88% af alle BTC-overførsler overbetaler transaktionsgebyrer

Tre og et halvt år efter aktivering af SegWit er vedtagelsen af ​​det pladsbesparende transaktionsformat stadig langt fra ideel.

Ifølge analyse af Mark “Murch” Erhardt fra Chaincode Labs betaler 88% af alle Bitcoin-transaktionsinput højere gebyrer end nødvendigt. Erhardt baserer sin konklusion på data, der kun viser 12% af transaktionsinput, bruger SegWit-formatet, hvilket er mindre gebyrintensivt end transaktioner med ældre input.

Erhardt mener, at en tillid til ældre transaktionsgebyrer holder Bitcoin Code blokke mindre, end de ellers kunne være, hvilket bidrager til et tilsyneladende voksende efterslæb af ubekræftede transaktioner.

En tilstoppet Bitcoin-mempool indeholdende 107 blokke af transaktioner på et tidspunkt i går tjener som en påmindelse om, at det er muligt at spare penge på gebyrer ved at oprette billigere transaktioner. Den nemmeste måde at gøre dette på er ifølge Erhardt ved at vedtage SegWit for alle fremtidige transaktioner.

Erhardt påpegede , at det er nødvendigt at skifte fra arv til dataeffektive SegWit-transaktioner for at minimere oppustethed i blockchain:

„Jo længere mindre effektive outputformater er udbredte, jo mere fremtidige blockspace-gæld akkumulerer vi.“

Erhardt mener, at integration af SegWit i større porteføljetjenester er længe forsinket og bidrager til unødvendig mempool og blockchain-oppustethed. ”Det er næsten 3,5 år siden SegWit aktiverede,” bemærkede han i slutningen af ​​en tråd om tilstanden af ​​mempool.

„På hvilket tidspunkt er det acceptabelt at overveje tegnebøger, der ikke kan sendes til native SegWit-adresser forældede?“

Erhardt blev ansat i årevis som en cryptocurrency-tegnebogudvikler, inden han blev ansat hos Chaincode Labs i 2020, og er specialist i UTXO-styring til kommercielle Bitcoin-tegnebøger, hvilket hjælper dem med at spare penge på forretningsrelaterede transaktions- og vedligeholdelsesomkostninger på en række forskellige måder.

SegWit-transaktioner tegner sig i øjeblikket for ca. 51% af alle Bitcoin-transaktioner; en statistik, der anses for sandsynligt at vokse i størrelse, da udbydere af kommercielle tegnebøger står over for stigende efterspørgsel efter SegWit-adressesupport.

Det anslåede minimumsgebyr for inkludering i den næste blok er i øjeblikket 149 sat / byte, hvilket svarer til et gebyr på $ 14,97 til en pris på $ 44,870 pr. BTC.

Hvordan man bruger SegWit sparer på transaktionsgebyrer

Mens SegWit-transaktioner teknisk set ikke er mindre i størrelse end ældre transaktioner, vægtes komponenterne i deres data forskelligt, når det kommer til at inkludere dem i en blok.

Data, der vedrører vidnekomponenten i en transaktion, betragtes som ikke-væsentlige for en fungerende blockchain og diskonteres derfor, når de samlede transaktioners størrelse er samlet. Dette får SegWit-transaktioner til at se mindre ud og kræver derfor et mindre gebyr at behandle – de er hurtigere at bekræfte end en ældre transaktion med det samme gebyr

Sådan begynder du at bruge SegWit nu

Efter at have fundet en kompetent og pålidelig tegnebog, der understøtter SegWit-transaktioner, er den vigtigste komponent til at bruge SegWit at flytte penge, der er bestemt til at blive brugt fra ældre adresser (begynder med en „1“ eller „3“) til SegWit-adresser (begynder med en „bc1 ”).

Goldman Sachs Exec sier at mer institusjonelle investeringer ville roet Bitcoin

Goldman Sachs Executive sier at Bitcoin (BTC) vil stabilisere seg når flere institusjoner kommer

Jeff Currie, en Goldman Sachs toppsjef, hadde sagt at Bitcoin må ha flere institusjonelle investorer før markedet kan modnes ordentlig, i et intervju på CNBCs The Coin Rush.

Curie: Ikke nok institusjoner er involvert ennå

Jeff Currie, den globale lederen for råvareforskning ved Goldman Sachs, hadde uttalt at institusjonelle investeringer i bransjen fremdeles er små, og la til at flere institusjonelle investorer må delta aktivt for at markedet skal bli mer stabilisert.

Ifølge ham har kryptovalutamarkedet allerede vist tegn på modenhet, men det er fortsatt mye rom for forbedring. Han hevdet også at omtrent 1% av alle pengene i BTC kom fra institusjoner.

Currie bemerket også at siden gull og Bitcoin Up deler en likhet i å være en defensiv eiendel, kan førstnevnte nåværende $ 3 billion dollar markedet også bli siphoned i kryptoindustrien i nær fremtid.

„Akkurat nå har alle kryptovalutaene omtrent en billion [USD], la oss si at den vokser til $ 2 billioner, så gjør du bare den enkle matematikken – hvor mange mynter er der delt på det, og du kan ende opp med en virkelig verdi . ”

Curie bemerket at dette kan gi en langsiktig likevekt for Bitcoin. Imidlertid er eiendelen fortsatt vanskelig å forutsi på grunn av usikkerhetsnivået og volatiliteten som er knyttet til den.

Institusjonell etterspørsel etter Bitcoin og andre kryptoaktiva vokser

På baksiden hadde Gemini-medstifter tvitret det stikk motsatte av Curies holdning og sa at han var „operatør og eier“ av en kryptobørs, og at han faktisk vet at det er „enorm“ men „stille“ institusjonell etterspørsel etter Bitcoin.

Dette er helt falskt. Det er enorm institusjonell etterspørsel, og det meste er stille. Som operatør og eier av @Gemini ville jeg faktisk vite at du ikke ville. https://t.co/9487m9Bu3w

– Tyler Winklevoss (@tyler) 11. januar 2021

Og selv om Winklevoss uttalelse var en tilbakevending rettet mot Peter Schiff, ikke Curie, kan det faktisk ha mer substans enn Curies med tanke på at selv de beste institusjonene som JPMorgan er bullish på Bitcoin, og går så langt som å forutsi at den digitale eiendelen kan tjene 600 milliarder dollar i institusjonelle investeringer og stiger til $ 146 000 per mynt.

I fjor hadde toppinstitusjoner og store selskaper som Microstrategy, Grayscale, PayPal, Square, MassMutual og en rekke andre investert i Bitcoin.

Microstrategys administrerende direktør, Michael Saylor, gjentar stadig sin forpliktelse til kontinuerlig investering i Bitcoin. Han har også prøvd å bringe Elon Musk inn i folden ved å prøve å overbevise ham om å konvertere Teslas balanse til Bitcoin.

MassMutual og Square har også investert mye i Bitcoin. Faktisk eier Square over 4000 BTC mens MassMutual investerte 100 millioner dollar i kryptomarkedet.

Og uansett om Curies ord stemmer eller ikke, at det ikke er nok institusjonelle investeringer, er en ting klar: institusjonell etterspørsel etter krypto, spesielt Bitcoin, vokser.

Bitcoin, the “mother of all financial bubbles”? Bank of America is not going dead hand!

Old school – For Michael Hartnett, director of strategy for the Bank of America, the Bitcoin bullrun we live in would outperform all other financial bubbles and be “ the mother of financial bubbles ”.

But, if you are an avid reader of the Journal du Coin, you know that the mother of financial bubbles took place in 1720

The sudden rise in the price of Bitcoin since mid-December is impressive , even shocking , but this speculative euphoria hardly outclasses historic bubbles, such as dot com or subprime . The crypto-asset market does not yet have sufficient capitalization to compete with events of this magnitude.

Hartnett points to the increasingly speculative behavior of crypto investors and warns of the bursting of the “ bitcoin bubble ”. For the strategist, bitcoin’s performance – up 1000% since 2019 – portends a bubble of unprecedented magnitude , which would relegate the bubbles of the past to the rank of minor events.

Bitcoin: bubble or asset undervaluation?

Of course, it is still possible to draw a parallel between the rise in the price of Bitcoin and previous explosions in the prices of other assets. Current market conditions are unique and the rise exceptional . The rise in gold in the late 1970s, the rise of web businesses in the 1990s, and soaring house prices in the mid-2000s all resulted in huge corrections after underperforming three digits.

However, the reality is more nuanced , even if Bitcoin has just corrected by almost 20% today. I think we are seeing a revaluation of all of the area that was clearly undervalued in the eyes of the market. This is not to say that Bitcoin’s new ATH represents the fair value of the asset, but only the price in 2020 was too low compared to this theoretical fair value of the asset.

At Bitcoin, nothing fundamentally changed between 2019 and 2020 , yet institutions have been buying bitcoins for several months and this long before the price hike. The pandemic has been a catalyst for change and made many players realize the value proposition of cryptoassets .

XRP Investors Take Legal Action Over SEC Charges

XRP investors have filed a petition against the SEC citing irreparable harm.

The petitioners believe the SEC is not looking out for the best interests of investors by declaring XRP to be a security.

The value of XRP has fallen by more than 50% since the SEC brought charges against Ripple Labs and two of its executives.

For almost every common cryptocurrency available in the market, 2020 has been a big year. For the most part, 2021 looks very promising, but XRP is not.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has officially tasked Ripple Labs and two of its executives with selling more than $ 1 billion in unregistered securities. Today, former investors are suing the SEC in turn. It appears that XRP holders do not approve of the token being labeled as a security by the SEC and therefore are suing the government for the harm caused to them by these charges.

What does their legal action involve?

XRP investors who filed the petition say the SEC is not doing its best to protect U.S. investors . These investors argue in the first bullet that stating that XRP is a security is in fact serving the interests of investors. This result is the opposite of what the SEC claims to do.

In its second point, the petition states:

As chairman of the SEC, it was Jay Clayton (Clayton’s) fiduciary duty to uphold the SEC’s mission statement. Instead of protecting investors and sharing information to help them make informed decisions, the defendant knowingly and intentionally caused losses of billions of dollars to innocent investors who bought, traded, received and / or acquired the XRP digital asset, including named plaintiffs, and all others in a similar situation.

Complainants say the SEC has had nearly seven years to make an official statement or work with Ripple Lab and its executives. This delay, they say, was more than enough time for the government to act. In their eyes, it is unfair that the SEC is making these accusations now. Worse yet, this action cost investors billions of dollars in “unnecessary” losses.

The petition also claims that Jay Clayton, the head of the SEC, acted for improper motives and subjected Ripple Labs and XRP to irreparable harm. They point out that the SEC considers Bitcoin and Ether not to be securities, and argue that the same is true for XRP. They thus believe that the SEC should consider the third largest cryptocurrency in terms of market capitalization (now fourth according to Coin Gecko, a cryptocurrency market capitalization aggregator) as not being a security. In addition, they cite the use of XRP as „currency“ with over 150 applications and commercial consumption.

What is XRP?

XRP is the cryptocurrency created by Ripple, an enterprise blockchain platform intended to facilitate payments and fund transfers. The Ripple network claims to be able to conduct international transactions instantly for a fraction of the cost of the traditional money transfer system.

Until recently, Ripple has partnered with many banks. XRP was listed on almost every cryptocurrency exchange before the charges were brought against Ripple. Following this announcement, many partners and exchanges suspended their services until everything was legally settled with Ripple.

3 powody, dla których Bitcoin po prostu spadł po tym, jak nie złamał ponownie 19,5 tys. dolarów

Cena Bitcoinów nagle spadła o 2,5% po tym, jak w nocnym rajdzie osiągnęła poziom 19 570 dolarów.

Cena Bitcoina (BTC) wzrosła ponad 19 500 USD na krótko 15 grudnia, osiągając aż 19 570 USD na Binance. Jednak w ciągu trzech godzin cena BTC spadła do 19.050 dolarów, odnotowując nagłe cofnięcie się o 2,5%.

Cena Bitcoin Era szybko wróciła do poziomu powyżej 18.000 dolarów i kontynuowała kurs po 18.300 dolarów. BTC, a następnie przełamanie poziomu oporu klucza klastra wielorybów na 18 800 dolarów, jeszcze bardziej zwiększyło jego dynamikę.

Bitcoin wzrósł do około 19 600 dolarów od momentu wybuchu rajdu pomocy humanitarnej i ujemnych stóp finansowania na rynku kontraktów terminowych. Ale odrzucił ten sam poziom, który załamał się od listopada z powodu presji sprzedaży wielorybów.

Spodziewano się wiecu pomocy dla Bitcoina.

Zgodnie z raportem Cointelegrapha z 12 grudnia, wskaźniki techniczne wykazały, że BTC zostały wyprzedane po spadku poniżej 17.600 USD.

Czterogodzinny wykres świecowy ujrzał byczą dywergencję i wskaźnik kupna TD9, sygnalizując, że presja sprzedaży została wyczerpana.

Podnoszony przez rajd pomocniczy, Bitcoin nadal rósł w górę, by ostatecznie wzrosnąć aż do 19 570 dolarów na głównych giełdach.
Negatywne oprocentowanie kontraktów terminowych napędziło BTC

Stopy finansowania kontraktów terminowych w Binance Futures i innych głównych platformach okazały się ujemne, ponieważ Bitcoin zaczął odzyskiwać ponad 18.000 dolarów.

Stopa finansowania kontraktów terminowych Bitcoin zmienia się na ujemną, gdy jest więcej krótkich sprzedających niż kupujących. Oznacza to wzrost prawdopodobieństwa krótkiej sprzedaży, co może spowodować nagły wzrost popytu ze strony kupujących.

Chociaż stopa finansowania była ujemna przez krótki czas, ponieważ stopa finansowania Bitcoin rzadko zmienia się na ujemną, było to oznaką agresywnej sprzedaży.

Kontrakty terminowe Bitcoin na krótką aktywność.

Pseudonimowy handlowiec znany jako „Bizantyjski Generał“ zwrócił uwagę, że w czasie rajdu pomocy doraźnej bardzo agresywnie działali krótkofalowcy. Posunięcie powyżej $19,300 wycisnęłoby wiele szortów, dodał, mówiąc:

„Spodenki znów były naprawdę agresywne i są teraz pod wodą. Przebiły się przez 19300 i mocno się ściskają.“

Jak tylko Bitcoin przekroczył 19 300 dolarów, szybko dotarł do 19 570 dolarów, sugerując, że doszło do dużego krótkiego ściśnięcia.
Giełdy widzą, że wieloryby Bitcoinów wracają

Pomimo silnego ożywienia, Bitcoin następnie zobaczył dużą wyprzedaż powyżej 19.500 dolarów, ponieważ wieloryby brały zyski.

Ki Young Ju, dyrektor generalny CryptoQuant, powiedział 15 grudnia, że zmniejsza swoją pozycję w związku ze wzrostem depozytów wielorybów na giełdach. Powiedział:

„Zrealizował zysk na poziomie 19 250 dolarów i przeszedł z pokolenia długiego(10x) do normalnego długiego(1x)“. Patrząc na All Exchange Inflow Mean(144-block MA), wieloryby $BTC deponują na giełdach. Uważam, że wieloryby potrzebują więcej czasu, aby osiągnąć tu zysk.“

Od tego czasu, Bitcoin spadł poniżej $19,100, konsolidując się ponownie pod obszarem oporu 19,400$.

W najbliższym czasie, kluczem do Bitcoina jest utrzymanie się powyżej poziomu wsparcia 18.800 dolarów. Jak donosi Cointelegraph, to trzymanie poziomu byłoby byczym znakiem, który może napędzać BTC do kolejnego kroku w nowych wszech czasów.

Legge decodificata: Nuove minacce all’autocustodia prendono forma negli Stati Uniti, 27 nov. 4 dic.

I provvedimenti cautelativi che provengono sia dal Tesoro che dalla Camera negli Stati Uniti conducono questa settimana a Law Decoded.

Nota dell’editore

Per diverse settimane, negli Stati Uniti sono circolate voci secondo cui il Dipartimento del Tesoro sotto la guida di Steven Mnuchin sta pianificando una sorta di regolamentazione per vietare o limitare severamente i portafogli di criptovalute autoospesi.

Il Tesoro non ha rilasciato dichiarazioni pubbliche a sostegno di queste voci, ma sono abbastanza persistenti e pervasive da meritare attenzione. Nel più ampio ciclo di notizie finanziarie, il Segretario Mnuchin è attualmente molto più sotto esame per i suoi piani di restituire quasi mezzo trilione di dollari di fondi non spesi del March CARES Act al Fondo generale entro la fine dell’anno, a cui l’amministrazione di Joe Biden avrebbe bisogno dell’approvazione del Congresso per potervi accedere. Anche lui sta uscendo dalla porta, quindi a questo punto sta davvero sistemando i suoi conti.

La potenziale regolamentazione del Tesoro non è l’unica minaccia da criptare all’orizzonte questa settimana, ma è una domanda interessante. Senza le difese statutarie per l’autocustodia e i portafogli non ospitati dal Congresso, non c’è davvero nulla che impedisca a un ordine del Tesoro di avere un peso legale, almeno per un po‘ di tempo. Io, per quanto mi riguarda, non ho alcuna fiducia nei mezzi tecnologici del Tesoro per far rispettare qualsiasi blocco dei portafogli non custoditi. Tuttavia, se il dipartimento ha il diritto legale di citare in giudizio Coinbase, o Kraken, o Gemini per le transazioni con portafogli non ospitati, non c’è dubbio che una tale mossa causerebbe il congelamento dell’intero mercato.

Una guerra contro gli stalloni?

Giovedì sera, la Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) ha introdotto un nuovo disegno di legge che costringerà gli stablecoins a rispettare le norme bancarie.

La logica dichiarata da Tlaib per il disegno di legge era „numerose barriere all’accesso e all’utilizzo delle istituzioni finanziarie tradizionali“ che avevano portato molte persone a basso e medio reddito a cercare alternative come le stablecoin, che l’annuncio di Tlaib ha sostenuto possano trarre vantaggio da queste persone – il che non è ingiusto, ma la soluzione proposta di replicare i requisiti del sistema finanziario esistente sembra rimettere quelle persone al punto di partenza.

Il disegno di legge è stato accolto con un’immediata e diffusa condanna da tutti gli angoli della comunità di cripto-moneta, che ha criticato aspramente la legislazione per aver ignorato il potenziale di cripto per aiutare i non-bancati e anche per aver apparentemente considerato i gestori dei nodi come gli stessi trasmettitori di denaro.

Tlaib e i co-sponsor Stephen Lynch (D-MA) e Jesús García (D-IL) fanno tutti parte della House Financial Services Committee, che è stata in prima linea nei conflitti con la Diem di Facebook (nata Bilancia) e la legislazione per espandere i pagamenti federali all’indomani della pandemia COVID-19. Le probabilità reali che questa legge diventi legge sono minime, soprattutto se si considera che sta per riunirsi un nuovo Congresso. Ma sembra essere parte di una narrazione più ampia da parte di questi membri della commissione che hanno intenzione di tenere al guinzaglio l’innovazione crittografica del settore privato, il che è abbastanza presagio.

La Bilancia di Facebook, alias Diem

Parlando delle controverse scuderie, l’Associazione Bilancia ha cambiato il suo nome in Associazione Diem a partire dall’inizio della settimana.

C’è una vecchia regola secondo la quale non si può scegliere il proprio soprannome. A riprova delle immagini di un nuovo giorno, il passaggio alla Diem avviene dopo che la Bilancia ha passato il primo anno e mezzo del suo sviluppo a essere totalmente scossa dalle autorità di regolamentazione. In seguito, l’associazione ha fatto scorta di professionisti della compliance nel suo team esecutivo. Ma è abbastanza chiaro che il cambio di nome è in gran parte una manovra di PR per allontanare l’iniziativa da quelle prime lotte.

Accanto all’annuncio della Bilancia da parte di Facebook la scorsa primavera c’era uno schema per l’Associazione Bilancia, che teoricamente avrebbe disperso l’autorità da Facebook in 100 membri corporativi dell’associazione che avrebbero preso le decisioni con il voto. Ma nessuno se l’è bevuta. Il Congresso ha trascinato Mark Zuckerberg a rispondere del progetto. I titoli dei giornali lo identificano ancora come „la Bilancia di Facebook“.

Il registro delle imprese della Svizzera – dove ha sede la Bilancia – non ha ancora cambiato pubblicamente l’Associazione Bilancia in Associazione Diem. Tuttavia, sarà interessante vedere l’efficacia di questo cambiamento. Dipenderà in ultima analisi da quanto saranno smemorati i regolatori e da quanta trazione potrà avere la prima pedina Diem, che sarà a spillo del dollaro, al momento del lancio.

Il FinHub della SEC ottiene un aggiornamento

Ieri la Securities and Exchange Commission ha annunciato che lo Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology, o FinHub, sta diventando un ufficio a sé stante.

Ci sono pochissime ragioni per la maggior parte delle persone per sapere cosa significhi questa indipendenza. Non significa che FinHub stia diventando un’entità indipendente, ma significa che l’ufficio è allo stesso livello di altri, come gli Affari Internazionali o la Compliance e le Ispezioni.

Dal 2018, FinHub è stata la sede di riferimento per le società di tecnologie finanziarie che cercano di raggiungere la Securities and Exchange Commission, ma è sempre stata all’interno della Divisione di Corporate Finance. Il leader di FinHub, Valerie Szczepanik, che in precedenza dipendeva dal Direttore della Finanza Aziendale William Hinman, sarà ora un direttore a sé stante, che risponderà alla presidenza della SEC.

Come per gran parte di ciò che sta accadendo in questo momento con le autorità di regolamentazione che si trovano ad affrontare il turnover degli incaricati, questo ha l’aria di un lavoro incompiuto. Sia Hinman che il presidente della SEC Jay Clayton se ne andranno presto. Il fatto che abbiano considerato un cambiamento strutturale per sottolineare le tecnologie emergenti alla SEC una questione di cui vale la pena occuparsi prima della partenza è di per sé significativo. È piuttosto difficile annullare un cambiamento istituzionale di questo tipo una volta avvenuto.

Si legge inoltre

Il Peter Van Valkenburgh del Coin Center, Peter Van Valkenburgh, spiega la miriade di problemi legati allo STABLE Act.

Scrivendo per il Consiglio Atlantico, Hung Tran sostiene che uno yuan digitale avrebbe una lunga strada da percorrere prima di minacciare seriamente il dominio del dollaro.

David Zaslowsky dello studio legale Baker McKenzie blogga sulla risposta della comunità dei crittografi alla legge STABLE.

Severe University criticism: Researchers say Ripple’s protocol ‚can fail ugly

According to researchers at the University of Bern, the presence of defective or malicious nodes in the Ripple network can have „devastating effects“.

University’s severe criticism: Researchers say Ripple protocol ‚can fail ugly’NEWS

Researchers at the University of Bern released a report stating that the Ripple consensus protocol „does not guarantee security or vivacity“.

In a post yesterday on the university’s Cryptology and Data Security Research Group blog, researchers Christian Cachin, Amores-Sesar and Jovana Mićić released an analysis claiming that the payment company’s consensus protocol could allow users to „spend the same token twice“ and stop transaction processing.

The trio configured examples of the Ripple protocol using different Italian Formula numbers and types of nodes to illustrate possible security and vividness violations (a term to define the network’s ability to continue processing transactions and make progress). According to their models, the presence of defective or malicious nodes can have „devastating effects on network health“.

„Our findings show that the Ripple protocol relies heavily on synchronized clocks, timely message delivery, the presence of a seamless network, and an a priori agreement on common trusted nodes with the [Single Node List] signed by Ripple,“ the researchers said.

„If one or more of these conditions are violated, especially if invaders become active within the network, the system could fail badly.
David Schwartz, Ripple’s technology director, responded quickly to Cachin on Twitter by challenging the findings. Ripple’s CTO argued that such a situation would be „impractical,“ saying that any invader would have to „sponsor the network“ and control part of its Single Node List, or UNL, to do what the researchers proposed.

„The general philosophy of the UNL is that invaders have a chance to compromise their vivacity and then stay out of the UNL forever,“ Schwartz said. He added:

„Security attacks also require significant control over the spread of messages on the network, which makes them unviable. That is why Bitcoin’s total lack of partition tolerance is not a practical problem. ”
None of the researchers has yet responded to Ripple’s CTO’s criticism of its findings. The group admitted in the original analysis that the attacks were „purely theoretical and were not demonstrated with a live network.

United States: a bill strongly threatens the development of stablecoins

Are stablecoins too dangerous for the general population? This is what members of the US Congress believe. They have tabled a bill that worries the crypto community …

A bill that threatens stablecoins?

CEO Coinbase Brian Armstrong, launched the warning last week: proposals for drastic regulation of cryptomonnaies were coming to the front of the stage . Have we just witnessed the first offensive? Rashida Tlaib, a congresswoman from the United States, explained why she believes this law is essential to regulate stablecoins. It would be about protecting the vulnerable citizens of the United States, so that the “ crimes of the big banks” are not reproduced by this new industry.

“Particularly in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, their vulnerabilities could be exploited and masked by malicious actors who wish to issue Bitcoin Circuit scam, like other currency issuers in the past. “

Very strict regulations

The proposed law is particularly strict: it prohibits anyone from issuing a stablecoin or providing a product / service related to stablecoins, “ without obtaining written approval in advance and each time from the appropriate federal banking agency, the Corporation and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve ” .

As several experts have pointed out, the wording of this proposed law is broad enough to include a whole variety of activities related to cryptocurrencies . The idea is to regulate the cryptocurrency sector even more strongly than the banking sector, in order to avoid the practices of “ shadow banking“ , that is to say banking systems which operate in parallel with traditional banks.

The crypto community stands up against the proposed law

Unsurprisingly, the crypto community unanimously condemned this proposed law . Jeremy Allaire, CEO of Circle, explained why he thought it was bad for the industry . He recalls that it would first of all prevent the sector from innovating, which would put the United States in danger of falling behind in the development of the blockchain and FinTech industry .

In addition, Jeremy Allaire recalls that vulnerable populations have been able to have access to financial services thanks to companies that operate outside traditional banking systems:

“A huge part of the innovation brought to low-bank people and small businesses has come from non-bank FinTech companies (Stripe, Square, PayPal, Circle, Coinbase, Apple, Google and many more) . “

The crypto community is therefore interpreting this bill as a way to control parallel payment systems , which concerns Congress. However, it should be noted that there is only one month left in Congress to pass this law, before the change of government is enacted. It might therefore be difficult for its members to get this proposal approved.

Ethereum, Bitcoin, Ripples XRP: has China already sold the $ 3 billion in cryptocurrencies?

It has just been announced that there has been a massive development in the PlusToken case. PlusToken was a 2019-era crypto Ponzi scheme that managed to entice most users in Asia into depositing Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, and a range of other digital assets valued at billions.

As recently reported by The Block, $ 4.2 billion worth of cryptocurrency has been seized by lawmakers in China

It was rumored that many of the PlusToken ringleaders were still on the run, although the report may have invalidated that rumor.

The holdings that the Chinese authorities have allegedly seized are substantial: 194,775 BTC, 833,083 ETH, 1.4 million LTC, 27.6 million EOS, 74,167 DASH, 487 million XRP, 6 billion DOGE, 79,581 BCH and 213,724 USDT.

While these assets were only valued at around $ 2 billion when the scam began, their value now stands at $ 4.2 billion.

It is unclear whether these coins have already been sold or not.

The 2019 crypto market correction is believed to have been caused by an influx of selling pressure from Bitcoin and Ethereum on exchanges like Huobi, apparently from PlusToken-related addresses. This report seems to have contradicted that – right?

Has the Chinese government sold billions of stolen cryptocurrencies?

According to the Chinese crypto reporter „Wu“, there is a likelihood that the government has sold a large part of the coins:

“The Chinese government seized 190,000 BTC and 830,000 ETH from the Plustoken MLM case with a total value of billions of dollars. The official announcement seems to indicate that the government has sold them and returned them to the central treasury administered by the central bank. “

This is in line with blockchain analysis, which found that a large proportion of the Plustoken coins have not yet moved, while most of them were sold on exchanges like OKEx and Huobi earlier this year or late last year.

This also removes the confusion about how PlusToken funds could be deposited on these centralized exchanges without the authorities having to freeze the funds.

Matthew Graham, a blockchain-focused investor based in China, has confirmed this view. According to Graham, after reading the court documents, it is likely that the coins have been „mostly sold,“ so there is no need for FUD.

BTC-Rallye dank „Institutional FOMO“ angekurbelt, sagt Whalemap

Analysten von Whalemap haben jetzt Daten veröffentlicht, die zeigen, dass institutionelle Spieler begonnen haben, Bitcoin zu akkumulieren, und zwar im Bereich zwischen $12.000 und $15.00. Laut Whalemap ist dieser Trend positiv, da Wale und institutionelle Akteure in der Regel Vermögenswerte als längerfristige Investition horten.

Wale verschlingen Mainstream-Interesse

Das Interesse an Bitcoin ist in letzter Zeit eher verhalten, und es könnte sehr gut daran liegen, dass diese schwergewichtigen Anleger damit begonnen haben, Bitcoin zu akkumulieren, anstatt es von zahlreichen Kleinanlegern verteilen zu lassen.

Was Google Trends betrifft, so war die Nachfrage nach BTC im Mainstream-Bereich trotz der parabolischen Rallye der letzten Monate eher gering.

Analysten von Whalemap bezeichnen diesen massiven Nachfrageanstieg der Wale als „institutionelles FOMO“-Ereignis. FOMO steht für „Fear Of Missing Out“ (Angst, etwas zu verpassen) und beschreibt Trends, bei denen jede Gruppe beginnt, sich auf etwas einzulassen, weil sie befürchtet, etwas zu verpassen.

In diesem Fall sind es die Investoren, die Bitcoin Pro aufkaufen, weil sie Angst haben, dass sie kein Stück von diesem saftigen Preisanstieg abbekommen, der den Preis ironischerweise noch weiter nach vorne katapultiert.

Massive Wal-Cluster gemeldet

In einem Twitter-Beitrag liess Whalemap von seinen Analysten zeigen, wie sich Wal-Cluster zu bilden begannen, wobei mehr BTC in bereits bestehende Wal-Brieftaschen floss. In seinem Tweet stellte Whalemap einfach fest, dass die massive Zunahme von Clustern das Erscheinungsbild des FOMO auf institutioneller Ebene ist.

Whale-Cluster beschreiben, wann bereits existierende Waladressen, d.h. Brieftaschen mit über 10.000 BTC, beginnen, mehr Bitcoin aufzukaufen, ohne sie über einen längeren Zeitraum zu bewegen.

Dadurch, so die Analysten von Whalemap, wird deutlich, dass die Wale planen, ihre jüngsten Käufe von BTC in ihren persönlichen Brieftaschen zu behalten.

Die Zeit ist reif für BTC

Wale, die Bitcoin auf so aggressive Weise anhäufen, können in erster Linie für zwei Schlüsseltrends verantwortlich gemacht werden, die seit Oktober auf den Krypto-Märkten zu beobachten sind.

Der erste Trend ist der Spotmarkt, der den Terminmarkt anführt, und nicht umgekehrt. Das bedeutet, dass der Finanzierungssatz von BTC selten über dem Durchschnitt von 0,01% liegt, auch wenn der Preis dafür steigt.

Ein weiterer Schlüsselfaktor ist der massive Rückgang der Liquidationen von Kurzkontrakten im Rahmen dieser jüngsten Rallye. In der Vergangenheit haben die Rallyes der BTC in der Regel dazu geführt, dass an den großen Börsen Kontrakte im Wert von mehr als 100 Millionen Dollar liquidiert wurden. All diese Faktoren machen deutlich, dass es sich bei dieser Rallye nicht nur um einen kurzen Engpass handelt, sondern um eine tatsächliche Akkumulationsphase.