Circle Crypto Startup Set To Raise $250 Million In New ...

Stablecoins Are Not as Safe as You Think. How Your USDT, PAX, BUSD Get Frozen in a Moment

Stablecoins Are Not as Safe as You Think. How Your USDT, PAX, BUSD Get Frozen in a Moment
Being created on the basis of blockchain, stablecoins were considered to be a safe haven for investors… until recently. Why is their immunity elusive and how does the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) plan to control them?
Established in 1989 by the G7, the FATF inter-governmental organization develops policies to resist money laundering and financing of terrorism. It sets standards and implements legal and regulatory measures to combat illegal financial transactions.
They developed recommendations for the monitoring of money laundering and keep revising them regularly. In case of non-compliance, law enforcement is executed via regional financial organizations. As of 2019, there are 39 full members of FATF, including the USA, UK, Australia, most EU countries, Singapore, India and the Russian Federation.
Since 1st July, the FATF organization has been headed by Marcus Pleyer. During the last FATF meeting, the new president expressed his concerns about global stablecoins and organizations that issue them. Although the organization had already dealt with these cryptocurrencies, it highlighted that, “it is essential to continue closely monitoring the ML/TF risks of so-called stablecoins, including anonymous peer-to-peer transactions via unhosted wallets”.
Is it ever possible to control crypto wallets that are not hosted on online exchanges? – you’d ask. We’re used to the fact that cryptocurrencies are outside the reach of banks and governments. However, when it comes to stablecoins, things are different.

It’s in the code

What makes stablecoins special is that they are pegging to fiat currency, for example, 1 TUSD = $1 USD. This means that such assets should be backed up by real money stored in the bank accounts of the issuing organization. Consequently, stablecoin creators need to comply with the requirements of the SEC, FATF and other controlling agencies, if they are to operate in the cryptocurrency sphere and be authorised to sell stablecoins. Transparent reports are not the only requirement, stablecoins must also provide the possibility of account blocking.
Surprisingly, this feature is implemented in each stablecoin. The experts from QDAO DeFi are covering several stablecoin protocols that enable this function.

OMNI-based USDT

Issued by Tether Limited, USDT is a stablecoin that was originally created to be worth $1 with each token backed by a $1 real fiat reserve. The currency was successfully promoted and added to major cryptocurrency exchanges but stayed a controversial asset. Despite the claims of Tether Limited, they failed to provide any contractual right or other legal claims to guarantee that USDT can be swapped for dollars or be redeemed.
In April 2019, Tether’s lawyers explained that each USDT was backed by only $0.74 in cash or equivalent assets. No audit of dollar collateral was done. A month before that, it changed the backing to include loans to affiliate companies. The scandal also involved the Bitfinex exchange that was accused of using USDT funds to cover $850 million in funds lost since 2018. They were also accused of manipulating USDT to push the BTC price.
Tether is available on five blockchains: Omni, Ehereum, EOS, Tron and Liquid. Only the latter does not have a freezing feature. Omni was the first protocol for USDT. Blocking of users’ accounts is possible, thanks to the following piece of code:

https://preview.redd.it/uqho45l33om51.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0feebdae086b0deeccde05278eaf3cc760f9e2b
Apparently, it’s used to blacklist addresses and contracts.

PAX

The concerns about PAX were centered around the notorious MMM BSC Ponzi scheme. Before the widespread adoption of DeFi services, it was the second-largest gas consumer after Ethereum. Out of 25,000 daily transactions, 5,000 were performed by MMM BSC. It was reported to be a scam but none of the accounts were frozen. Does it mean PAX lacked the resources to regulate illicit activities?
Evidently, not. The protocol code has a LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONALITY function that allows for the freezing/unfreezing of contracts or burning assets on blacklisted accounts. It turns out, anyone risks having their PAX coins destroyed during an investigation process while their accounts stay blocked.

History of frozen accounts

In 2019, the ZCash Foundation and Eric Wall conducted research on the privacy of stablecoins and revealed several frozen addresses. It’s not clear why exactly they were blocked. Most probably, it happened shortly after the exchange withdrawal – users took this action after witnessing platforms being hacked.

https://preview.redd.it/pkbruqm83om51.png?width=838&format=png&auto=webp&s=b068c5b8c5e5439892eaf5feefa3fbc93c694c8c
USDT was implicated at least twice in scandals to do with freezing. In April 2019, about $850 million in Tether dollars sent by Crypto Capital Corp. were frozen by a New York court. Tether and Btfinex were accused of participating in a cover-up to hide about $850 million worth in clients’ funds. By July 2020, Tether had frozen 40 Ethereum addresses with millions of USDT (some of them are shown in the screenshot above).
The Centre Consortium was the next to follow their lead; about a month ago, it blacklisted an address with USDC worth $100,000. That was done in response to law enforcement.
Yet, it’s not only Europe and the USA imposing control over cryptocurrencies. Since June 2020, the Chinese government managed to block several thousands of users’ bank accounts. It was done to resist illicit activities, especially money laundering. On some of those accounts, no activity had been detected for several months. Meanwhile, prior to April 2020, Chinese residents moved over $50 billion worth of crypto outside the country borders – more than is officially allowed (a maximum of $50,000 per person).
The authorities claim that USDT and other stablecoins are often used in illegal activities. Together with the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), they are developing new ways of investigating digital crimes and money laundering operations involving exchanges and crypto wallets. Local financial bureaus and police are working tight-lipped about investigating startups and crypto exchanges. And they are succeeding at it.
In July 2020, Chinese authorities confiscated BTC, ETH and USDT worth $15 million from people who allegedly ran a fake cryptocurrency scheme.
By the way, not only corporate accounts are being closed. One investor claims his account had been frozen after using yuan to purchase crypto. Also, users who transfer illegally obtained money outside of the mainland in large amounts are under suspicion. Does it mean the Chinese government has started tightening the screws on cryptocurrency users?

DAI, USDT on Liquid and USDQ are the main options for stablecoin deposits

So, where can you store your crypto assets? USDT on Liquid and DAI are not the only solutions available. Consider making a deposit in USDQ, the stablecoin of the QDAO ecosystem. Like other stablecoins, it’s 1-to-1 pegged to USD. However, it cannot be frozen by a government, financial organization or anyone from the QDAO team. You can check it yourself by reading our Smart contract and USDQ Audit.
In QDAO, users’ accounts are never frozen by a single person – all account issues are solved by the entire QDAO community, with the help of a QDAO governance token.
In case of blocking (the chances of which are almost non-existent), you can address the QDAO community and get timely help.

Bottom Line

With FATF taking this new course of action, we might witness serious pressure on stablecoin providers. Some projects will resist it, but it’s still not safe to store your assets in popular stablecoins, especially USDT. Your account can be frozen by authorities for dozens of reasons without the possibility of retrieval.
Yet, there are a number of reliable alternatives and USDQ stablecoin is one of them. QDAO DeFi platform users feel free to manage their crypto reserves and make profitable deposits.
Want to be the first to hear QDAO DeFi news and updates? Visit our website and stay in touch with us on social media: Twitter, Facebook, Telegram and LINE (for the Japanese-speaking community).
submitted by QDAODeFi to u/QDAODeFi [link] [comments]

Crypto Banking Wars: Will Coinbase or Binance Become The Bank of The Future?

Crypto Banking Wars: Will Coinbase or Binance Become The Bank of The Future?
Can the early success of major crypto exchanges propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market?
https://reddit.com/link/i48t4q/video/v4eo10gom7f51/player
This is the first part of Crypto Banking Wars — a new series that examines what crypto-native company is most likely to become the bank of the future. Who is best positioned to reach mainstream adoption in consumer finance?
While crypto allows the world to get rid of banks, a bank will still very much be necessary for this powerful technology to reach the masses. We believe a crypto-native company, like Genesis Block, will become the bank of the future.
In an earlier series, Crypto-Powered, we laid out arguments for why crypto-native companies have a huge edge in the market. When you consider both the broad spectrum of financial use-cases and the enormous value unlocked through these DeFi protocols, you can see just how big of an unfair advantage blockchain tech becomes for companies who truly understand and leverage it. Traditional banks and fintech unicorns simply won’t be able to keep up.
The power players of consumer finance in the 21st century will be crypto-native companies who build with blockchain technology at their core.
The crypto landscape is still nascent. We’re still very much in the fragmented, unbundled phase of the industry lifecycle. Beyond what Genesis Block is doing, there are signs of other companies slowly starting to bundle financial services into what could be an all-in-one bank replacement.
So the key question that this series hopes to answer:
Which crypto-native company will successfully become the bank of the future?
We obviously think Genesis Block is well-positioned to win. But we certainly aren’t the only game in town. In this series, we’ll be doing an analysis of who is most capable of thwarting our efforts. We’ll look at categories like crypto exchanges, crypto wallets, centralized lending & borrowing services, and crypto debit card companies. Each category will have its own dedicated post.
Today we’re analyzing big crypto exchanges. The two companies we’ll focus on today are Coinbase (biggest American exchange) and Binance (biggest global exchange). They are the top two exchanges in terms of Bitcoin trading volume. They are in pole position to winning this market — they have a huge existing userbase and strong financial resources.
Will Coinbase or Binance become the bank of the future? Can their early success propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market? Is their growth too far ahead for anyone else to catch up? Let’s dive in.
https://preview.redd.it/lau4hevpm7f51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c5de1ba497199f36aa194e5809bd86e5ab533d8

Binance

The most formidable exchange on the global stage is Binance (Crunchbase). All signs suggest they have significantly more users and a stronger balance sheet than Coinbase. No other exchange is executing as aggressively and relentlessly as Binance is. The cadence at which they are shipping and launching new products is nothing short of impressive. As Tushar Jain from Multicoin argues, Binance is Blitzscaling.
Here are some of the products that they’ve launched in the last 18 months. Only a few are announced but still pre-launch.
Binance is well-positioned to become the crypto-powered, all-in-one, bundled solution for financial services. They already have so many of the pieces. But the key question is:
Can they create a cohesive & united product experience?

Binance Weaknesses

Binance is strong, but they do have a few major weaknesses that could slow them down.
  1. Traders & Speculators Binance is currently very geared for speculators, traders, and financial professionals. Their bread-and-butter is trading (spot, margin, options, futures). Their UI is littered with depth charts, order books, candlesticks, and other financial concepts that are beyond the reach of most normal consumers. Their product today is not at all tailored for the broader consumer market. Given Binance’s popularity and strength among the pro audience, it’s unlikely that they will dumb down or simplify their product any time soon. That would jeopardize their core business. Binance will likely need an entirely new product/brand to go beyond the pro user crowd. That will take time (or an acquisition). So the question remains, is Binance even interested in the broader consumer market? Or will they continue to focus on their core product, the one-stop-shop for pro crypto traders?
  2. Controversies & Hot Water Binance has had a number of controversies. No one seems to know where they are based — so what regulatory agencies can hold them accountable? Last year, some sensitive, private user data got leaked. When they announced their debit card program, they had to remove mentions of Visa quickly after. And though the “police raid” story proved to be untrue, there are still a lot of questions about what happened with their Shanghai office shut down (where there is smoke, there is fire). If any company has had a “move fast and break things” attitude, it is Binance. That attitude has served them well so far but as they try to do business in more regulated countries like America, this will make their road much more difficult — especially in the consumer market where trust takes a long time to earn, but can be destroyed in an instant. This is perhaps why the Binance US product is an empty shell when compared to their main global product.
  3. Disjointed Product Experience Because Binance has so many different teams launching so many different services, their core product is increasingly feeling disjointed and disconnected. Many of the new features are sloppily integrated with each other. There’s no cohesive product experience. This is one of the downsides of executing and shipping at their relentless pace. For example, users don’t have a single wallet that shows their balances. Depending on if the user wants to do spot trading, margin, futures, or savings… the user needs to constantly be transferring their assets from one wallet to another. It’s not a unified, frictionless, simple user experience. This is one major downside of the “move fast and break things” approach.
  4. BNB token Binance raised $15M in a 2017 ICO by selling their $BNB token. The current market cap of $BNB is worth more than $2.6B. Financially this token has served them well. However, given how BNB works (for example, their token burn), there are a lot of open questions as to how BNB will be treated with US security laws. Their Binance US product so far is treading very lightly with its use of BNB. Their token could become a liability for Binance as it enters more regulated markets. Whether the crypto community likes it or not, until regulators get caught up and understand the power of decentralized technology, tokens will still be a regulatory burden — especially for anything that touches consumers.
  5. Binance Chain & Smart Contract Platform Binance is launching its own smart contract platform soon. Based on compatibility choices, they have their sights aimed at the Ethereum developer community. It’s unclear how easy it’ll be to convince developers to move to Binance chain. Most of the current developer energy and momentum around smart contracts is with Ethereum. Because Binance now has their own horse in the race, it’s unlikely they will ever decide to leverage Ethereum’s DeFi protocols. This could likely be a major strategic mistake — and hubris that goes a step too far. Binance will be pushing and promoting protocols on their own platform. The major risk of being all-in on their own platform is that they miss having a seat on the Ethereum rocket ship — specifically the growth of DeFi use-cases and the enormous value that can be unlocked. Integrating with Ethereum’s protocols would be either admitting defeat of their own platform or competing directly against themselves.

Binance Wrap Up

I don’t believe Binance is likely to succeed with a homegrown product aimed at the consumer finance market. Their current product — which is focused heavily on professional traders and speculators — is unlikely to become the bank of the future. If they wanted to enter the broader consumer market, I believe it’s much more likely that they will acquire a company that is getting early traction. They are not afraid to make acquisitions (Trust, JEX, WazirX, DappReview, BxB, CoinMarketCap, Swipe).
However, never count CZ out. He is a hustler. Binance is executing so aggressively and relentlessly that they will always be on the shortlist of major contenders.
https://preview.redd.it/mxmlg1zqm7f51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d900dd5ff7f3b00df5fe5a48305d57ebeffaa9a

Coinbase

The crypto-native company that I believe is more likely to become the bank of the future is Coinbase (crunchbase). Their dominance in America could serve as a springboard to winning the West (Binance has a stronger foothold in Asia). Coinbase has more than 30M users. Their exchange business is a money-printing machine. They have a solid reputation as it relates to compliance and working with regulators. Their CEO is a longtime member of the crypto community. They are rumored to be going public soon.

Coinbase Strengths

Let’s look at what makes them strong and a likely contender for winning the broader consumer finance market.
  1. Different Audience, Different Experience Coinbase has been smart to create a unique product experience for each audience — the pro speculator crowd and the common retail user. Their simple consumer version is at Coinbase.com. That’s the default. Their product for the more sophisticated traders and speculators is at Coinbase Pro (formerly GDAX). Unlike Binance, Coinbase can slowly build out the bank of the future for the broad consumer market while still having a home for their hardcore crypto traders. They aren’t afraid to have different experiences for different audiences.
  2. Brand & Design Coinbase has a strong product design team. Their brand is capable of going beyond the male-dominated crypto audience. Their product is clean and simple — much more consumer-friendly than Binance. It’s clear they spend a lot of time thinking about their user experience. Interacting directly with crypto can sometimes be rough and raw (especially for n00bs). When I was at Mainframe we hosted a panel about Crypto UX challenges at the DevCon4 Dapp Awards. Connie Yang (Head of Design at Coinbase) was on the panel. She was impressive. Some of their design philosophies will bode well as they push to reach the broader consumer finance market.
  3. USDC Stablecoin Coinbase (along with Circle) launched USDC. We’ve shared some stats about its impressive growth when we discussed DeFi use-cases. USDC is quickly becoming integrated with most DeFi protocols. As a result, Coinbase is getting a front-row seat at some of the most exciting things happening in decentralized finance. As Coinbase builds its knowledge and networks around these protocols, it could put them in a favorable position to unlock incredible value for their users.
  4. Early Signs of Bundling Though Coinbase has nowhere near as many products & services as Binance, they are slowly starting to add more financial services that may appeal to the broader market. They are now letting depositors earn interest on USDC (also DAI & Tezos). In the UK they are piloting a debit card. Users can now invest in crypto with dollar-cost-averaging. It’s not much, but it’s a start. You can start to see hints of a more bundled solution around financial services.

Coinbase Weaknesses

Let’s now look at some things that could hold them back.
  1. Slow Cadence In the fast-paced world of crypto, and especially when compared to Binance, Coinbase does not ship very many new products very often. This is perhaps their greatest weakness. Smaller, more nimble startups may run circles around them. They were smart to launch Coinbase Ventures where tey invest in early-stage startups. They can now keep an ear to the ground on innovation. Perhaps their cadence is normal for a company of their size — but the Binance pace creates quite the contrast.
  2. Lack of Innovation When you consider the previous point (slow cadence), it’s unclear if Coinbase is capable of building and launching new products that are built internally. Most of their new products have come through acquisitions. Their Earn.com acquisition is what led to their Earn educational product. Their acquisition of Xapo helped bolster their institutional custody offering. They acqui-hired a team to help launch their staking infrastructure. Their acquisition of Cipher Browser became an important part of Coinbase Wallet. And recently, they acquired Tagomi — a crypto prime brokerage. Perhaps most of Coinbase’s team is just focused on improving their golden goose, their exchange business. It’s unclear. But the jury is still out on if they can successfully innovate internally and launch any homegrown products.
  3. Talent Exodus There have been numerous reports of executive turmoil at Coinbase. It raises a lot of questions about company culture and vision. Some of the executives who departed include COO Asiff Hirji, CTO Balaji Srinivasan, VP & GM Adam White, VP Eng Tim Wagner, VP Product Jeremy Henrickson, Sr Dir of Eng Namrata Ganatra, VP of Intl Biz Dan Romero, Dir of Inst Sales Christine Sandler, Head of Trading Hunter Merghart, Dir Data Science Soups Ranjan, Policy Lead Mike Lempres, Sr Compliance Vaishali Mehta. Many of these folks didn’t stay with Coinbase very long. We don’t know exactly why it’s happening —but when you consider a few of my first points (slow cadence, lack of innovation), you have to wonder if it’s all related.
  4. Institutional Focus As a company, we are a Coinbase client. We love their institutional offering. It’s clear they’ve been investing a lot in this area. A recent Coinbase blog post made it clear that this has been a focus: “Over the past 12 months, Coinbase has been laser-focused on building out the types of features and services that our institutional customers need.” Their Tagomi acquisition only re-enforced this focus. Perhaps this is why their consumer product has felt so neglected. They’ve been heavily investing in their institutional services since May 2018. For a company that’s getting very close to an IPO, it makes sense that they’d focus on areas that present strong revenue opportunities — as they do with institutional clients. Even for big companies like Coinbase, it’s hard to have a split focus. If they are “laser-focused” on the institutional audience, it’s unlikely they’ll be launching any major consumer products anytime soon.

Coinbase Wrap Up

At Genesis Block, we‘re proud to be working with Coinbase. They are a fantastic company. However, I don’t believe that they’ll succeed in building their own product for the broader consumer finance market. While they have incredible design, there are no signs that they are focused on or capable of internally building this type of product.
Similar to Binance, I think it’s far more likely that Coinbase acquires a promising young startup with strong growth.

Honorable Mentions

Other US-based exchanges worth mentioning are Kraken, Gemini, and Bittrex. So far we’ve seen very few signs that any of them will aggressively attack broader consumer finance. Most are going in the way of Binance — listing more assets and adding more pro tools like margin and futures trading. And many, like Coinbase, are trying to attract more institutional customers. For example, Gemini with their custody product.

Wrap Up

Coinbase and Binance have huge war chests and massive reach. For that alone, they should always be considered threats to Genesis Block. However, their products are very, very different than the product we’re building. And their approach is very different as well. They are trying to educate and onboard people into crypto. At Genesis Block, we believe the masses shouldn’t need to know or care about it. We did an entire series about this, Spreading Crypto.
Most everyone needs banking — whether it be to borrow, spend, invest, earn interest, etc. Not everyone needs a crypto exchange. For non-crypto consumers (the mass market), the differences between a bank and a crypto exchange are immense. Companies like Binance and Coinbase make a lot of money on their crypto exchange business. It would be really difficult, gutsy, and risky for any of them to completely change their narrative, messaging, and product to focus on the broader consumer market. I don’t believe they would ever risk biting the hand that feeds them.
In summary, as it relates to a digital bank aimed at the mass market, I believe both Coinbase and Binance are much more likely to acquire a startup in this space than they are to build it themselves. And I think they would want to keep the brand/product distinct and separate from their core crypto exchange business.
So back to the original question, is Coinbase and Binance a threat to Genesis Block? Not really. Not today. But they could be, and for that, we want to stay close to them.
------
Other Ways to Consume Today's Episode:
Follow our social channels: https://genesisblock.com/follow/
Download the app. We're a digital bank that's powered by crypto: https://genesisblock.com/download
submitted by mickhagen to genesisblockhq [link] [comments]

Market Weekly Report - Week of 20/04/2020

Market Weekly Report - Week of 20/04/2020
P95G Market Weekly Report

BTC/USD hourly chart
The Bitcoin price continued to go sideway during most of the week, as volatility has decreased. The price dropped to $6,500 at one point, and was able to recover and reached $7,200 toward the end of the week. It will retest the $7,400 resistance level again soon, with the current support at $7,000.
The BTC price at $7,400 is a key level. If the price breaks above $7,400, it will likely reach $7,650 and test $8,000. However, if the price retraced without breaking through $7,400, it could fall below $7,000 and start a new downward trend.
Reviews of the week:
According to CoinMetrics, USDC’s market capitalization, which equals the amount in circulation since it trades at par for dollars, has jumped 65 percent, from $444 million on March 1 to $734 million at press time. Jeremy Allaire, the Circle CEO and co-founder, explains that as the global coronavirus crisis is accelerating mainstream adoption of blockchain technology, the startup’s new business model has received an unexpected boost, and this time much of the demand is for payments in normal business transactions, not just to move money quickly between cryptocurrency exchanges. As a stablecoin, USDC is designed to hold its value against the dollar, and backed by real-world dollars held in a bank, for which it can be redeemed on demand. Referring to the stablecoin Circle issues in partnership with Coinbase, he said the past several weeks’ explosive interest and growth in USDC have been witnessed: “there is clearly very significant global demand for digital dollars and the use of digital dollars as a new payment medium.”
DCEP (Digital Currency Electronic Payment, DC/EP), which is the name of China’s official central bank digital currency (CBDC), has surfaced with its first mobile wallets being tested at Agricultural Bank of China (ABC). DCEP is reported already in the advanced testing phase in four Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities: Shenzhen, Xiong’an, Chengdu and Suzhou and it is positioning as replacement of M0 and using a two-tier operation delivery system. It shows that it will have the possibility to send and receive offline payments and it is not using a typical blockchain but more of a distributed ledger technology (DLT) style protocol. China is making giant strides in advancing with blockchain technology since China’s president Xi Jinping announced blockchain as one of the country’s technological priorities and advocated to “seize the opportunity” last year.
Disclaimer: The above market commentary is based on technical analysis using historical pricing data, and is for reference only. It does not serve as investment or trading advice.
About Coinviva:
Coinviva aims to create the best crypto financial services ecosystem for both institutional and individual investors. We provide reliable fiat funding options, excellent trading liquidity, bank security level custody and one-stop high liquidity provision on-site & off-site. Our founding management team all come from top tiered investment banking (e.g. JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Merrill Lynch), with fully comprehensive financial institution operation experience.
Homepage: https://coinviva.com/
Telegram: https://t.me/coinviva

submitted by Coinviva to u/Coinviva [link] [comments]

Have you been up to date with major Crypto news from this week?

submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

NYC Meetup - Full Summary!

Following up on my other post which shared only a few high level points I thought people would be interested in, here's a more in-depth summary of the meetup. THIS IS VERY LONG! I don't really have a TL;DR beyond my other short highlight thread, but I think there are some other high level summaries. This is for those who want a very thorough recap of what was discussed. I'm happy to update this with anything shared in the comments which I remember and think is additive to the summary, definitely didn't catch every single thing.
I'm leaving out a few talking points/questions that either 1) I didn't totally catch, 2) provided no incremental information or 3) were just bad questions (there were some).
Sunny's Speech
Sunny began with a history of blockchain, from the bitcoin whitepaper to the first few alt coins to the advent of Ethereum. He then went on to discuss the extent to which these various stages involved meaningful/useful innovation: original alt coins did not, ethereum of course did, but is heavily flawed for enterprise use. He then went on to discuss what those primary flaws are and how VeChain is trying to solve them (scalability, governance, cost, etc.) He noted that technology is not blockchain's biggest obstacle, it's adoption. He talked about how, although some people will tell him to "get lost or something" he doesn't really believe in full decentralization. I think his point was that although it's nice in theory, it just isn't really practical, and it's a bad approach in particular for trying to get this new blockchain technology adopted in the mainstream. This goes back to something he said in another interview at some point - you can't just come in with totally new, radical technology outside the existing framework and replace everything that exists from the outside. You have to start within the existing framework, show people what's possible, and then change the system from the inside out.
He went on to discuss what he sees as problems with some of the existing projects. Talked about how projects in the top 20 have ecosystems worth 2 billion dollars, hold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of their own tokens to be used for the project's development etc., but they don't have a CFO. He thinks that should concern people.
I don't remember exactly where it fit in the narrative, but he discussed valuation/speculation. He pointed out that they have a number of their university research partners trying to work out token valuation models. He made a general point that more utility should equal more value, the implication being VeChain will have more real utility (and should therefore have more value) than any other blockchain. They had a slide showing some calculations and pointed out that if you look at the known metrics, the dividends, etc., the price of Google's stock is 85.7% speculation. Only $161 of it's $1,128 value (at the time they ran these numbers) can be tied to the current value. For Tencent, it's 93.5% speculation. He jokingly pointed out that in crypto it's about 99.99%, but I think one of the unspoken points here is that it's silly to think that on mainnet launch speculation about the future value is going to go away and you'll just have token value based on current Thor production. That isn't how markets or valuation work.
He then basically mocked people complaining about the code not yet being open source, and there being no whitepaper - the people who think these are red flags and that the project might be a 'scam'. As if PwC and DNV GL didn't do extensive diligence.
On this point, I'll quote GarzyWarzy from another thread:
"Sunny mentioned that the crypto community as a whole doesn’t seem to appreciate the level of reputational risk that these multi billion dollar enterprise partners take by publicly backing a blockchain startup (“what do people think would happen if PwC backed us and we failed in 6 months?”). As an investment banker who deals extensively with corporate governance issues and every type of business risk imaginable, I will add my two cents that this risk is massive and that is it a clear sign of extensive diligence and extreme trust in the VeChain team to execute their business plan for developing their ecosystem. Always remember, “it takes many years to build a reputation, and seconds to ruin it”."
I'm a corporate lawyer and couldn't agree with this more. The people who think a whitepaper (which they likely wouldn't even understand) is more reassuring than the endorsement by DNV GL, PwC, Draper and Breyer (who would never, ever make such an investment without extensive due diligence) have no idea how things work in the corporate world. DNV GL and PwC are recommending VeChain to clients, and Draper and Breyer have made investments through their funds, where they have a fiduciary duty to the investors in those funds. The amount of diligence that occurs before taking those reputational and legal (negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, etc.) risks is truly exhaustive.
Back to adoption, Sunny went on to compare blockchain to TCP/IP, as he's done in the past. Most people use email every day, but do they care about TCP/IP? Of course not. Blockchain will be the protocol infrastructure for things people use every day, whether they know it or not.
At this point, continuing to talk about adoption and use cases, he mentioned that they signed a top 3 insurance company in China as a client, and he also mentioned a CRM use case that's in the works.
He said the whitepaper will be out in a few days, and will explain a lot of what they're doing/what they're trying to do, and what some of the use cases are. They are focused on developing as many practical use cases as possible - this is how you get adoption. Once the use cases are defined, you can start "developing killer dApps" in relation to them. I think this is, to some degree, a subtle shot at Ethereum - his point here being that developing lots of dApps on a platform doesn't really mean much unless those dApps actually relate to a practical, defined real world use cases which ensures they will be used and adopted.
The whitepaper took so long because, in Sunny's words, his "english sucks" and after he wrote it, his teams needed to double, triple, and quadruple review/edit/refine what he wrote so that it is in professional english.
Back to adoption, he stated there are around 13/14 crypto projects they are working with who intend to use VeChain (either porting over from Ethereum or launching an ICO on the platform. More on this in the Q&A section). One of them is a company that already generates $50 million/month in revenue and want to 'blockchain-ize' their business. He pointed out here this is a company that isn't just interested in padding their coffers - they have money, that isn't an issue. These are the types of projects they like to work with. They aren't interested in being a 'shitcoin generator' (this was said by Sunny in the Q&A and got a laugh and round of applause). Last point on this, he noted that BitOcean is taking so long because the "Japanese government are being assholes". That's a direct quote. Sunny is hilarious. I can't overstate how likable he is - he comes off as a down to earth, cool, funny and easy going guy.
Kevin's Speech
Next, Kevin spoke. This was a short update on authority nodes and the mainnet. He mentioned that most projects have masternodes as basically a marketing tool, they aren't that meaningful or necessary. VeChain's authority masternodes are essential to the ecosystem. You can not become an authority node if you can not meaningfully contribute to growing the ecosystem. There is no room for negotiation on this. They aren't interested in having random people running validating authority nodes for profit and nothing else. As far as the application process, they received over 100 applications and are expecting more (authority node application and monitoring process will be ongoing to make sure VeChain has the best authority nodes possible and that each node is continuing to fulfill all of its obligations). As far as the applicant pool, they were about 71% enterprise, 29% individual. About 52% China, 23% America, then a mix of HK, Singapore, Japan, and others.
He then addressed the mainnet. Internal testing is done, they are now moving on to the public alpha testing, which is by invite only and is not the open source phase. This phase starts today and includes a number of professional firms auditing the code: PwC's cybersecurity team, secureware.io, Slow Mist, and Hosho. They will also be putting a bug bounty on Hacken eventually, finding a critical vulnerability could get you up to 2000 VEN tokens. This private testing will go on for a few weeks, before the public testing begins in early June which involves the code becoming open source - as of now, they expect it to start in the first week or two of June.
Then, he announced the 1 VEN to 100 VET token split. The example he gave was talking to friends about buying Bitcoin - some responded "it's already $8000, I can't buy a bitcoin I can't afford it". Kevin would respond, well actually you can buy .001 bitcoin if you want... and then they'd lose interest. I think what he's getting at is they want to be prepared for years down the road when demand is enormous - they don't want people dealing in fractions. Yes, I'm also sure they are aware of the implications for this in terms of price and the attractiveness of a 5 cent token verses a 5 dollar token. I don't deny that. Look at fucking Tron.
The Q&A Session
Someone asked about how the authority nodes will be monitored. Kevin explained there will be a dedicated team for this. They are serious about having the highest quality authority nodes and holding them to the standards they expect. There will be a quarterly review process, and any issues will be brought to the Steering Committee, which may decide to remove/replace an authority nodeholder if they aren't contributing and fulfilling their obligations. He noted that the whitepaper will include a thorough section on their governance model.
Question about it being difficult, currently, for companies (especially in the west) to find out how to contact them and work with them. What are VeChain's plans in terms of a business development team, marketing, etc. Sunny explained that while obviously they'll have an internal BD team, and this is being built out, they also want to heavily leverage the resources of the community. In a way, the community will be a giant business development team, and they will create standard toolkits for the community to use to market/introduce VeChain to people in the first instance. The guy then asked what if I got you Pfizer - that's enormous, what's my incentive? Sunny responded there will be rewards in VET tokens for bringing them clients.
I don't remember what the exact question was, but it was noted at this point that although the private, consortium chain is an Ethereum fork, the mainnet was built from scratch and is not an Ethereum fork. They did intentionally use the Ethereum Virtual Machine, though, so that Ethereum dApps can be easily ported over to VeChain. It sounds like they expect this to happen quite a bit. They also talked about how they went through the web3 libraries and 80% will be able to work directly with VeChain. They want interoperability, compatibility, and ultimately, an easy transition for Ethereum developers and dApps.
Someone asked about them building out their own IoT business or letting others do the IoT work. Sunny talked about how he believes IoT is the way to connect blockchain to the physical world. There was a story not worth sharing about why they initially acquired an IoT team, but he gave this example: when Apple first released the app store and the ability to develop, nobody knew how or used it. So, Apple built the apps themselves and basically showed everybody what was possible and how to do it by example. So too will VeChain take this approach. They are partnering with IoT manufacturers and developing some of their own IoT solutions, and they'll continue to do this, but the point isn't to dominate IoT. They are showing the world by example what can be done in terms of IoT on the VeChain platform, and they ultimately want people/enterprises to be able to create their own value and their own IoT solutions on the VeChain blockchain. Anyone who wants to do so will be able to.
Question about enterprises buying once the enterprise pool runs out - what happens if enterprises aren't comfortable doing what all of us have done (wiring money to a fiat gateway exchange, buying bitcoin/ethereum, moving it to binance, buying in the market, transferring out of binance, etc.). Kevin isn't really worried about this. They are talking to exchanges and service providers about it, they're talking to Circle about fiat pairing, etc., but realistically Kevin can see that exchanges are becoming more advanced and that ultimately they will be institutionalized in a way that basically just mitigates this concern.
Question about storage of VET tokens after mainnet. There will be a mobile wallet launch at the exact same time. This mobile wallet will 1) facilitate the token swap from VEN to VET (most people will probably do this on exchanges, but eventually you'll be able to do it in the mobile wallet if you missed doing it on an exchange), 2) have a module that shows you what kind of node you are, 3) automatically receive your generated Thor, and 4) eventually allow you to hold other ERC-20 tokens. They also mentioned that although they're talking to ledger, etc. they are developing their own hardware wallet. Kevin explained this is essential for enterprises serving as authority nodes or holding large amounts of VET. They aren't going online and ordering a ledger and setting it up. VeChain needs to be able to provide this service and assurance for them, and they will. This is why these guys are lightyears ahead in terms of enterprise adoption. They've thought about these things.
Question about 'competitors' like Waltonchain. First, Sunny goes "who?" and Kevin goes "what's Waltonchain?" But then Sunny went on by saying the "right" thing - there are no competitors in such a fledgling industry. He would love to hold hands with the other blockchain projects trying to do good things, and walk into the future together. He thinks projects can learn from each other and help each other. They aren't trying to crush competitors or beat anyone or anything like that. However, Sunny also jokingly asked "Seriously, why do people think Waltonchain is our competitor? We are what, 15th biggest project, and they are...?" He also went on to say that he is judging some competition or tech demo later this month on the 26th-28th, and that Waltonchain is the demo product. He thinks this is sort of funny, but also said if their product is great and the demo is good, there is no reason he wouldn't support them, vote for them, etc.
Question about Breyer and Draper relationships. Draper is invested in many cryptocurrency projects and many companies, has tons of connections, and he gives VeChain a way of talking to all of those projects/companies. Breyer was the one who set them up with the research team at a Chinese university, he was the link to Circle to discuss fiat onramps, etc. The connections these guys bring are tremendous. I should note here that in a small group conversation with Kevin during the networking portion after the speeches, which was initiated by GarzyWarzy (perhaps he can elaborate further), he confirmed that Breyer and Draper are both meaningfully invested in tokens, not just equity of the technology portion of the company.
Some clown actually used up time to ask "is CCK here?" Sunny said someone asked him this at Harvard also, and he was absolutely adamant that he doesn't know who this person is or how they are getting the information they have. He did not comment on it beyond that. He clearly thought it was a dumb question and said seriously that once and for all, he really doesn't know who it is.
Question about how many projects will be running on the mainnet day 1. Sunny said it's hard to say for sure, but that there are currently between 20 and 25 use cases deployed on the consortium chain, all of which will be moved over in the first few months. He also mentioned the 15ish crypto projects that will be moving over to or launching on the platform, and the fact that their client pipeline is now over 250. He transitioned a bit from this point to discuss how they "don't want to be a shitcoin generator". If you come to them with a project that is just an ICO with a whitepaper and no product, no proof of concept, etc., they're not going to want you to launch that. They would rather invest in you if they think you're a good project, help you develop those things, prove out what you're trying to do, then help you launch a serious ICO or dApp with a real use case. Again, they are all about practical use cases, this is the path to adoption. That said, the project will be open source ("you guys asked for open source, so") there will be some shitcoins, it's unavoidable.
I think that covers most of what I remember. Hope you all enjoy!
submitted by CryptopherWalken to Vechain [link] [comments]

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Summary
Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it.
I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater".
SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while.
But then we all learned that:
And we also got much better solutions: such as market-based blocksize with Bitcoin Unlimited - way better than SegWit's arbitrary, random centrally-planned, too-little-too-late 1.7MB "max blocksize".
This is why more and more people are rejecting SegWit - and instead installing Bitcoin Unlimited.
In my case, as I gradually learned about the disastrous consequences which SegWit-as-a-soft-fork-hack would have, my intial single OP in December 2015 expressing outspoken support for SegWit soon turned to an avalanche of outspoken opposition to SegWit.
Details
Core / Blockstream lost my support on SegWit - and it's all their fault.
How did Core / Blockstream turn me from an outspoken SegWit supporter to an outspoken SegWit opponent?
It was simple: They made the totally unnecessary (and dangerous) decision to program SegWit as a messy and dangerous soft-fork which would:
  • create a massive new threat vector by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
  • force yet-another random / arbitrary / centrally planned "max blocksize" on everyone (previously 1 MB, now 1.7MB - still pathetically small and hard-coded!).
Meanwhile, new, independent dev teams which are smaller and much better than the corrupt, fiat-financed Core / Blockstream are offering simpler and safer solutions which are much better than SegWit:
  • For blocksize governance, we now have market-based blocksize based on emergent consensus, provided by Bitcoin Unlimited.
  • For malleability and quadratic hashing time (plus a future-proof, tag-based language similar to JSON or XML supporting much cleaner upgrades long-term), we now have Flexible Transactions (FlexTrans).
This is why We Reject SegWit because "SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history".
My rapid evolution on SegWit - as I discovered its dangers (and as we got much better alternatives, like Bitcoin Unlimited + FlexTrans):
Initially, I was one of the most outspoken supporters of SegWit - raving about it in the following OP which I posted (on Monday, December 7, 2015) immediately after seeing a presentation about it on YouTube by Pieter Wuille at one of the early Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3vt1ov/pieter_wuilles_segregated_witness_and_fraud/
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits).
So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community.
However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
  • trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
  • trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
  • trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year.
So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community.
We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork.
But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork.
The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear:
Bitcoin users are not stupid.
Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork.
And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote.
And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately.
We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack.
If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit).
Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code.
Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago.
But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences.
Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k6tke/the_tragedy_of/
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
  • Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
  • SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
  • But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
  • Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
  • This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=segwit+anyone+can+spend&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5r9cu7/the_real_question_is_how_fast_do_bugs_get_fixed/
Why are more and more people (including me!) rejecting SegWit?
(1) SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible change ever proposed for Bitcoin:
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbug3/the_scaling_argument_was_ridiculous_at_first_and/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5a7husegwitasasoftfork_is_a_hack/
(2) Better solutions than SegWit are now available (Bitcoin Unlimited, FlexTrans):
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/574g5l/viabtc_why_i_support_bu_we_should_give_the/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u1r2d/bitcoins_specification_eg_excess_blocksize_eb/
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zjnk/the_blockstreamsegwitln_fork_will_be_worth_less/
(3) Very few miners actually support SegWit. In fact, over half of SegWit signaling comes from just two fiat-funded miners associated with Core / Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC:
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
(4) Hard forks are simpler and safer than soft forks. Hard forks preserve your "right to vote" - so Core / Blockstream is afraid of hard forks a/k/a "full node refendums" - because they know their code would be rejected:
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5f4zaa/anything_controversial_is_the_perfect_time_for_a/
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41c8n5/as_core_blockstream_collapses_and_classic_gains/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59hcvblockstream_is_just_another_shitty_startup_a/
(5) Core / Blockstream's latest propaganda "talking point" proclaims that "SegWit is a blocksize increase". But we don't want "a" random, arbitrary centrally planned blocksize increase (to a tiny 1.7MB) - we want _market-based blocksizes - now and into the future:_
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fjh6l/the_bitcoin_community_is_talking_why_isnt/
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/593voi/the_majority_of_the_community_sentiment_be_it/
(6) Core / Blockstream want to radically change Bitcoin to centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize, and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" semantics. The market wants to go to the moon - with Bitcoin's original security model, and Bitcoin's original market-based (miner-decided) blocksize.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57brcb/bitcoin_unlimited_is_the_real_bitcoin_in_line/
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdhzh/the_number_of_blocks_being_mined_by_bitcoin/
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v10zw/i_have_just_been_banned_for_from_rbitcoin_fo
Flipping the Script: It is Core who is proposing a change to Bitcoin, and BU/Classic that is maintaining the status quo.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v36jy/flipping_the_script_it_is_core_who_is_proposing_a/
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/
TL;DR:
You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream?
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

FCoin Sharing Session Q&A — 07/23/2018

FCoin Founder Mr. Zhang Jian Addressed the Most Controversial Questions about FCoin since its Launch.
(July 23, 2018) FCoin held an online media Q&A session on Monday with its founder, Mr. Zhang Jian replying the most controversial questions on FCoin, a digital asset trading platform that was launched barely two months ago but has already become the most talked about phenomenon in the industry.
These controversial topics include FCoin’s efforts in token-reforming, the general concept of token economy, the fluctuation of FCoin price and response to the recent negative comments and accusations made by Binance on FCoin. A complete Q&A could be found as below:
Q1: We have seen many new announcements issued by FCoin with lots of new concepts. Could you first elaborate on FCandy? Why do you start to return in FCandy instead of FT, what’s the strategy behind it? What do you think is the true value of FCandy and what is your expected price for it?
Answer1: Regarding FCandy, we mentioned before in our announcement that it is an assert pool in which all kinds of assets could be placed in. We actually have placed lots of FTs during the first round. What do we mean by “placing”, basically it’s equivalent to donation and what is its true value? I think it could benefit our entire community through our donation. It is clearly stated in our announcement that any digital assets could be placed in FCandy and FCandy will be issued according to a certain proportion, but to guarantee the real asset value of FCandy. However, the assets placed in FCandy pool no longer belong to those who place the assets but to the entire community which makes FCandy vitally different from the other asset pools or various products. We designed a lot of ways to give out FCandy to our community members. It doesn’t mean that we no longer return in FT, 100% transaction fee is still returned in FT, this is our set rule which will never be changed. Which are some of the situations where we will not return in FT? Anything but “Trans-fee mining” mechanism. Because all the other mechanism is simply activities. Like our referral programs, incentive programs and etc. These are community activities with the aim to motivate the communities and bring more benefits, so these are the responsibility that FCandy should assume. I do not need to elaborate on the value of FCandy. I encourage everyone to see the front page of FCandy in which the amount of assets are clearly indicated. In the future, a large number of project participators will place their assets into this pool. We will also initiate voting system and community members could vote on whether we should sell part of the assets and these sold asserts will belong to FCandy holders, similar to the concept as dividends. But this will be a plan in the far future, not to be realized recently. Regarding the price of FCandy, I cannot comment on this. Based on the asset pool, everyone can gauge its reasonable price range.
Q2: What’s the latest listing rules? Is the new FOne trading zone transferring the token-listing right to the certified organizations? What’s the FCoin’s standard in selecting a certified organization? What’s the difference in the responsibilities and rights of these certified organizations compared to the ones in the Stock market?
Answer 2: Some adjustments were made on the listing rules with the launch of FOne. What made us launch FOne? Actually, we have encountered some problems when doing GPM, i.e there is a long list of projects waiting to be listed which is far beyond the capacity of the platform itself. Most importantly, we encounter the problems of verifying its authenticity. Hence, in order to make the entire mechanism work better, the essence of FOne is to let FCoin certified organizations to screen quality projects. Every certified organization has its own zone that has the right to list tokens and set its own listing rules. We provide service and technical support to various certified organizations. This relationship will guarantee a healthy growth of FOne. As for the rights and responsibilities, these are vitally important as well. Since these trading zones are opened by certified organizations, they have the responsibility to guarantee the quality of its listing projects. FCoin retains the rights to review and verify the performance of these certified organizations and details will be released soon. We really hope that good projects could stand out from this innovative mechanism and this will help motivate the entire industry. Regarding the selection standards for the certified organizations, these are mainly the mainstream token fund in the industry. Easy to get in but difficult to get out. First of all, these organizations need to have certain reputation in the industry. We welcome them to join us as our certified organizations in the beginning but more strict standards will be launched later. In addition, we will also have control over the organization list and eliminate those who are not up to our standards. We will soon announce the list of our second batch of certified organizations. The entire crypto industry is not yet mature and it’s currently a mix of everything. We are trying to introduce step by step some mature models to break through the mess. We are on our way to a revolutionary future
Q3: Is FOne the trial zone of token-reforming for FCoin? What is the difference about listing rules and circulation mechanism between Main Board A & B? As a mature product or company, what are the necessary steps for token-reforming and what are the biggest difficulties and challenges during the process? Are there any successful cases on token-reforming before? To a mature community, the compliance and legitimacy of listing can be a sensitive topic, is this going to be a key obstacle for the improvement of token-reforming trial zone? How will you solve this problem? In your opinion, which industries will make progress first during Coin-reforming trial zone?
Answer 3: The answer to the first question is NO. It has clearly been stated in the announcement that token-reforming is not made by FOne. Token-reforming is in main Board C, right now we have main Board A & B; the mature blockchain projects are in main board A, and emerging projects in board B, while the token-reforming projects are in board C. FOne is the successor of the previous Innovation Zone on GPM with the aim to support startup projects. After the upgrading of the overall positioning, GPM will focus on supporting the long-term projects while the startup projects will move to FOne. FOne will transfer the listing power to certified organizations in order to attract more quality projects to get in in the early stage. As a matter of fact, token-reforming is not all that easy. We have just released an announcement on which a new project was applying to get listed on our main board C, of course there are many other projects doing so as well. We have to consider the project in a comprehensive manner, from the preparation, the qualification of the projects to the business model or the maturity of the business Situations(applications). There might be two ways for reforming, such as QOS, the one project that we have been observing and providing the technical support. It has applied to get listed on our main board C. QOS is a typical blockchain project with mature business applications and massive users, along with a solid preparation process. This kind of project is well prepared, that’s why it can enter the final verification and listing schedule stage very soon; as for some other projects, although they come from a mature company, they do not really understand the token economy, the listing process might take longer. In my opinion, we have to go through an important process to acknowledge the token economy, token and coin; Second, about how reforming can make a great influence, and connect its previous- designed products with business module, aligned them well and solve its previous conflicts of interest. That’s why reforming is quite difficult and challenging. To sum up I think there are two biggest difficulties for reform. First is the whole design of token economy model — it means completely different for different products or companies, even with different approaches , thus, quite challenging. Second is the overall interest arrangement. A mature product must face mature interest arrangement, including shareholder structure, existing resources and how to solve these problems. It requires of massive communication as well as knowledge and determinations to get all these problems solved. These two are the most difficulties we currently face. For the sensitive question about compliance, I think all innovations will face a certain kind of risk, the more subversive the innovation, the higher risk it may face, especially like token economy, as its target and core is to change the market relationships. It’s quite subversive and will meet lots of challenges never that have never been met before. Why people like to talk about the first person who eat the crab? If there is no challenges, people would just repeat doing things they have done like a hundred times before, but it’s not the case here. If you are willing to seize the opportunity of the new economy, you need to take risks and accept the challenges. I think it’s a trend for the future and it’s unstoppable. In addition, I don’t think it’s a key obstacle for a product or a company that are determined to explore in this direction. What I mentioned before are quite essential, firstly it has to be in the internet industry and financial industry, or the combination of these two, such as the finance technology. There are lots of opportunities within, so are in some other industries.
Q4: There are several institutions dabbling in Blockchain+Insurance model, however, this model has still not been widely applied. Therefore, will this new Insurance community FInsur just a publicity stunt? Is “Insurance is mining “ just some benefits to attract users, or is it a mutual insurance based on blockchain technology? How does this model work?
Answer 4: FInsur for sure is not publicity stunt. A lot of people doubted about FCoin when it first came out, is FCoin a publicity stunt? With the concept of “Trans-fee mining” being widely spread and recently became a trend, it is obvious that we are not a publicity stunt, otherwise it won’t show such a strong vitality. Therefore, the concept of “insurance is mining “is quite simple. I would like to repeat it again, it’s similar to FCoin essentially. What is the concept of “Trans-fee mining”? Clients and users of an exchange are the traders. As the core concept of token economy, I think the main targets of business service, is like the relationship between an exchange and its users, which is in opposite relationship. We hope that after the reforms by token economy, it can be an untied relationship, even for the sake of common interest. So let the traders be the shareholders of FCoin, that is the essence of “Trans-fee mining”. Likewise, let the insurance applicant become the shareholder of an insurance company, or at least make their interest consistent rather than conflicting (money-making vs money-losing), which is a long-term target for us, and also my initial intention. It’s hard to image vehicles on road without insurances. That’s why there is compulsory insurance like Compulsory Traffic Insurance and commercial insurance that we must pay. It also applies to ourown digital currencies & assets. Therefore, I don’t think FInsur is a publicity stunt, but will be a benchmark for innovation in this industry and bring in massive benefits.
Q5: How about the operation of stabilization funds launched by FCoin? Is this stabilization funds really effective on regulating the dramatic market fluctuation and keeping the price of FT stable?
Answer 5: We have just wrapped up a one-month life cycle of the Stabilization fund Phase I and it is already in the process of balancing, not running any more. I am not the one who has proposed the concept of stabilization fund. I have repeatedly said that for an emerging trading product or an emerging market, especially when it has great innovations, nobody knows how to price it correctly in the early stage. It will also suffer from all kinds of malicious attacks and various rumors under such a complicated market situation. Hence, the market fluctuations will be very dramatic in the short term. The stabilization fund was launched in this context. Can this fund really keep the market volatility stable? This mainly depends on the factors of market volatility and various other situations. The stabilization fund will certainly ease the dramatic fluctuations of the market. But will the price stop to fluctuate with the funds? Or will the price not rise and fall sharply? This is uncertain. Since the market price, especially short-term market behavior, is very complicated and thus very difficult to predict. So the fund can only ease the dramatic fluctuations. As some unstable factors are gradually eliminated, or as the platform matures, these unstable factors will be disappearing slowly. Say, there are huge trust issues in the earlier stages, however, as the platform continues to grow, these problems will be reduced accordingly. Now everyone feels that FCoin is a very reliable platform which has been working so hard to make the platform, the community and the whole ecosystem bigger. In this case, those difficulties that we encounter before won’t exist anymore. Our risk control in the early stage might not be that sharp, leading to the existence of some malicious short-selling and other hostile situations. With the gradual improvement and maturity of our backend monitoring system, I believe there will be less risks in this aspect. Therefore, the whole market will gradually become more healthy in the long run.
Q6: You mentioned that the explosive effect of FCoin is a victory for the “tokenomics.” Can you share with us your understanding of the “tokenomics”? What is its strong driving force? What distinguishes it from the traditional business model and incentive mechanism?
Answer 6: It is very hard for me to talk about my understanding of the tokenomics, since this topic is too big. But I can talk about some key points, such as what I just mentioned, “What is the strong driving force?” I just mentioned that the distinguished difference between the structure of the tokenomics design and the traditional business model and incentive mechanism is the reversal of the production relationship. How to reverse? As mentioned earlier, producers and consumers are a pair of relationships. The common form of the Internet is the relationship between the platform and its user. In fact, they are all similar. That is, the relationship between a service provider and a client, or the relationship between a product provider and a consumer. Under the traditional business model, this group of relationships must be antagonistic at the level of interests. Because the mission of a commercial organization is to make money. They earn money from consumers or users. Under the traditional business model, you buy any goods, or you consume any service, the only relationship between you and the service provider and the producer of the goods is that you pay him. Let us think about the reason why this commercial system can exist. It is because these users are paying so that the commercial system can exist. In other words, these consumers and users are the basis for the existence of this commercial system. But if this commercial system develops bigger, then it has nothing to do with the users which are the basis and premise of the existence of this commercial system. I think this is the problem of the traditional business model, and it will definitely face a big upgrade in the future. The big upgrade has started slowly now, and I think its solution is tokenomics. FCoin is such a practice of tokenomics. We found that as FCoin grows and matures, traders gradually become shareholders of FCoin. The trader not only becomes a user of the platform, but also contributes fees and transactions. At the same time, he can also get 100% return of the exchange’s “shares” FT. The returned FT can enjoy FCoin’s income distribution forever, and it is 80% of the income distribution. This is unimaginable in the traditional capital market. Let me give you an example. In the traditional capital market, basically everyone does not pay attention to dividends because they are so little. There are too many companies that don’t pay dividends all along the year. Everyone can check the dividends of the traditional market which are so little and nobody concerns about the dividends. The timeliness of dividends distribution is also executed poorly. As the price of crypto currency fluctuates dramatically, users do not feel the power of our model in the early stages. With the maturity of FCoin, they feel that our model of income distribution is extremely revolutionary. Firstly, its proportion of dividends distribution is so large. How about the traditional listed companies? They distribute neither revenues nor profits. It is possible that the companies might need to keep enough cash for development, so they do not distribute dividends. FCoin directly distribute income to users, the vast majority 80% of our revenues on a daily basis. This is an absolutely revolutionary concept in the traditional capital market. Because the entire concept of the so-called financial system and finance of the crypto industry has not yet been established, and it is still relatively chaotic, the crypto industry is still at a very early stage for the pricing and cognitions. The creation and power of FCoin and FT takes time to show, as I always say “let the bullets fly for a while.” The same is true for FInsur. I hope that in the future, various new models based on the creation of the tokenomics or the transformation of the original model will have the power to make our customers consistent with our interests . I have to say one more thing. I think that this power is actually much underestimated. Because once the production relationship changes, once the service provider and the client are in the same interests, the whole decision-making process, the starting point and mentality of decision-making, all community-based architecture and all future mechanism design and gameplay will change. I am appreciating this in a more in-depth sense now. Therefore, the future of the tokenomics will definitely show great vitality. It will have a huge impact on the original business model, commercial design and corporate system. This is my judgment on the future.
Q7: Many exchanges are allegedly using bots wash trading and their users are mostly zombie users who have no practical effect. Could you please tell us about how would FCoin gradually increase the number of real users so as to make the platform grow in a more healthy manner?
Answer 7: Time will prove everything. We are constantly upgrading and innovating. Everything we do is to make our various mechanism work in a more robust way. The number of FCoin users and daily transactions continue to grow and FCoin is definitely on the right track. Many people are still accusing us of hiring bots to do wash trading. As our platform matures, there is more Quantitative transaction going on which provides real benefits for our community members. If you pay attention to our recent changes on the platform, you could definitely feel it.
Q8: What has FCoin revolutionized the industry in terms of the rules, both the unspoken rules and the apparent rules?
Answer 8: First, I will talk about the unspoken rules. The biggest difference between FCoin and all the other exchanges is that when you open our front page, you could clearly see that almost all our data are transparent and as we continue to develop our products and enhance users experiences, the level of our transparency will only be elevated accordingly. This is something you cannot imagine in traditional industries. No company, in our times, would announce its revenue because they do not need to distribute their profits to their users. But we are different, we cannot fake our data. If you are a black box i.e a company that does not need to disclose data to the public, you actually have the opportunity to fake data. I’ve said many time before that it was ridiculous to accuse FCoin of bots wash trading. We simply cannot fake any data as otherwise we will not have enough funds to be distributed to our users. All our data is real and transparent which brings the first revolutionary change of rules in the industry. About the apparent rules. Many users said that FCoin still made a lot of money after they saw the platform had used all kinds of algorithms. But what I want to point out is that why not take a look at other exchanges that make huge amount of money but still give back nothing to its users? On our side, FCoin distribute 80% of daily revenues to its users and for quite a long period of time, even 100%. After the launch of FCandy, we spend a majority of platform’s daily revenue to buy back FTs which later on are distributed to its community members. I hope you can look further with FCoin. FT certainly has its market cap, but so long as you hold FTs even for just a day, you will be able to get your daily dividend from that day. That’s just the beginning of how FCoin is going to revolutionize this industry. Stay tuned!
Q9: Mr Zhang, you always say that the market will eventually see the value of FT, but the price of FT has been dropping drastically non-stop. Why is there a vast difference between what you see in the value of FT and what the market see it?
Answer 9: FCoin has just been launched for less than 2 months. It’s way too early to talk about the value of a new born thing. For instance, a lot of people asked me about Bitcoin many years ago, at a time when the price of Bitcoin kept dropping from 8,000 RMB to 900RMB. I told them that the value of Bitcoin needed to be evaluated in a 4-year full circle, not just for a few months. If you use a 4-year full circle to draw the candlestick of Bitcoin, what will you see? The short-term price is unpredictable and is being influenced by many factors in the short term, like the market supply, all kinds of different judgments, disapprovals of new things in the early days and even rumors, but in the long run, the price is surely determined by its value. I have some data in FCoin’s front page, our dynamic P/E ratio is 0.56 as of today. You can go to any A-share market to check their P/E ratio, especially those innovative internet companies or high tech companies and judge by yourself. As I mentioned earlier, we have upgraded our Incentive programs, it is now returned with FCandy instead of FT. Because FCandy is highly linked with any activities that benefit the entire community members. This will be our future principles. In the meantime, transaction fee is still returned 100% as in FT and this is some ething, I have reinforced many times, that we won’t change. Why? Because this is our basic model, everything that FCoin is based on which is to make traders as the shareholders of FCoin.
Q10: Mr. Zhang, my questions might come across as a bit of sharp. Two days ago, FCoin announced on its website that the price of FT has been fluctuating drastically and later on, some media reported that the price was being manipulated by a professional team called “Ghost in the Dark” and implied that it had something to do with Binance. Miss He Yi from Binance accused FCoin of paying for media to write negative articles about Binance. Do you have any comments on this? In addition, Mr. Zhao Chang Peng (CZ) from Binance remarked during a media Q&A session in Seoul that “FCoin won’t last long as it is constantly selling new tokens but the price of them keep on dropping.” Do you have anything to say to his remarks?
Answer 10: Your so called sharp questions are actually not sharp at all. First of all, we announced officially on our website that the price of FT encountered abnormal fluctuations because we had found malicious attack from a team that was deliberately short-selling FT and we have proof of it. That’s why some immediate action has been taken to limit the sales order in 3 trading pairs which effectively destroy the botting programming designed by that professional team. As for the media report, I do not want to comment on it, but they did report the same to us through their investigations. About CZ’s comments? Actions speak louder than words. Why does he keep on talking about me if I am not threatening him? This is weird, let the fact speak for itself.
Q11: FCoin has been launched for only 2 months but developed really rapidly with trading volumes topping the chart while it took Binance 3 months to become №1 with real trading volumes. FCoin is very strong with ecosystem, but users’ experience is really bad. No trading depth and the webpage get stuck all the time. The launched app version (still in beta) is even worse than a third-party app while it takes forever to launch an official version. My question is, as a digital trading platform, shouldn’t Trading experiences be respected and focused?
Answer 11: Your question is quite sharp. Trading, in many industries are indeed not well respected, but for FCoin, we have been trying our best to perfect it. There is a process for everything to grow in maturity. If it is something great, it is bound to be less mature in the early stage. More patience please and we welcome everyone to supervise and support us.
[More to the question] — My question of trading not being respected has another sense to it in terms of users’ experience. This should always be put in the priority but with FCoin, it is not the case. It seems that there are always be put in the priority but with FCoin, it is not the case. It seems that there are always things far more important than users’ experience but shouldn’t it be the core for any exchanges?
Answer 11: Apologies for my misunderstanding of part of your question. As for the priority, if you have to choose between platform’s security/stability and users’ experience, which one would you choose? We are still in the initial stage and have been developing really fast. Therefore, we have to contribute tremendously to the security and stability of the platform. The core of a mature exchange is not only about users’ experience. As we all know, we cannot really see an exchange model with the traditional capital market. When you are trading in stock exchanges, it’s the brokers that you see, not the exchanges. That’s why I think currently for us the main focus is still to improve our core strength and in the meantime, to perfect the trading experiences along the way.
submitted by FCoinOfficial to FCoin_Official [link] [comments]

Decred Journal – September 2018

Note: you can read this on GitHub (link), Medium (link) or old Reddit (link).

Development

Final version 1.3.0 of the core software was released bringing all the enhancements reported last month to the rest of the community. The groundwork for SPV (simplified payment verification) is complete, another reduction of fees is being deployed, and performance stepped up once again with a 50% reduction in startup time, 20% increased sync speed and more than 3x faster peer delivery of block headers (a key update for SPV). Decrediton's integrations of SPV and Politeia are open for testing by experienced users. Read the full release notes and get the downloads on GitHub. As always, don't forget to verify signatures.
dcrd: completed several steps towards multipeer downloads, improved introduction to the software in the main README, continued porting cleanups and refactoring from upstream btcd.
Currently in review are initial release of smart fee estimator and a change to UTXO set semantics. The latter is a large and important change that provides simpler handling, and resolves various issues with the previous approach. A lot of testing and careful review is needed so help is welcome.
Educational series for new Decred developers by @matheusd added two episodes: 02 Simnet Setup shows how to automate simnet management with tmux and 03 Miner Reward Invalidation explains block validity rules.
Finally, a pull request template with a list of checks was added to help guide the contributors to dcrd.
dcrwallet: bugfixes and RPC improvements to support desktop and mobile wallets.
Developers are welcome to comment on this idea to derive stakepool keys from the HD wallet seed. This would eliminate the need to backup and restore redeem scripts, thus greatly improving wallet UX. (missed in July issue)
Decrediton: bugfixes, refactoring to make the sync process more robust, new loading animations, design polishing.
Politeia: multiple improvements to the CLI client (security conscious users with more funds at risk might prefer CLI) and security hardening. A feature to deprecate or timeout proposals was identified as necessary for initial release and the work started. A privacy enhancement to not leak metadata of ticket holders was merged.
Android: update from @collins: "Second test release for dcrandroid is out. Major bugs have been fixed since last test. Latest code from SPV sync has been integrated. Once again, bug reports are welcome and issues can be opened on GitHub". Ask in #dev room for the APK to join testing.
A new security page was added that allows one to validate addresses and to sign/verify messages, similar to Decrediton's Security Center. Work on translations is beginning.
Overall the app is quite stable and accepting more testers. Next milestone is getting the test app on the app store.
iOS: the app started accepting testers last week. @macsleven: "the test version of Decred Wallet for iOS is available, we have a link for installing the app but the builds currently require your UDID. Contact either @macsleven or @raedah with your UDID if you would like to help test.".
Nearest goal is to make the app crash free.
Both mobile apps received new design themes.
dcrdata: v3.0 was released for mainnet! Highlights: charts, "merged debits" view, agendas page, Insight API support, side chain tracking, Go 1.11 support with module builds, numerous backend improvements. Full release notes here. This release featured 9 contributors and development lead @chappjc noted: "This collaboration with @raedahgroup on our own block explorer and web API for @decredproject has been super productive.".
Up next is supporting dynamic page widths site wide and deploying new visual blocks home page.
Trezor: proof of concept implementation for Trezor Model T firmware is in the works (previous work was for Model One).
Ticket splitting: updated to use Go modules and added simnet support, several fixes.
docs: beginner's guide overhaul, multiple fixes and cleanups.
decred.org: added 3rd party wallets, removed inactive PoW pools and removed web wallet.
@Richard-Red is building a curated list of Decred-related GitHub repositories.
Welcome to new people contributing for the first time: @klebe, @s_ben, @victorguedes, and PrimeDominus!
Dev activity stats for September: 219 active PRs, 197 commits, 28.7k added and 18.8k deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: started and ended the month around 75 PH/s, hitting a low of 60.5 and a new high of 110 PH/s. BeePool is again the leader with their share varying between 23-54%, followed by F2Pool 13-30%, Coinmine 4-6% and Luxor 3-5%. As in previous months, there were multiple spikes of unidentified hashrate.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 98 DCR (+2.4). The price varied between 95.7 and 101.9 DCR. Locked DCR amount was 3.86-3.96 million DCR, or 45.7-46.5% of the supply.
Nodes: there are 201 public listening nodes and 325 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 5% are v1.4.0(pre) dev builds (+3%), 30% on v1.3.0 (+25%), 42% on v1.2.0 (-20%), 15% on v1.1.2 (-7%), 6% on v1.1.0. More than 76% of nodes run v1.2.0 and higher and therefore support client filters. Data as of Oct 1.

ASICs

Obelisk posted two updates on their mailing list. 70% of Batch 1 units are shipped, an extensive user guide is available, Obelisk Scanner application was released that allows one to automatically update firmware. First firmware update was released and bumped SC1 hashrate by 10-20%, added new pools and fixed multiple bugs. Next update will focus on DCR1. It is worth a special mention that the firmware source code is now open! Let us hope more manufacturers will follow this example.
A few details about Whatsminer surfaced this month. The manufacturer is MicroBT, also known as Bitwei and commonly misspelled as Bitewei. Pangolinminer is a reseller, and the model name is Whatsminer D1.
Bitmain has finally entered Decred ASIC space with their Antminer DR3. Hash rate is 7.8 TH/s while pulling 1410 W, at the price of $673. These specs mean it has the best GH/W and GH/USD of currently sold miners until the Whatsminer or others come out, although its GH/USD of 11.6 already competes with Whatsminer's 10.5. Discussed on Reddit and bitcointalk, unboxing video here.

Integrations

Meet our 17th voting service provider: decredvoting.com. It is operated by @david, has 2% fee and supports ticket splitting. Reddit thread is here.
For a historical note, the first VSP to support ticket splitting was decredbrasil.com:
@matheusd started tests on testnet several months ago. I contacted him so we could integrate with the pool in June this year. We set up the machine in July and bought the first split ticket on mainnet, using the decredbrasil pool, on July 19. It was voted on July 30. After this first vote on mainnet, we opened the tests to selected users (with more technical background) on the pool. In August we opened the tests to everyone, and would call people who want to join to the #ticket_splitting channel, or to our own Slack (in Portuguese, so mostly Brazilian users). We have 28 split tickets already voted, and 16 are live. So little more than 40 split tickets total were bought on decredbrasil pool. (@girino in #pos-voting)
KuCoin exchange listed DCBTC and DCETH pairs. To celebrate their anniversary they had a 99% trading fees discount on DCR pairs for 2 weeks.
Three more wallets integrated Decred in September:
ChangeNow announced Decred addition to their Android app that allows accountless swaps between 150+ assets.
Coinbase launched informational asset pages for top 50 coins by market cap, including Decred. First the pages started showing in the Coinbase app for a small group of testers, and later the web price dashboard went live.

Adoption

The birth of a Brazilian girl was registered on the Decred blockchain using OriginalMy, a blockchain proof of authenticity services provider. Read the full story in Portuguese and in English.

Marketing

Advertising report for September is ready. Next month the graphics for all the ads will be changing.
Marketing might seem quiet right now, but a ton is actually going on behind the scenes to put the right foundation in place for the future. Discovery data are being analyzed to generate a positioning strategy, as well as a messaging hierarchy that can guide how to talk about Decred. This will all be agreed upon via consensus of the community in the work channels, and materials will be distributed.
Next, work is being done to identify the right PR partner to help with media relations, media training, and coordination at events. While all of this is coming up to speed, we believe the website needs a refresher reflecting the soon to be agreed upon messaging, plus a more intuitive architecture to make it easier to navigate. (@Dustorf)

Events

Attended:
Upcoming:
We'll begin shortly reviewing conferences and events planned for the first half of 2019. Highlights are sure to include The North American Bitcoin Conference in Miami (Jan 16-18) and Consensus in NYC (May 14-16). If you have suggestions of events or conferences Decred should attend, please share them in #event_planning. In 2019, we would like to expand our presence in Europe, Asia, and South America, and we're looking for community members to help identify and staff those events. (@Dustorf)

Media

August issue of Decred Journal was translated to Russian. Many thanks to @DZ!
Rency cryptocurrency ratings published a report on Decred and incorporated a lot of feedback from the community on Reddit.
September issue of Chinese CCID ratings was published (snapshot), Decred is still at the bottom.
Videos:
Featured articles:
Articles:

Community Discussions

Community stats:
Comm systems news: Several work channels were migrated to Matrix, #writers_room is finally bridged.
Highlights:
Twitter: why decentralized governance and funding are necessary for network survival and the power of controlling the narrative; learning about governance more broadly by watching its evolution in cryptocurrency space, importance of community consensus and communications infrastructure.
Reddit: yet another strong pitch by @solar; question about buyer protections; dcrtime internals; a proposal to sponsor hoodies in the University of Cape Town; Lightning Network support for altcoins.
Chats: skills to operate a stakepool; voting details: 2 of 3 votes can approve a block, what votes really approve are regular tx, etc; scriptless script atomic swaps using Schnorr adaptor signatures; dev dashboard, choosing work, people do best when working on what interests them most; opportunities for governments and enterprise for anchoring legal data to blockchain; terminology: DAO vs DAE; human-friendly payments, sharing xpub vs payment protocols; funding btcsuite development; Politeia vote types: approval vote, sentiment vote and a defund vote, also linking proposals and financial statements; algo trading and programming languages (yes, on #trading!); alternative implementation, C/C++/Go/Rust; HFTs, algo trading, fake volume and slippage; offline wallets, usb/write-only media/optical scanners vs auditing traffic between dcrd and dcrwallet; Proof of Activity did not inspire Decred but spurred Decred to get moving, Wikipedia page hurdles; how stakeholders could veto blocks; how many votes are needed to approve a proposal; why Decrediton uses Electron; CVE-2018-17144 and over-dependence on single Bitcoin implementation, btcsuite, fuzz testing; tracking proposal progress after voting and funding; why the wallet does not store the seed at all; power connectors, electricity, wiring and fire safety; reasonable spendings from project fund; ways to measure sync progress better than block height; using Politeia without email address; concurrency in Go, locks vs channels.
#support is not often mentioned, but it must be noted that every day on this channel people get high quality support. (@bee: To my surprise, even those poor souls running Windows 10. My greatest respect to the support team!)

Markets

In September DCR was trading in the range of USD 34-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0063. On Sep 6, DCR revisited the bottom of USD 34 / BTC 0.0054 when BTC quickly dropped from USD 7,300 to 6,400. On Sep 14, a small price rise coincided with both the start of KuCoin trading and hashrate spike to 104 PH/s. Looking at coinmarketcap charts, the trading volume is a bit lower than in July and August.
As of Oct 4, Decred is #18 by the number of daily transactions with 3,200 tx, and #9 by the USD value of daily issuance with $230k. (source: onchainfx)
Interesting observation by @ImacallyouJawdy: while we sit at 2018 price lows the amount locked in tickets is testing 2018 high.

Relevant External

ASIC for Lyra2REv2 was spotted on the web. Vertcoin team is preparing a new PoW algorithm. This would be the 3rd fork after two previous forks to change the algorithm in 2014 and 2015.
A report titled The Positive Externalities of Bitcoin Mining discusses the benefits of PoW mining that are often overlooked by the critics of its energy use.
A Brief Study of Cryptonetwork Forks by Alex Evans of Placeholder studies the behavior of users, developers and miners after the fork, and makes the cases that it is hard for child chains to attract users and developers from their parent chains.
New research on private atomic swaps: the paper "Anonymous Atomic Swaps Using Homomorphic Hashing" attempts to break the public link between two transactions. (bitcointalk, decred)
On Sep 18 Poloniex announced delisting of 8 more assets. That day they took a 12-80% dive showing their dependence on this one exchange.
Circle introduced USDC markets on Poloniex: "USDC is a fully collateralized US dollar stablecoin using the ERC-20 standard that provides detailed financial and operational transparency, operates within the regulated framework of US money transmission laws, and is reinforced by established banking partners and auditors.".
Coinbase announced new asset listing process and is accepting submissions on their listing portal. (decred)
The New York State Office of the Attorney General posted a study of 13 exchanges that contains many insights.
A critical vulnerability was discovered and fixed in Bitcoin Core. Few days later a full disclosure was posted revealing the severity of the bug. In a bitcointalk thread btcd was called 'amateur' despite not being vulnerable, and some Core developers voiced their concerns about multiple implementations. The Bitcoin Unlimited developer who found the bug shared his perspective in a blog post. Decred's vision so far is that more full node implementations is a strength, just like for any Internet protocol.

About This Issue

This is the 6th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room on Matrix or Slack.
Contributions are also welcome: some areas are adding content, pre-release review or translations to other languages.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Dustorf, jz, Haon, oregonisaac, raedah and Richard-Red.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

USDQ GOOD PROJECT


What are Stable Coins? USDT, TUSD, GUSD, USDC and USDQ

In this article, Slava Mikhalkin talks about USDQ, a fully algorithmic stablecoin that offers reliability and easy collateralization for Bitcoin. Working as a Blockchain Architect with PLATINUM ENGINEERING, Slava collaborates within the +200-employee team to develop bleeding edge solutions in white-label wallets, STOs and IEOs fundraising platforms, and full-cycle business models for crypto projects. A key value proposition, brought by PLATINUM ENGINEERING, is a holistic approach, where a versatile talent pool helps startups build up capabilities in IT, marketing and legal. A unique decentralized stablecoin USDQ features various price stabilization algorithms, an intricate system of incentives for traders and AI-driven predictive analytics module. This novel stablecoin is worth noting while it’s still gathering steam.
Foreword
It's clear that cryptocurrencies are gradually making inroads into the global economy, moving closer to mass adoption. Cryptocurrencies offer a number of advantages - decentralization and trust, lower commissions and disintermediation - that make it easier for users to carry out their daily transactions. Anybody can transfer value around the globe, winning from fast processing time.
In comparison, sending value across borders via legacy financial systems requires lengthy waiting periods and fees, while also making users stuck into highly complex processes. For instance, if a person from Japan wants to send some money to England, the fees can range anywhere from 5% up to 10%, depending on the system being used. In addition, there will be some currency conversion fees. It seems that centralized players, currently enjoying lack of competition, set up fees and commissions just as they wish.
And it's merchants that carry out cross-border transactions that find working with legacy finance institutions most troublesome. They keep losing hefty chunks from their potential profits, just paying out fees to payment processors. This makes businesses hike up their prices, passing these expenses to ordinary consumers. Crypto offers a paradigm shift change, bringing to the table lightning speeds and lower fees. Although cryptocurrencies have been winning more and more attention from merchants worldwide, there's still a number of roadblocks to wider adoption, among which are price volatility, scalability limitations and others.
Volatility is admittedly the biggest hurdle that prevents businesses from using cryptocurrencies more. Bitcoin can experience huge fluctuations in just a matter of hours or even minutes. In addition, major coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum present scalability issues, which results in high processing time. A merchant, who has to handle hundreds of payments on a daily basis, would not be able to conduct their business efficiently if transactions get stuck for days on end. On top of that, it's extremely hard for adopters to convert cryptocurrencies into fiat via the banks and other financial agents they usually work with.
Cryptocurrencies seek to offer solutions to all of these issues.
What is stablecoin?
A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency, whose architecture enables its price to always equal the price of another asset. Most of the stablecoins are pegged to USD. The biggest names in cryptocurrencies are Tether, Gemini Dollar, USDQ, TUSD and others.
How do stablecoins manage to be so stable?
As opposed to other coins that float freely, stable cryptocurrencies require that each unit is backed with a unit of the fiat currency. For instance, Tether (USDT) pegs 1 USDT to 1 USD on the one-to-one basis. In this way, stablecoins are somewhere between cryptocurrencies and regular fiats. Tether is based on its own blockchain that is built on top of Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ethereum systems.
Although Tether is the biggest stablecoin, there's a number of concerns as to its operations. The biggest one is the continuing controversy as to the fiat reserves, which the issuer is supposed to store on the one-to-one ratio to the number of issued Tether units. The company has been saying that the audit will be done in the near future, but just several weeks ago it started to claim that it's not only the cash, but also loans to other companies that can be recorded as fiat reserves. These statements resulted in growing distrust among crypto enthusiasts.
Another project is TrueUSD (TUSD). It also pegs to USD. The difference with Tether is the openness to audits and transparency. The company is open to third-party audits, it publishes the duly verified reports on the fiat reserves it holds. In addition, users enjoy legal protections.
USDC is another stablecoin that was created by the famous cryptocurrency exchange Circle. Just as TUSD, if offers regulatory compliance and transparency. The big problem about all these systems is the fact that they enable authorities to seize users’ funds, which completely negates the very idea of decentralization and anti-censorship, on which crypto is built.
USDQ is different from other stablecoins as it's not backed by the fiat currency, but by Bitcoin and other top-10 cryptocurrencies in the future. This enables the ecosystem to avoid dealing with legacy financial systems. Through the overcollateralization process, USDQ turns highly volatile cryptocurrencies into the USD-pegged USDQ that is perfect for storing value and processing transactions in the external economy without any risk of price changes. The coin is being developed by PLATINUM ENGINEERING with the small community slowly growing around the project.
Why do we need stablecoins?
Stablecoins have advanced as a new iteration on cryptocurrencies, enabling to address such issues as high volatility and interactions with legacy financial systems.
Coins like USDQ make sure that various mechanisms are used in order to stabilize the prices at the USD peg. Traders can easily change their Bitcoins into USDQ and thus prevent the negative impact on unwanted prices changes. Stablecoins are very easy to use, which is a boon for non-techy adopters. Any person from around the world can quickly convert fiats into stablecoins, without any need to think about future price changes and without worrying about potential risks for losing their funds. As a rule, you'll always find various stablecoins on crypto exchanges, enabling traders to quickly move around stables and other cryptos.
As we've spoken above, cross-border payments win most from using the stablecoins. This hybrid species between fiat and crypto will help open up the hidden value in global trade, amounting to trillions of dollars in profits for stakeholders.
USDQ is decentralized stablecoin, which uses algorithms to offer higher stability and reliability. Fully on-chain and monitored by high-speed AI robots, ecosystem offers reliable defences against malicious acts and attacks. First run in line of fiat-pegs, USDQ is brought by PLATINUM ENGINEERING Team, looking to edge together innovative solutions in collateralization, using stabilizing mechanisms and oracles for high-endurance stablecoins. Fully anonymous, USDQ breaks limits out of this legacy world.
PLATINUM ENGINEERING openly shares about its development and vectors for growth, enabling stakeholders to learn about cutting-edge solutions in the blockchains/crypto domain. PLATINUM ENGINEERING has already helped over 150 crypto projects to grow through emerging blockchain economy of the future. Businesses would be amazed at new capabilities they can obtain through tokenizing their business models, automating routine business processes and drawing investors on crypto markets. The team welcomes the community to contact directly via the official groups in Telegram, Facebook or LinkedIn. Readers will learn how to obtain new competitive advantages by tapping into blockchain in their blog.
What is Q DAO and USDQ StableCoin? Fully Explained.
In this article, Slava Mikhalkin shares his opinion about USDQ, a unique fully decentralized stablecoin for easy Bitcoin collateralization. Serving as a Blockchain Architect at PLATINUM ENGINEERING, he’s helped deploy dozens of DLT-based success stories. Leveraging +15Y developer track record, he empowers USDQ with high-usability UI and robust back-end. Smart contracts the team develops quickly turn into industry best practices. He's certain that blockchain will disrupt finance as we know it. He goes raw on USDQ's inner working, telling it all.
Look into real-life use cases for Q DAO
Introduction
Cryptocurrency markets have been famous for huge volatility. This quality of crypto helps speculators earn enormous profits. This high volatility drew attention to Bitcoin in December 2017 when the price rocketed up to $20,000. Subsequently, the price plummeted. And up to this day, no other cryptocurrency has managed to repeat this feat. Some adopters don't need speculation and only want to use crypto to execute transactions, but scalability issues mean that execution might lag and prices might slip. As a result, either of the parties will inevitably incur a loss. USDQ has been created to address this very issue.
What are the problems that volatility creates?
  1. Cryptomarkets are moving toward creating the second financial system, featuring all those capabilities that the legacy finance institutions enable. Among these, lending is of particular importance. And lending doesn't win from volatility but only loses, because it's either lenders or borrowers that will lose from a change in prices for a crypto asset, which is used to execute the lending contract. Consequently, creating a stable crypto asset has become a top priority for the community with many experts believing that without it no adoption will occur.
  2. For another group of users, volatility is how they make money. It's traders. But even traders sometimes look for assets to cover against undesired prices moves. The only option they have is to transfer value into a more stable asset. Fiat is the first choice that comes to mind, but the big disadvantage of fiat is lengthy processing process, KYC/AML and fees. The crypto asset that simultaneously behaves just as fiat does and offers all the perks that cryptocurrencies do will always in favor among crypto traders.
All about Q DAO token
Seeing all these needs in the market, Q DAO was created in order to act as an internal governance token within the ecosystem, which helps to govern USDQ, a USD-pegged stablecoin. All future projects within the ecosystem will be carried out with the use of this internal token, bringing wide utilization of Q DAO and a driver behind the strong growth potential. As of now, it’s only Bitcoin that users can use as a collateral, but there are plans to expand to other top 10 crypto assets as well. Importantly, the ecosystem doesn’t use national fiat currencies, thus eliminating any need to engage the legacy financial system.
Naturally, the more successful the ecosystem projects are, the more rationale there'll be for Q DAO to grow in price. And USDQ has already proven that the crypto industry has evaluated the system's use at a high level. The coin’s value is pegged to USD, so 1 USDQ = 1 USD
What's the purpose of Q DAO token?
Q DAO is used in several ways throughout the USDQ ecosystem. The first of them is paying fees, payable by users who wish to exchange back from the stablecoin into Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies which were locked as a collateral. Whenever the fees are paid, Q DAO is burned, which results in supply reduction and growing prices.
The second way for Q DAO to bring value is enabling participation in the ecosystem governance. All holders of Q DAO token are entitled to participating in votes on proposals regarding to potential changes within the system. Since holders will win from continued success and expansion of the system, they are incentivized to thoroughly review the proposals and vote only for the most promising ones.
What's the fair value for Q DAO? Is it underpriced or overpriced?
The fair market value for Q DAO is indirectly correlated to the prices for USDQ. As long as the use of USDQ continues to grow, so will the prices for Q DAO. Accounting for the fact that USDQ is one of the pioneering stablecoins that will enable easier and more effective crypto lending, there are currently enormous opportunities for growth. In the years to come, combined with benefits from fast processing and lowered fees, Q DAO might garner global popularity as an instrumental component for lending, transacting and funding transactions, all automated and transparent through the use of smart contracts.
USDQ is decentralized stablecoin, which uses algorithms to offer higher stability and reliability. Fully on-chain and monitored by high-speed AI robots, ecosystem offers reliable defences against malicious acts and attacks. First, run in the line of fiat-pegs, USDQ is brought by PLATINUM ENGINEERING Team, looking to edge together innovative solutions in collateralization, using stabilizing mechanisms and oracles for high-endurance stablecoins. Fully anonymous, USDQ breaks limits out of this legacy world.
PLATINUM ENGINEERING openly shares about its development and vectors for growth, enabling stakeholders to learn about cutting-edge solutions in the blockchains/crypto domain. PLATINUM ENGINEERING has already helped over 150 crypto projects to grow through emerging blockchain economy of the future. Businesses would be amazed at new capabilities they can obtain through tokenizing their business models, automating routine business processes and drawing investors on crypto markets. The team welcomes the community to contact directly via the official groups in Telegram, Facebook or LinkedIn. Readers will learn how to obtain new competitive advantages by tapping into blockchain in their blog.
This overview may not be fully exhaustive and does not assess the viability of any project, nor its team legitimacy. Readers should conduct their own due diligence before using or investing in any of the listed Stablecoins. This article represents the author’s opinions only and should not be considered investment advice. All described functionality in the article is still under development, it can be changed/processed. Please follow the updates.

What Is USDQ and Q DAO? Complete Guide from PLATINUM ENGINEERING
Mihaill Kudryashev, a Front-end engineer at PLATINUM ENGINEERING, wrote this article while seeking to raise awareness about USDQ, a stablecoin his team is helping to develop. Among the biggest benefits, USDQ brings full decentralization and predictive capabilities. Soon there will be even more fully backed stable coins: JPYQ, KRWQ, SGDQ, HKDQ, CNYQ, RUBQ under Q DAO governance. Slowly learning more about blockchains, Mihail has been effective in transforming vague ideas into effective front-end solutions with strong UI/UX. Within his team, he’s helped many crypto startups to make their voice heard throughout the emerging global crypto community. In this article, Mihail looks into the key benefits that users win from using USDQ.
USDQ brings stability, with no need to engage legacy finance
How do USDQ and Q DAO coins work within the ecosystem?
USDQ is decentralized stablecoin, which uses algorithms to offer higher stability and reliability. It's backed by Bitcoin (another top 10 cryptocurrencies will be added in future). The elegant system places all transactions on the blockchain and empower users to execute cross-border and disintermediated transactions at any time and from any place. It's pegged to the value of USD, i.e. 1 USDQ always equals 1 USD. The ecosystem's design borrows heavily from fractional banking systems. In the nutshell, USDQ is a customer-facing stablecoin and Q DAO is an internal "operational" coin; together they help create a stabilized safe haven for anybody who's looking to hedge against rampant volatility of crypto markets.
Introduction to Q DAO and USDQ
There's a number of factors that prevent mass adoption of cryptocurrencies. The biggest factor among this is high volatility, seen in crypto. Bitcoin, the oldest and most popular coin, has been fluctuating with prices oscillating between 20,000 and 3,500 in just one year of 2018. No potential adopters, be it merchants or individuals, would be happy with suffering huge losses that such drastic changes can entail. And it's this high volatility that USDQ is set to address, bringing stability and convenience.
Tether (USDT) is probably the most well-known and widely used stablecoin. However, it has been embroiled in various controversies from the very start with no end to these in sight. Although the system is supposed to assure the 1-to-1 fiat reserves for all Tether units created, the website content has been recently changed to say that the issuer views not only cash in the bank, but also various loans to other companies, as the reserves. Both regulators and crypto enthusiasts have voiced concerns, which might bode ill for Tether in the months to come.
USDQ works differently. Here, the stablecoin is pegged to US Dollar and backed by Bitcoin (+top 10 other cryptocurrencies in future). It's similar to lending operations and fractional banking systems. Overcollateralization is used to mitigate potential unexpected changes in assets prices.
The USDQ ecosystem is highly transparent as all of the operations are recorded on the immutable Ethereum blockchain, open to review by anybody and at any time. The smart contracts bring automation to business processes and eliminate the need for middlemen to assure trust and prevent abuse.
In order to determine how viable USDQ will be in the future, we need to discuss the two tokens used within the ecosystem.
Review of Q DAO and USDQ
Q DAO is governance token, entitles holders to participate in voting for new decisions. Importantly, holders are interested seeing Q DAO's prices growing and thus they are incentivized to thoroughly review proposals and deliver the best decisions. In this way, Q DAO imbues higher democracy and decentralization, on which many current crypto projects lag.
In addition, all the fees, charged for the system use, can be paid only in Q DAO.
In order to create USDQ, a user needs to transfer Bitcoins into a Collateralized Debt Contract (CDC). This will automatically trigger the smart contract to generate USDQ and send it to the user. In order to change USDQ back into crypto assets, users need to pay back the amount of USDQ they input and the fees, chargeable in Q DAO Tokens. Whenever this is done, USDQ is automatically destroyed and the Collateralized Debt Сontract is closed.
In addition by getting USDQ directly at the company's website, users can trade in USDQ on secondary markets. It's as easy as trading Bitcoin or Ethereum or any other coin.
Traders can store both coins in their wallets, assuring higher security. The stability and ease of use for USDQ open up wide ranges of adoption for both businesses and end consumers alike.
What makes USDQ stand apart
The main difference between projects like Tether and USDQ is complete transparency and openness in the inner workings of USDQ. All the data is easily accessible on the blockchain and there are no rumors or controversies as to the reserves held by the team, potential conflicts of interest or hidden agendas.
The CDС mechanics ensure that it's impossible to create fake units of USDQ, as smart contract can be activated only after an amount in Bitcoins is input. The development is being done completely transparent. Interested parties can review the smart contract, presented on the website. The audits and peer reviews were carried out to assure the highest quality of smart contract. The website-based scanner enables to track all the data about each and every transaction, including time, amount and collateral size.
In addition, should a "black swan" event occur, i.e. a drastic fall in Bitcoin prices, Q DAO is sold on secondary markets. Bitcoin value is liquidated to make a USDQ buyback procedure, which prevents any losses on the part of the system's users.
Additionally, PLATINUM BLOCKCHAIN ENGINEERING which is helping to develop the ecosystem is working hard to build up long-term partnerships with stakeholders in the crypto industry. The more liaisons the team wins, the better outlook for USDQ will be.
Why do we need stablecoins anyway?
Different assets produce varying levels of volatility in prices, when compared to each other. For instance, the purchasing capacity of US dollar has reduced over time with 1 USD from 1913 equaling 24 USD today (2019). This happens due to inflation 3-10% per year.
In comparison, Bitcoin almost tripled in value in 2018 and then fell down by as much. Thus, fiat currencies are more stable, when compared to cryptocurrencies.
Stablecoins don't attempt to fight inflation. Instead, coins like Tether and USDQ peg themselves to US dollar, bringing relatively higher stability to crypto trading communities. One of the most famous transactions with Bitcoin is when a pizza was bought with Bitcoin back in 2010. At that time, the pizza ended up costing just a couple of bucks, but today it costs millions. Although stablecoins continue to be impacted by inflation and exchange rates that come to them from fiats they peg themselves to, they are nowhere near the mindboggingly high volatility of crypto assets.
One of the major use cases for stablecoins like USDQ is concluding long-term contracts. For instance, when using a popular decentralized platform Augur, users can bet on the price of oil in 5-10 years. The problem is that you won't only have to account for future changes in oil prices, but also for prices in Ethereum or Bitcoin that you use to make the bet. USDQ solves this problem elegantly and without much trouble. Using it, users don't have to consider future changes in Bitcoin prices and they can concentrate on what they've come here for - betting on future events. And they don’t have to worry about technical details as it’s easy to purchase USDQ and use for trader’s purposes.
Betting industry is just one of the many use cases, where USDQ can bring benefits. It can be successfully used for any transactions done across borders and long-term financial contracts. Virtually, USDQ opens up new opportunities any time value is exchanged and volatility has a negative effect.
Bottom Line
USDQ has a high potential to democratise transactions between companies and individuals globally, bringing fast execution and low volatility. The "PLATINUM BLOCKCHAIN ENGINEERING" is working hard to enable and improve various features in order to help USDQ to take leading positions on crypto markets.
Here are the main ecosystem’s features:
Taking into account these beneficial features, there's no question that USDQ will become a viable alternative to other fiat-backed cryptocurrencies like TUSD, USDT, GUSD, USDC etc. Competing with other stablecoins, both already operating and just being developed, PLATINUM ENGINEERING will roll out the new features and underlying tech solutions that'll help propel the coin.
USDQ is decentralized stablecoin, which uses algorithms to offer higher stability and reliability. Fully on-chain and monitored by high-speed AI robots, ecosystem offers reliable defences against malicious acts and attacks. First run in line of fiat-pegs, USDQ is brought by PLATINUM ENGINEERING Team, looking to edge together innovative solutions in collateralization, using stabilizing mechanisms for high-endurance stablecoins. Soon there will be even more fully backed stable coins: JPYQ, KRWQ, SGDQ, HKDQ, CNYQ, RUBQ under USDQ brand. Fully anonymous, USDQ breaks limits out of this legacy world.
PLATINUM ENGINEERING values your opinion and welcomes you to continue the conversation on Telegram or Facebook, where the company’s development team is always ready to help you find solutions to pressing issues. Working on projects like USDQ, Michael has gained an invaluable suite of skills and insights, enabling to roll out high-usability UI/UX with tight deadlines and lack of clear expectations as to user behaviors. The team has successfully produced white-label wallets, stand-alone fundraising platforms, as well as integrated fundraising ecosystems. Any startup looking for a reliable partner to help execute a success-story will win from a free consultation with the PLATINUM ENGINEERING team about potential solutions to their needs and issues.
This overview may not be fully exhaustive and does not assess the viability of any project, nor its team legitimacy. Readers should conduct their own due diligence before using or investing in any of the listed Stablecoins. This article represents the author’s opinions only and should not be considered investment advice. All described functionality in the article is still under development, it can be changed/processed. Please follow the updates.
submitted by vitinhoES to u/vitinhoES [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Party - YouTube HOW TO BUY BITCOIN 2019 - Easy Ways to Invest In ... Bitcoin Evolution Bot Review - Scam or Legit? - YouTube How to start Bitcoin mining for beginners (SUPER EASY ... Circle Tragically Removes Bitcoin Trading From Its App (The Cryptoverse #161)

Circle Internet Financial, a bitcoin-based startup, confirmed rumors that it was in the midst of a large fundraising effort this week after the New York Times reported that the company received a ... Crypto startup Circle has laid off roughly 30 people, or about 10 percent of its staff, CoinDesk has learned. The company – which owns trading platform Poloniex, equity crowdfunding site ... Crypto Startup Circle Launches USD-Backed Cryptocurrency. Circle Internet Financial (Circle) recently raised $110 million for what may be the internet of value. The Boston-based company is looking to use the funds to launch a stable coin; a cryptocurrency token pegged against the US dollar. Circle will build the USD Coin as an ERC20 token on ... Circle Blockchain Startup Cryptocurrency Investment App Launches In 2018. The crypto world is one of the most fascinating realms of digital technology, as there are literally 100’s of blockchain services that are being released daily. With that in mind, we have just gotten word that Dublin-based firm Circle Financial is going to be releasing its very on investment app in the coming year. Circle Internet Financial Ltd., a Boston-based startup that is developing tools for consumers to use the digital currency Bitcoin, has raised $17 million in venture capital in a second funding round.

[index] [50405] [41790] [5520] [14723] [31629] [13089] [13281] [27464] [38323] [32052]

The Bitcoin Party - YouTube

An in-depth review of the Bitcoin Evolution trading robot. We registered on the platform and made a few trades. Unlike the other reviewers we actually follow... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Vosk of VoskCoin tours and interviews MiningStore a cryptocurrency startup company selling prebuilt mining rigs and miner components such as frames and GPU's! Interested in WINNING a FREE MSI 1060 ... A channel that reviews Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies such as Bitcoin and other crypto currency platforms. So you want to get into mining Crypto or Cryptocurrency or Bitcoin or Altcoins or Litecoin or really anything coins? Well here is a quick video on how i started and what i recommend you do now to ...

#