝟪𝟤𝟧-𝟤𝟧𝟢𝟤 Independent from the exchange

Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number 1833-825-2502

CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 brand.

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502's headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502, announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Yahoo Mail Customer Care Number1833-825-2502 is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


Bitmex technical support number(845)^261^9663

Bitmex technical support number BitMax is a Global Digital Asset Trading Platform based by way of Wall Street quant buying and selling professionals. BitMax consists of OTC (fiat-crypto exchange), crypto-crypto exchange, margin trading, perpetual

Bitmex technical support number

Eagle Rock has a lengthy standing digital partnership with Bitmax and until now this yr we agreed to distribute our sizeable catalogue and make bigger our digital presence on Amazon AVD. In a little over three months the shop is now alight with over 200 of our most prestigious concert events and tune documentaries and this is all thanks to the committed.

if you seem round for third-party opinions online, you will locate that there are pretty a few stable evaluations posted by way of clients and evaluation sites.

This leads me to say that Bitmex seems to be legit. They have additionally paid out bitcoin to us with no issues.

Bitmex technical support number(845)^261^9663

Bitmex technical support number(845)^261^9663

Bitmex technical support number(845)^261^9663

Bitmex technical support number(845)^261^9663


OKEx: Passive Earnings in Crypto: DeFi Lending and Staking in a Zero Interest Economy | June 09, 2020 at 11:50AM

Falling yields majorly impact those who seek passive income via savings, since parking capital in banks does not deliver much in the way of returns. Typically, savers bought , deposited money into saving accounts or directly lent money for interest. However, with traditional opportunities dwindling, the crypto space has the potential to emerge with viable alternatives, gaining traction and encouraging wider adoption of digital assets in general.

In this piece, OKEx Insights introduces crypto lending and staking as offerings that can potentially attract new users seeking passive returns and boost global acceptance for blockchain-based digital assets and financial systems.

Passive income opportunities in the crypto space

Bitcoin (BTC) popularized the concept of being your own bank. While BTC paved the way for digital assets to be recognized as such, other, newer protocols have managed to diversify crypto use cases and facilitate entire ecosystems. One of these is the decentralized finance (DeFi) space, built on top of the Ethereum (ETH) network.

DeFi essentially represents a broad category of financial applications built on public blockchains. It combines protocols, tokens and smart contracts to provide financial accessibility to individuals, (mostly) without the need for traditional banking channels.

Some of the services currently offered in the DeFi space include payment processing, custodial services, collateralized loans and lending/borrowing. Given the decentralized nature of these financial services and products, they aim to be permissionless (anyone can use them), transparent and censorship resistant. The use of blockchain technology and smart contracts also significantly reduces counterparty risk.

While lending your crypto assets within the DeFi ecosystem is one of the simplest ways to leverage your coins and tokens for passive income, staking is another method, particularly for those who are tech savvy and want to participate in maintaining the blockchain networks they use.

is the process of actively participating in transaction validation on a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchain. As opposed to the typical Proof-of-Work (PoW) protocol (like Bitcoin’s), in a PoS consensus mechanism, holders of a minimum-required balance of a specific cryptocurrency can validate transactions and earn rewards for doing so.

Presently, as per Staking Rewards data, there are 14 PoS protocols that support staking, with a network value of over $100 million.

DeFi lending explained

As is the case in traditional finance, lending remains the most straightforward method for earning passively in the crypto space. DeFi services that support lending and borrowing allow investors to earn steady returns leveraging their digital assets instead of leaving them dormant in wallets.

As per stats provided by , the total value locked — or held — in DeFi applications currently stands at $1.01 billion, out of which $769.9 million, or more than 75 percent, is locked in lending services.

While Maker is unique in its mechanics, especially as it functions to maintain the 1 DAI = $1 peg, other decentralized lending platforms like allow for more traditional experiences, where lenders start earning interest as soon as their capital enters a pool.

On most platforms, the lending and borrowing rates are determined algorithmically, according to supply and demand. When a large amount of funds in the pool is lent out, interest rates rise accordingly, thus depressing loan demand and attracting user deposits to replenish the pool. On the contrary, when the use of funds is reduced, the interest rate will be reduced in order to stimulate demand.

As shown in the chart above, large-volume DeFi lending platforms have high stablecoin demand, as opposed to Bitcoin and Ethereum (ETH) due to their volatility. While the highest rate, at the time of writing, is around 8.58 percent, there has been a general downturn in DeFi interest rates recently.

Just last quarter, , for instance, was offering an interest rate of 14.33 percent on DAI loans, while Compound was offering around 8.5 percent for the same. The rate hike was a result of large-scale borrowing and the resulting shortage of funds.

Compared to traditional banking rates, DeFi lending projects offer much higher passive income yields, especially for developed countries. But they are not without their unique challenges and opportunities which need to be overcome and realized before adoption can be expected.

Challenges and opportunities for DeFi lending

While DeFi projects offer attractive passive income streams, they still and are not quite battle-ready yet in terms of security. Protocols such as and have recently been the subjects of severe security lapses, denting market confidence.

Moreover, DeFi projects are not without their barriers to entry — users must first buy a supported cryptocurrency, generally using a traditional bank account and an exchange, before they can use the decentralized, crypto-only platforms.

Ultimately, as we transition further towards a digital economy, DeFi products are likely to attract users, and potentially improve crypto acceptance and adoption rates around the world.

Staking rewards as passive income

Staking is another popular avenue for passive income in the crypto space. This method is set to gain more attention as Ethereum, the second largest cryptocurrency by market cap, shifts to a proof-of-stake protocol later this year.

While ETH’s move to PoS is much-anticipated, the top 30 cryptocurrencies include a few blockchains that already support staking rewards, such as EOS, Tezos (XTZ), (ATOM) and (DASH).

When it comes to staking rewards, however, different coins offer different yields, as shown in the chart below.

At first glance, staking rewards appear very attractive compared to DeFi lending rates. But there are inherent risks involved, especially since you will be staking coins, which are very volatile in terms of price, and even your rewards will be paid in those coins, adding more risk in the event of a market slide.

Moreover, as new coins are minted, their supply is diluted, resulting in inflation, which also impacts the actual returns you get (reflected by adjusted returns in the chart above).

While it is safer to stake coins with larger market caps and low volatility, their returns are typically much lower than those offered by small cap, but riskier coins — as shown in the scenarios discussed below.

A performance overview of the most popular staking coins

We took a closer look at some of the most popular coins for staking to examine their performance over the past year. Returns are calculated based on daily compounding, with 365 periods per year.

Tezos has a staking reward rate of 5.7 annual percentage yield (APY). One year ago, the price of XTZ was $1.58. If an investor put $1,000 in XTZ, they would have bought 630.99 XTZ tokens. After one year, based on the APY, the number of coins in the investor’s wallet would be 667.89 — worth $1,799.54 since XTZ’s price grew to $2.69.

With these figures, the investor would be looking at an annual profit of 79.9 percent. However, there was a period when the market dropped, around October 2019, and the entire worth of this investor’s XTZ holdings was only $488.38 — they stood to lose $511.62.

As you can see from the chart below, changes in token price determine the entire return of this investment. Earnings from staking would only show up in the final stages of the investment due to compound interest.

On the other hand, some tokens, such as IOST, have very high staking rewards. IOST offers 10.35 percent APY, but is highly volatile and has depreciated sharply over the last year.

If an investor put in $1,000 one year ago, when the price of IOST was $0.013688, they would have gotten 73,057 IOST tokens. After one year, the number of coins would have accumulated to 80,999, but they would only be worth $361.09 since the price of IOST dropped to $0.004458.

This scenario marks a 64 percent net annual loss for the investor, even though the staking rewards percentage was very high and attractive.

While the examples above demonstrate its inherent risks, staking remains attractive for those seeking passive income and is to explain to non-crypto users, who can compare it to stock dividends.

On the flip side, believe staking reduces market liquidity since it encourages “locking” coins, which are then taken off the market, and may also hinder the use of decentralized applications, which are part of DeFi.

The road ahead, Ethereum and increased scrutiny

The next big milestone for staking and DeFi is Ethereum’s upcoming upgrade. Their PoS protocol is already live on a testnet and Ethereum 2.0 validators can expect to earn between 4.6 to 10.3 APY as rewards for staking.

For Ethereum 2.0, however, you need to hold at least 32 ETH in order to run a validator node, or stake. As such, we are observing a growing interest in ETH accumulation in anticipation of the network’s switch to PoS.

Cao Yin, Founding Partner of Digital Renaissance Foundation, expressed optimism about the network’s transitions to PoS and its impact on ETH’s price. He told OKEx Insights:

“Staking can have a big impact on the price of Ethereum. We have seen big Staking projects like Tezos performed very well in terms of price. The Staking mechanism reduces a big amount of tokens in circulation. We estimate that several millions of ETH will be locked into a variety of staking nodes, which will have a significant impact on the supply in the market. In the simplest terms of supply-demand economics, with supply decreasing and demand increasing, the price of ETH should rise.”

With the introduction of ETH staking support, we will also see increasing competition between DeFi lending and staking yields, as investors have the option to choose the most lucrative method.

However, this added visibility and attention can also hasten regulatory restrictions. United States regulator the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has warned in the past that PoS tokens could be treated like securities in the U.S.

Jason Williams , partner at Morgan Creek Digital, touched upon such a possibility in his comments to OKEx Insights. He likened the risk of staking to the initial coin offering (ICO) bubble that burst in the face of regulatory pressure:

“If PoS tokens are treated like securities the CFTC would create an ICO 2.0 event like we faced historically dramatically changing the course of adoption. If POS tokens are treated as registered securities and survive that test, we could treat them as we do DRIPs (Dividend reinvestment plans) from an accounting and tax perspective.”

Disclaimer: This material should not be taken as the basis for making investment decisions, nor be construed as a recommendation to engage in investment transactions. Trading digital assets involve significant risk and can result in the loss of your invested capital. You should ensure that you fully understand the risk involved and take into consideration your level of experience, investment objectives and seek independent financial advice if necessaryOKEx Insights presents market analyses, in-depth features and curated news from crypto professionals.Originally published athttps://www.okex.comon June 8, 2020.


Passive Earnings in Crypto: DeFi Lending and Staking in a Zero Interest Economy was originally published in OKEx Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

📖Continue reading..

👉Register on OKEx exchange