Bitcoin, Litecoin Price in USD historical chart

Bitcoin Hashrate vs. Price in USD logarithm historical chart

Bitcoin Hashrate vs. Price in USD logarithm historical chart submitted by thanatosvn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why Bitcoin is Superior to Gold

There is a constant war being fought between goldbugs, like Peter Schiff, and Bitcoin enthusiasts so I decided to make an outline, with links, comparing and contrasting gold and Bitcoin. I made this in November of 2019 (thus the information therein is based on figures from that time) but, being scatter brained, neglected to post this for the Bitcoin community to see. The yardsticks I used to compare the two assets included the following: shipping/transactions costs, storage costs, censorship factor, settlement time, stock to flow, blockchain vs clearing house, validation, etc. I will also touch on Roosevelt's gold confiscation executive order in 1933, transporting gold during the Spanish Civil War in 1936, and the hypothetical cost for Venezuela to repatriate its gold more recently.
I will provide a brief summary first then follow that with the outline I made. This information can be used as a tool for the Bitcoin community to combat some of the silly rhetoric coming from goldbugs such as Peter Schiff and James Rickards. I would like to make it clear, however, that I am not against gold and think that it performed its role as money very well in a technologically inferior era, namely Victorian times but I think Bitcoin performs the functions of money better than gold does in the current environment.
I have been looking to make a contribution to the Bitcoin community and I hope this is a useful and educational tool for everyone who reads this.
Summary:
Shipping/transaction costs: 100 ounces of gold could be shipped for 315 dollars; the comparable dollar value in Bitcoin could be sent for 35 dollars using a non-segwit address. Using historical precendent, it would cost an estimated $32,997,989 to transport $1 billion in gold using the 3.3% fee that the Soviets charged the Spaniards in 1936; a $1 billion Bitcoin transaction moved for $690 last year by comparison. Please note that the only historic example we can provide for moving enormous sums of gold was when the government of Spain transported gold to Moscow during the Spanish Civil War in 1936. More information on this topic will be found in the notes section.
Storage costs: 100 ounces of gold would require $451 per year to custody while the equivalent value of Bitcoin in dollar terms could be stored for the cost of a Ledger Nano S, $59.99. $1 billion USD value of gold would cost $2,900,000 per year while an Armory set up that is more secure would run you the cost of a laptop, $200-300.
Censorship factor: Gold must pass through a 3rd party whenever it is shipped, whether for a transaction or for personal transportation. Gold will typically have to be declared and a customs duty may be imposed when crossing international borders. The key take-away is gatekeepers (customs) can halt movement of gold thus making transactions difficult. $46,000 of gold was seized in India despite the smugglers hiding it in their rectums.
Settlement time: Shipping gold based on 100 ounces takes anywhere from 3-10 days while Bitcoin transactions clear in roughly 10 minutes depending on network congestion and fee size.
Historic confiscation: Franklin Roosevelt confiscated and debased the paper value of gold in 1933 with Executive Order 6102. Since gold is physical in nature and value dense, it is often stored in custodial vaults like banks and so forth which act as a honeypot for rapacious governments.
Stock to flow: Plan B's stock to flow model has become a favorite on twitter. Stock to flow measures the relationship between the total stock of an asset against the amount that is produced in a given year. Currently gold still has the highest value at 62 while Bitcoin sits at 50 in 2nd place. Bitcoin will overtake gold in 2024 after the next halving.
Blockchain vs clearing house: gold payments historically passed through a 3rd party (clearinghouse) in order to be validated while Bitcoin transactions can be self validated through the use of a node.
Key Takeaway from above- Bitcoin is vastly superior to gold in terms of cost, speed, and censorship resistance. One could theoretically carry around an enormous sum of Bitcoin on a cold card while the equivalent dollar value of gold would require a wheelbarrow...and create an enormous target on the back of the transporter. With the exception of the stock to flow ratio (which will flip in Bitcoin's favor soon), Bitcoin is superior to gold by all metrics covered.
Notes:
Shipping/transaction costs
Gold
100 oz = 155,500. 45 x 7 = $315 to ship 100 oz gold.
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/839735-katchum/2547831-how-much-does-it-cost-to-ship-silver-and-gold
https://www.coininvest.com/en/shipping-prices/
211 tonnes Venezuela; 3.3% of $10.5 billion = 346,478,880 or 32,997,989/billion usd
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/23/how-to-get-12-billion-of-gold-to-venezuela/ (counter party risk; maduro; quotes from article)
Bitcoin
18 bitcoin equivalent value; 35 USD with legacy address
https://blockexplorer.com/
https://bitcoinfees.info/
1 billion; $690 dollars
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/someone-moved-1-billion-in-a-single-bitcoin-transaction/
Storage costs
Gold
.29% annually; https://sdbullion.com/gold-silver-storage
100 oz – $451/year
$1 billion USD value – $2,900,000/year
Bitcoin
Ledger Nano S - $59.00 (for less bitcoin)
https://shop.ledger.com/products/ledger-nano-s/transparent?flow_country=USA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3ILV5O-Z5wIVTtbACh1zTAwqEAQYASABEgJ5SPD_BwE
Armory - $200-300 cost of laptop for setup
https://www.bitcoinarmory.com/
Censorship factor (must pass through 3rd party)
Varies by country
Gold will typically have to be declared and a customs duty may be imposed
Key take-away is gatekeepers (customs) can halt movement of gold thus making transactions difficult
$46,000 seized in India
https://www.foxnews.com/travel/indian-airport-stops-29-passengers-smuggling-gold-in-their-rectums
Settlement time
Gold
For 100 oz transaction by USPS 3-10 days (must pass through 3rd party)
Bitcoin
Roughly 10 minutes to be included in next block
Historic confiscation-roosevelt 1933
Executive Order 6102 (forced spending, fed could ban cash, go through and get quotes)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
“The stated reason for the order was that hard times had caused "hoarding" of gold, stalling economic growth and making the depression worse”
Stock to flow; https://medium.com/@100trillionUSD/modeling-bitcoins-value-with-scarcity-91fa0fc03e25 (explain what it is and use charts in article)
Gold; SF of 62
Bitcoin; SF of 25 but will double to 50 after May (and to 100 in four years)
Blockchain vs clearing house
Transactions can be validated by running a full node vs. third party settlement
Validation
Gold; https://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/cost-to-assay.6732/
(Read some responses)
Bitcoin
Cost of electricity to run a full node
Breaking down Venezuela conundrum; http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/23/how-to-get-12-billion-of-gold-to-venezuela/
“The last (and only) known case of this kind of quantity of gold being transported across state lines took place almost exactly 75 years ago, in 1936, when the government of Spain removed 560 tons of gold from Madrid to Moscow as the armies of Francisco Franco approached. Most of the gold was exchanged for Russian weaponry, with the Soviet Union keeping 2.1% of the funds in the form of commissions and brokerage, and an additional 1.2% in the form of transport, deposit, melting, and refining expenses.”
“Venezuela would need to transport the gold in several trips, traders said, since the high value of gold means it would be impossible to insure a single aircraft carrying 211 tonnes. It could take about 40 shipments to move the gold back to Caracas, traders estimated. “It’s going to be quite a task. Logistically, I’m not sure if the central bank realises the magnitude of the task ahead of them,” said one senior gold banker.”
“So maybe Chávez intends to take matters into his own hands, and just sail the booty back to Venezuela on one of his own naval ships. Again, the theft risk is obvious — seamen can be greedy too — and this time there would be no insurance. Chávez is pretty crazy, but I don’t think he’d risk $12 billion that way.”
“Which leaves one final alternative. Gold is fungible, and people are actually willing to pay a premium to buy gold which is sitting in the Bank of England’s ultra-secure vaults. So why bother transporting that gold at all? Venezuela could enter into an intercontinental repo transaction, where it sells its gold in the Bank of England to some counterparty, and then promises to buy it all back at a modest discount, on condition that it’s physically delivered to the Venezuelan central bank in Caracas. It would then be up to the counterparty to work out how to get 211 tons of gold to Caracas by a certain date. That gold could be sourced anywhere in the world, and transported in any conceivable manner — being much less predictable and transparent, those shipments would also be much harder to hijack. How much of a discount would a counterparty require to enter into this kind of transaction? Much more than 3.3%, is my guess. And again, it’s not entirely clear who would even be willing to entertain the idea. Glencore, perhaps?”
“But here’s one last idea: why doesn’t Chávez crowdsource the problem? He could simply open a gold window at the Banco Central de Venezuela, where anybody at all could deliver standard gold bars. In return, the central bank would transfer to that person an equal number of gold bars in the custody of the Bank of England, plus a modest bounty of say 2% — that’s over $15,000 per 400-ounce bar, at current rates. It would take a little while, but eventually the gold would start trickling in: if you’re willing to pay a constant premium of 2% over the market price for a good, you can be sure that the good in question will ultimately find its way to your door. And the 2% cost of acquiring all that gold would surely be much lower than the cost of insuring and shipping it from England. It would be an elegant market-based solution to an artificial and ideologically-driven problem; I daresay Chávez might even chuckle at the irony of it. He’d just need to watch out for a rise in Andean banditry, as thieves tried to steal the bars on their disparate journeys into Venezuela.”
submitted by cornish_roots to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Digital Dollar, FedNow, CBDC, the central banks spending and global push for more control through digital currency.

At the beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak a few interesting things happened. China introduced the "Digital Yuan / RMB" And in April the "Digital dollar" was proposed in the first stimulus bill here in the USA. And they haven't stopped talking about it since. High tables from the White house Financial committee, Federal Reserve, US congress. Aiming to have a digital currency working as early as 2021 to provide UBI / Universal basic income to the masses, all while being able to track, freeze, limit, manipulate spending throughout the economy. Starting to sound rather like a "Black mirror film" isn't it? Well...China has taken it a step farther with their "Social Credit system" watching and controlling nearly every aspect of life. . . but we're here to talk about currency. How could this even happen in America? Well, to start
All of the above is a partial list of factors devaluing the Dollar and trust in it from several ways and views. At the end of the day it has a huge amount of enemies, that are all looking for ways to get out of it.
Some of what I'm seeing personally.
It is a death spiral for the working person, where it used to be "No more than 30% of your wage going to housing" It is now well over 50%....Just look at this recent post in Frugal https://www.reddit.com/Frugal/comments/ifqah1/is_it_normal_for_a_third_to_a_half_of_you?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
This death spiral I foresee getting worse. And historically any "tax" / regulation cost will just be passed down to the consumer in form of increased prices until people / businesses move elsewhere as we've seen in several cities around the US.

So what can we do? Buy Gold! Silver! Bitcoin! Stocks! I hear people roar, They aren't exactly wrong as history shows... but have you considered the 30-40% tax on the "gain"? Even when that asset buys the same value before tax? What if the government makes it illegal like the 1933 order: 6102 Where you couldn't own gold for nearly 50 years? You're frozen out, or even out on taxes (which will likely be more strict and controlled later in time).
I'd say Invest in things that will
Metals are the next step when a person has plenty of the above. You get to a point where you have hundreds of thousands, if not millions that you need to condense into something real.
It is all about the savings or productivity gain of the investment. For instance I would wager that many preppers have gotten more use / value out of a $800 clothes washer than a $800 rifle. (have you ever had to do manual laundry???) Sure the rifle will hold value...but it often doesn't pay you back with time / what it saved and / or what it has produced during its life unless you are using it. Same can be said of security cameras, a generator, a tractor, trailer, garden, tools, ect.
Look at history even, in countries that have experienced hyperinflation people that already had tangibles they regularly use were way ahead. It could even be honey, a tool, extra maintenance parts, can of food, that bottle of medicine, a computer to keep your intel on point, (cough # PrepperIntel plug) use of your equipment to do or make something for someone. Real Estate is good too, it rides inflation well and has many ways of being productive.
Your metals could be sitting there like the rifle, and could be subject to hot debate and laws. Meanwhile that garden is paying back, chainsaw is helping saw up wood, or your tractor is helping a job, your tools just helped you fix something / saved you much loss, Your security stopped a loss not by a person, but an random animal stealing things. Or that $25,000 solar array is paying you back by the day in spades...while making you independent...running all your tools you're using to make things to sell, and even heating / cooling some of the house with the extra juice while places around you experience rolling blackouts. You were even smart and took the current 24% tax benefit the government has saving you $5000 on it for batteries. Don't get me started if you have an electric vehicle with solar... I'm rambling at this point...and all those stealthy / direct and passive background savings...even if the crap doesn't hit the fan.
So anyways, With out of control central banks and big governments, digital currencies, How do you think it will play out? Are we heading to dystopia?
submitted by AntiSonOfBitchamajig to PrepperIntel [link] [comments]

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story.
My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to many read.cash articles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important.

summary & my narrating of the story:
The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan".
On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds.
By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books.

Important resources: coinspice IFP timeline & Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions

History
Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source]
Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years
Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th
Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source]
Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function.
Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature.
Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it.
Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source]
Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement]
Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement]
Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source]
Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source]
Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source]
Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much.
Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source]
Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects.
Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source]
Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article]
Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3
Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source]
Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source]
Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source]
Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source]
Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source]
Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source]
Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source]
Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source]
Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source]
Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source]
Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source]
Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source]
May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source]
May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source]
May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source]
May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source]
May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source]
Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source]
Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source]
Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source]
Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source]
Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source]
Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source]
Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source]
Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source]
4th year, august 2020 – 2021
Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source]
Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet
Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source]
Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source]
Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source]
Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source]
Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source]
Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source]
Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding.
Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.”
Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
submitted by Mr-Zwets to btc [link] [comments]

[Part 1] KAVA Historical AMA Tracker! (Questions & Answers)

ATTN: These AMA questions are from Autumn 2019 - before the official launch of the Kava Mainnet, and it's fungible Kava Token.
These questions may no longer be relevant to the current Kava landscape, however, they do provide important historical background on the early origins of Kava Labs.
Please note, that there are several repeat questions/answers.

Q1:

Kava is a decentralized DEFI project, why did you implement the countries restrictions to run the node? Will there be such restrictions by the time of the mainnet?

Q2:

According to the project description it has been indicated that staking reward (in KAVA tokens) varies from 3 to 20% per annum. But how will you fight with inflation?

We all know how altcoins prices are falling, and their bottom is not visible. And in fact, we can get an increase in the number of tokens for staking, but not an increase in the price of the token itself and become a long-term investor.

  • Answer: Kava is both inflationary with block rewards, but deflationary when we burn CDP fees. Only stakers who bond their Kava receive inflationary rewards - users and traders on exchanges do not get this. In this way, rewards are inflated, but given to stakers and removed value from the traders who are speculating like a tax. The Deflationary structure of fees should help counterbalance the price drops from inflation if any. In the long-term as more CDPs are used, Kava should be a deflationary asset by design if all things go well

Q3:

In your allocation it is indicated that 28.48% of the tokens are in the "Token treasury" - where will these tokens be directed?

  • Answer: Investors in financing rounds prior to the IEO have entered into long-term lock-up agreements in-line with their belief in Kava’s exciting long-term growth potential and to allow the projects token price to find stability. Following the IEO, the only tokens in circulation will be those sold through the IEO on Binance and the initial Treasury tokens released.
  • No private sale investor tokens are in circulation until the initial release at the end of Q1 2020 and then gradually over the [36] months The initial Treasury tokens in circulation will be used for a mixture of ecosystem grants, the expenses associated with the IEO as well as initial market making requirements as is typical with a listing of this size. Kava remains well financed to execute our roadmap following the IEO and do not envisage any need for any material financings or token sales for the foreseeable future.

Q4:

Such a platform (with loans and stable coins) is just the beginning since these aspects are a small part of many Defi components. Will your team have a plan to implement other functions, such as derivatives, the dex platform once the platform is successfully launched?

  • Answer: We believe Kava is the foundation for many future defi products. We need stable coins, oracles, and other infrastructure first that Kava provides. Once we have that, we can apply these to derivatives and other synthetics more easily. For example, we can use the price feeds and USDX to enable users to place 100x leverage bets with each other. If they both lock funds into payment channels, then they can use a smart contract based on the price feed to do the 100x trade/bet automatically without counter party risk. In this way, Kava can expand its financial product offerings far beyond loans and stable coins in the future.

Q5:

There are several options for using USDX on the KAVA platform, one of which is Margin Trading / Leverage. Is this a selection function or a compulsory function? Wondering since there are some investors who don`t like margin. What is the level of leverage and how does a CDP auction work?

  • Answer: This is a good #Q . Kava simply provides loans to users in USDX stable coins. What the users do is completely up to them. They can use the loans for everyday payments if they like. Leverage and hedging are just the main use cases we foresee - there are many ways people can use the CDP platform and USDX.

Q6:

Most credit platforms do not work well in the current market. What will you do to attract more people to use your platform and the services you provide? Thank you

  • Answer: Most credit platforms do not work well in the current market? I think that isn't correct at least for DeFi. Even in the bear market, MakerDao and Compound saw good user growth. Regardless, our efforts at Kava to build the market are fairly product and BD focused. 1) we build more integrations of assets and expand financial services to attract new communities and users. 2) we focus on building partnerships with high quality teams to promote and build Kava's core user base. Kava is just the developer. Our great partners like Ripple, Stakewith.Us, P2P, Binance - they have the real users that demand Kava. They are like our system integrators that package Kava up nicely and present it to their users. In order to grow, we need to deepen our partnerships and bring in new ones around the world.

Q7:

KAVA functions as a reserve currency in situations where the system is undercollateralized. In such cases new KAVA is minted and used to buy USDX off the market until USDX becomes safely overcollateralized.

Meaning, there will be no max supply of KAVA?

  • Answer: Yes, there is no max supply of Kava.

Q8:

Why Kava?

  • Answer: ...because people are long BTC and the best way to go long BTC without giving up custody is Kava's platform. Because it is MakerDao for bitcoin. Bitcoin has a 10x market cap of ETH and Maker is 10x the size of Kava. I think we're pretty undervalued right now.

Q9:

How do you plan to make liquidity in Kava?

  • Answer: Working with Binance for the IEO and as the first exchange for KAVA to trade on will be a huge boost in increasing the liquidity of trading KAVA.

Q10:

Most crypto investors or crypto users prefer easy transaction and low fees, what can we expect from KAVA about this?

  • Answer: Transaction fees are very low and confirm if seconds. The user experience is quite good on Tendermint-based blockchains.

Q11:

How do I become a note validator on KavA?

Q12:

It is great to know that KAVA is the first DEFI-supported project sponsored by Binance Launchpad, do you think this is the meaning that CZ brings: Opening the DEFI era, as a leader, you feel like how ?

  • Answer: We are the first DeFi platform that Launchpad has supported. We are a very strategic blockchain for major crypto like BNB. Kava's platform will bring more utility to the users of BNB and the Binance DEX. It feels good of course to have validation from the biggest players in the space like Cosmos, Ripple, CZ/Binance, etc.

Q13:

Since decentralized finance applications is already dominating, how do you intend to surpass those leading in the market?

  • Answer: The leaders are only addressing ethereum. BTC, XRP, BNB, ATOM is a much larger set to go after that current players cannot.

Q14:

What does Ripple play in the Kava's ecosystem, since Ripple is like a top tier company and it’s impressive that you are partnered with them?

  • Answer: Ripple is an equity investor in Kava and a big supporter of our work in cross-chain settlement research and implementations. Ripple's XRP is a great asset in terms of users and liquidity that the Kava platform can use. In addition, Ripple's money service business customers are asking for a stable coin for remittances to avoid the currency heading risk that XRP presents. Ripple will not use USDC or other stable coins, but they are open to using USDX as it can be XRP-backed.

Q15:

Considering the connectivity, Libra could be the biggest competitor if KAVA leverages interchain for efficiency.

  • Answer: With regard to USDX, it is important to understand the users interacting with the Kava blockchain have no counterparty that people could go after for legal actions. A user getting a USDX loan has no counterparty. The software holds the collateral and creates the loan. The only laws that would apply are to the very users that are using the system.

Q16:

Wonder how KAVA will compete with the tech giants

  • Answer: Libra is running into extreme issues with the US Senate and regulators. Even the G7-G20 groups are worried. Its important to understand that Libra is effectively a permissioned system. Only big companies that law makers can go after are able to run nodes. In Kava, nodes can be run by anyway and our nodes are based all over the world. It's incredibly hard for a law maker to take down Kava because they would need to find and legally enforce hundreds of business in different jurisdictions to comply. We have an advantage in this way over the larger projects like Libra or Clayton.

Q17:

In long-term, what's the strategy that KAVA has for covering the traditional finance users as well? Especially regarding the "stability"

  • Answer: Technical risk is unavoidable for DeFi. Only time will tell if a system is trustworthy and its never 100% that it will not fail or be hacked. This is true with banks and other financial systems as well. I think for DeFi, the technical risk needs to be priced in to the expected returns to compensate the market. DeFi does have a better user experience - requiring no credit score, identity, or KYC over centralized solutions.
  • With our multi-collateral CDP system, even with it overcollateralized, people can get up to 3x leverage on assets. Take 100 USD in BTC, get a USDX loan for 66 USDX, then buy $66 BTC and do another loan - you can do this with a program to get 3x leverage with the same risk profile. This is enough for most people.
  • However, it will be possible once we have Kava's CDP platform to extend it into products that offer undercollateralized financial products. For example, if USER 1 + USER 2 use payment channels to lock up their USDX, they can use Kava's price feeds to place bets between each other using their locked assets. They can bet that for every $1 BTC/USD moves, the other party owes 3x. In this way we can even do 100x leverage or 1000x leverage and create very fun products for people to trade with. Importantly, even in places where margin trading is regulated and forbidden, Kava's platform will remain open access and available.

Q18:

In long-term, what's the strategy that KAVA has for covering the traditional finance users as well? Especially regarding the "stability"

  • Answer: Kava believes that stable coins should be backed not just by crypto or fiat, but any widely used, highly liquid asset. We think in the future the best stablecoin would be backed by a basket of very stable currencies that include crypto and fiat or whatever the market demands.

Q19:

Compound, maker they're trying to increase their size via the competitive interests rates. THough it shows good return in terms of growth rate, still it's for short-term. Wonder other than financial advantage, KAVA has more for the users' needs?

  • Answer: Robert, the CEO of Compound is an investor and advisor to Kava. We think what Compound does with money markets is amazing and hope to integrate when they support more than just Ethereum assets. Kava's advantage vs others is to provide basic DeFi services like returns on crypto and stable coins today when no other platform offers that. Many platforms support ETH, but no platform can support BTC, XRP, BNB, and ATOM in a decentralized way without requiring centralized custody of these assets.

Q20:

The vast majority of the cryptocurrency community's priorities is symbolic pricing. When prices rise, the community rejoices and grows. When they fall, many people begin to cast in a negative way. How will KAVA solve the negative problem when the price goes down? What is your plan to strengthen and develop the community to persuade more people to look at the product than the price?

  • Answer: We believe price is an important factor for faith in the market. One of Kava's key initiatives was selecting only long-term partners that are willing to work with kava for 2 years. That is why even after 6 months, 0 private investor or kava team tokens will be liquid on the market.
  • We believe not in fast pumps and then dumps that destroy faith, but rather we try and operate the best we can for long-term sustainable growth over time. It's always hard to control factors in the market, and some factors are out of our control such as BTC price correlations, etc - however, we treat this like a public company stock - we want long-term growth of Kava and try to make sure our whole community of Kava holders is aligned with that the best we can.

Q21:

Do you have any plans to attract non-crypto investors to Kava and how? What are the measures to increase awareness of kava in non-crypto space?

  • Answer: We are 100% focused on crypto, not the general market. We solve the problems of crypto traders and investors - not the average grandma who needs a payment solution. Kava is geared for decentralized leverage and hedging.

Q22:

Adoption is crucial for all projects and crypto companies, what strategy are you gonna use/follow or u are now following to get Kava adopted and used by many people all over the world?

Revenue is an important aspect for all projects in order to survive and keep the project/company up and running for long term, what are the ways that Kava generates profits/revenue and what is its revenue model?

  • Answer: We have already partnered with several large exchanges, long-term VCs, and large projects like Ripple and Cosmos. These are key ways for us to grow our community. As we build support for more assets, we plan to promote Kava's services to those new communities of traders.
  • Kava generates revenue as more people use the platform. As the platform is used, KAVA tokens are burned when users pay stability fees. This deflates the total supply of Kava and should in most cases give rise to the value of KAVA like a stock-buyback in the public markets.

Q23:

In order to be success in Loan project of Cryptocurrency, I think marketing is very important to make people using this service without any registration. What is main strategy for marketing?

  • Answer: Our main strategy is to build a great experience and offer products that are not available to communities with demand. Currently no DeFi products can serve BTC users for example. Centralized exchanges can, but nothing truly trustless. Kava's platform can finally give the vast audiences of BTC, BNB, and ATOM holders access to core DeFi services they cannot get on their own due to the smart contract limitations of those platforms.

Q24:

Currently, some project have policies for their ambassadors to create a contribution and attract recognition for the project! So the KAVA team plans to implement policies and incentives for KAVA ambassadors?

  • Answer: Yes, we will be creating a KAVA ambassador program and releasing that soon. Please follow our social media channels to learn about it in the coming weeks.

Q25:

Currently there are so many KAVA tokens sold on exchanges, why is this happening while KAVA is going to IEO on Binance? Are those KAVA codes fake or not?

  • Answer: For everyone's safety, please understand Kava tokens do not exist yet and they will only exist starting with the Binance IEO. Any other token listings or offerings of Kava are not supported by Kava Labs and I highly discourage you all from trying to get them there. It is most likely a big scam. Please only trust Binance for this.

Q26:

KAVA have two tokens, the first is called Kava - a governance and staking token; the second is called USDX - an algorithmically managed crypto-backed stable coin. What are the advantages of USDX compared to other stablecoins such as: USDT, USDC, TUSD, GUSD, ...?

  • Answer: USDX is one of the few stablecoins to be fully backed by crypto-assets. This means that we do not deal with fiat to back the value, and thus we don't have some of the issues when it comes to storing fiat funds with banks and custodians. This also makes our product fully digital and built for the future of crypto growth.

Q27:

As a CEO, does your background in Esports and Gaming industry help anything to your management and development of KAVA Labs?

  • Answer: Esports no. But having been a multi-time venture-backed foundeCEO and have gone through the start-up phase before has made creating and running a 2nd company easier. Right now Kava is still small, Fnatic had over 80 employees. It was at a larger scale. I would say developing software is much more than doing the hardware at fnaticgear.com

Q28:

Why did Kava choose to launch IEO on Binance and not other exchanges like: Kucoin, Houbi, Gate, ....?

  • Answer: Kava had a lot of interest from exchanges to partner with for IEO. We decided based on a lot of factors such as userbase, diverse exposure across multiple regions and countries, and an amazing team that provides so much insight into so many communities such as this one. Binance has been a tremendous partner and we also look forward to continuing our partnership far into the future.

Q29:

Currently if Search on coinmarketcap has 3 types of stablecoins bearing the USDX symbol (but these 3 stablecoins are no information). So, what will KAVA do to let users know that Kava's USDX is another stablecoin?

  • Answer: All these USDX have no volume or listings. We will be on Binance. I am not worried.

Q30:

In addition to the Token Allocation for Binance Launchpad, what is the Token Treasury in the Initial Circulating Supply?

  • Answer: This is controlled by Kava Labs, but with the big cash we have saved from fundraising, we see no reason why these tokens would be sold on the market. The treasury tokens are for use in grants, ecosystem growth initiatives, development, and other incentive programs to drive adoption of the platform.

Q31:

How you will compete with your competitors? Currently i don't see much but for future how you will maintain this consistency ? No doubt it is Great and Unique project, what is the main problem that #KAVA is currently facing?

  • Answer: Because our industry is just starting out, I don't like to think of them as our direct competitors. We are all working to grow the size of the pie rather than get a larger slice from a small pie. The one thing that we believe will allow us to stand apart is the community we are building. Being able to utilize our own community along with Cosmos and our other partners like Binance for the IEO, we have a strong footing to get a lot of early users onto our platform. Also, we are also focusing on growing Kava internationally particularly Asia. We hope to build our platform for an even larger userbase than just the west.

Q32:

How do you explain your project to a random person who has never heard of your project?

  • Answer: non-crypto = Kava is a lending platform for users of cryptocurrencies.
  • crypto = Kava is a cross-chain DeFi platform for loans and stablecoins backed by BTC, BNB, XRP, ATOM and other major cryptocurrencies.

Q33:

Will KAVA team have a plan on implementing DAO module on your platform since its efficiency on autonomy, decentralization and transparency?

  • Answer: All voting is already transparent on the Kava blockchain. We approved a number of proposals on our test net.

Q34:

how to use usdx token :only for your platform or you have plan to use usdx for payment ?

  • Answer: Payments is a nice use case, but demand for crypto payments is still small. We may choose to focus here later if demand for crypto payments increases. Currently it is quite small with the bulk of use remaining in trading and speculative use cases.

Q35:

Do you have plans to spread KAVA ecosystem across other continents. if yes, what are the strategies and how can I as a community member contribute to making it possible?

  • Answer: We are already across many continents - I don't think we are in antarctica yet. Africa might be light on nodes as well. I think as we grow on major exchanges like Binance, new node operators will get interested and help decentralize Kava further.

Q36:

Maker's CDP lending system is on top in this market and its Dominance is currently sitting on 64.90 % , how kava will compete will maker and compound?

  • Answer: adding assets like bitcoin which have more value and more users than ETH. It's a bigger market that Maker cannot compete with Kava in.

Q37:

Currently, the community is too concerned about the price. As prices rise, the community rejoice and grow, when falling, many people start throwing negatively. So what is KAVA's solution to getting people to focus on the project rather than the price of the token?

What is your plan to strengthen and grow the community to persuade more individuals to look at the product than the price?

  • Answer: We also share similar concerns as price and price direction is always a huge factor in the crypto industry. A lot of people of course are very short-term focused on flipping for bigger profits. One of the solutions, and what Kava has done, is to make sure that everything structured is for the long-term. So that makes sure that our investors and employees are all focused on long-term gains and growth. Locking vesting periods are part of that alignment. Another thing is that we at Kava are very transparent in our progress and development. We will be regularly posting updates within our own communities to allow our users and followers to keep up with everything we're up to. Please follow us or look at our github if you're interested!

Q38:

How did Kava get on Piexgo?

  • Answer: We did not work with Piexgo. We have not distributed tokens to any exchange other than Binance. I cannot speak to what is going on there, but I would be very wary of what is happening there.

Q39:

Why was the 1st round price so much lower than the current price

  • Answer: It is natural to worry that early investors got better pricing and could dump on the market. I can assure you that our investors are in this for the long-term. All private sale rounds signed 2 year contracts to run validators - and if they don't they forfeit their tokens. You can compare our release schedule to any other project. We have one of the most restricted circulating supply schedules of any project EVER and its because all our investors are commiting to the long-term success of the project and believe in Kava.
  • About the pricing itself - it is always a function of traction like for any start-up. When we made our public announcement about the project in June, we were only a 4 man team with just some github code. We could basically run a network with a single node, our own. Which is relatively worthless. I think our pricing of Kava at this time was justified. We were effectively a seed-stage company without a product or working network.
  • By July we made severe progress on the development side and the business side. We successful launched our first test net with the help of over 70 validator business partners around the world. We had a world-wide network of hundreds of people supporting us with people and resources at this point and the risk we would fail in launching a working product was much lower. At this point, the Kava project was valued at $25M. At this point, we had many VCs and investors asking for Kava tokens that we turned away. We only accepted validators that would help us launch the network. It was our one and only goal.
  • Fast forward to today, the IEO price simply reflects the traction and market demand for Kava. Our ecosystem is much larger than it was even a month ago. We have support from Ripple, Cosmos, and Binance amongst other large crypto projects. We have 100+ validators securing our network with very sophisticated high-availability set-ups. In addition, our ecosystem partners have built products for Kava - such as block explorers and others are working on native integrations to wallets and exchanges. Launchpad will be very big for us. Kava is a system designed to cater to crypto traders and investors and in a matter of days we distributed via Binance Launchpad and put in the hands of 130+ countries and tens of thousands of users overnight. It doesn't get more DeFi than that.

Q40:

What is the treasury used for?

  • Answer: Kava's treasury is for ecosystem growth activities.
  • Investors in financing rounds prior to the IEO have entered into long-term lock-up agreements in-line with their belief in Kava’s exciting long-term growth potential and to allow the projects token price to find stability. Following the IEO, the only tokens in circulation will be those sold through the IEO on Binance and the initial Treasury tokens released. No private sale investor tokens are in circulation until the initial release at the end of Q1 2020 and then gradually over the [36] months The initial Treasury tokens in circulation will be used for a mixture of ecosystem grants, the expenses associated with the IEO as well as initial market making requirements as is typical with a listing of this size. Kava remains well financed to execute our roadmap following the IEO and do not envisage any need for any material financings or token sales for the foreseeable future.

Q41:

Everyone have heard about the KAVA token, and read about it. But it would be great to hear your explanation about it. What is the Kava token, what is it's utility? :)

  • Answer: The Kava token plays many roles. KAVA is the native staking token of the Kava blockchain and is used for securing the network. KAVA is delegated to validators, basically professional node operators that run highly-available servers to secure the Kava blockchain. The top 100 validators by weight of staked KAVA earn block rewards that range from 3-20% APR based on the total amount staked in the network. These rewards are split between the validators and the KAVA holders.
  • When users of the platform repay their loans, they must a stability fee (a percentage of the loan) in KAVA tokens. These tokens are burned by the system, effectively deflating the total supply overtime as more users use the CDP system.
  • KAVA is also the primary token used in governance of the platform. KAVA token holders can vote on key system parameter changes and upgrades such as what assets to support, how much USDX in total can be loaned by the system, what the debt-to-collateral ratio needs to be, the stability fees, etc. KAVA holders have a very important responsibility to govern the system well.
  • Lastly, Kava functions as a "Lender of Last Resort" meaning if USDX ever gets undercollateralized because the underlying asset prices drop suddenly and the system manages it poorly, KAVA is inflated in these emergency situations and used to purchase USDX off the market until USDX reaches a state of being over collateralized again. KAVA holders have incentive to only support the good high quality assets so risk of the system is managed responsibly.

Q42:

No matter how perfect and technically thought-out a DeFi protocol is, it cannot be completely protected from any unplanned situations (such as extreme market fluctuations, some legal issues, etc.)

Ecosystem members, in particular the validators on whom KAVA relies on fundamental decision-making rights, should be prepared in advance for any "critical" scenario. Considering that, unlike the same single-collateral MakerDAO, KAVA will be a multi-collateral CDP system, this point is probably even more relevant here.

In this regard, please answer the following question: Does KAVA have a clear risk management model or strategy and how decentralized is / will it be?

  • Answer: Simialar to other CDP systems and MakerDAO we do have a system freeze function where in cases of extreme issues, we can stop the auction mechanisms and return all collateral.

Q43:

Did you know that "Kava" is translated into Ukrainian like "Coffee"? I personally do love drinking coffee. I plunge into the fantasy world. Why did you name your project "Kava" What is the story behind it? What idea / fantasy did your project originate from, which inspired you to create it?

  • Answer: Kava is coffee to you.
  • Kava is Hippopotamus to Japanese.
  • Cava is a region in Spain
  • Kava is also a root that is used in tea which makes your mouth numb.
  • Kava is also crow in Hindi.
  • Kava last but not least is a DeFi platform launching on Binance :)
  • We liked the sound of Kava it was as simple as that. It doesn't have much meaning in the USA where I am from. But it's short sweet and when we were just starting, Kava.io was available for a reasonable price

Q44:

What incentives does a lender get if a person chooses to pay with KAVA? Is there a discount on interest rates on the loan amount if you pay with KAVA? Do I have to pass the KYC procedure to apply for a small loan?

  • Answer: There is no KYC for Kava. Its an open blockchain software platform where anyone with a computer can connect to it and use it.

Q45:

Let's say, I decided to bond my cryptocurrency and got USDX stable coins. For now, it`s an unknown stable coin (let's be honest). Do you plan to add USDX to other famous exchanges? Also, you have spoken about the USDX staking and that the percentage would be higher than for other stable coins. Please be so kind to tell us what is the average annual interest rate and what are the conditions of staking?

  • Answer: Yes we have several large exchanges willing to support USDX from the start. Binance/Binance-DEX is one you should all know ;)
  • The average annual rates for USDX will depend on market conditions. The rate is actually provided by the CDP fees users pay. The system reallocates a portion of those fees to USDX users. In times when USDX use needs to grow, the rates will be higher to incentivize use. When demand is strong, we can reduce the rates.

Q46:

Why should i use and choose Kava's loan if i can use the similar margin trade on Binance?

  • Answer: If margin is available to you and you trust the exchange then you should do whatever is cheaper. For a US citizen and others, margin is often not available and if it is, only for a few asset types as collateral. Kava aims to address this and offer this to everyone.

Q47:

The IEO price is $ 0.46 while the price of the first private sale is $ 0.075. Don't you think that such price gap can negatively affect the liquidity of the token and take away the desire to buy a token on the exchange?

  • Answer: It is natural to worry that early investors got better pricing and could dump on the market. I can assure you that our investors are in this for the long-term. All private sale rounds signed 2 year contracts to run validators - and if they don't they forfeit their tokens. You can compare our release schedule to any other project. We have one of the most restricted circulating supply schedules of any project EVER and its because all our investors are commiting to the long-term success of the project and believe in Kava.
  • About the pricing itself - it is always a function of traction like for any start-up. When we made our public announcement about the project in June, we were only a 4 man team with just some github code. We could basically run a network with a single node, our own. Which is relatively worthless. I think our pricing of Kava at this time was justified. We were effectively a seed-stage company without a product or working network.
  • By July we made severe progress on the development side and the business side. We successful launched our first test net with the help of over 70 validator business partners around the world. We had a world-wide network of hundreds of people supporting us with people and resources at this point and the risk we would fail in launching a working product was much lower. At this point, the Kava project was valued at $25M. At this point, we had many VCs and investors asking for Kava tokens that we turned away. We only accepted validators that would help us launch the network. It was our one and only goal.
  • Fast forward to today, the IEO price simply reflects the traction and market demand for Kava. Our ecosystem is much larger than it was even a month ago. We have support from Ripple, Cosmos, and Binance amongst other large crypto projects. We have 100+ validators securing our network with very sophisticated high-availability set-ups. In addition, our ecosystem partners have built products for Kava - such as block explorers and others are working on native integrations to wallets and exchanges. Launchpad will be very big for us. Kava is a system designed to cater to crypto traders and investors and in a matter of days we distributed via Binance Launchpad and put in the hands of 130+ countries and tens of thousands of users overnight. It doesn't get more DeFi than that.
  • TLDR - I think KAVA is undervalued and the liquid supply of tokens is primarily from the IEO so its a safer bet than other IEOs. If the price drops, it will be from the overall market conditions or fellow IEO users not due private sale investors or team sell-offs.

Q48:

Can you introduce some information abouts KAVA Deflationary Fee Structure? With the burning mechanism, does it mean KAVA will never reach its max supply?

  • Answer: When loans are repaid, users pay a fee in Kava. This is burned. However, Kava does not have a max supply. It has a starting supply of 100M. It inflates for block rewards 3-20% APR AND it inflates when the system is at risk of under collateralization. At this time, more Kava is minted and used to purchase USDX off the market until it reaches full collateralization again.
  • TLDR: If things go well, and governance is good, Kava deflates and hopefully appreciates in value. If things go wrong, Kava holders get inflated.

Q49:

In your opinion what are advantage of decentralized finance over centralized?

  • Answer: One of the main advantages is not needing to pay the costs of regulation and compliance. Open financial software that is usable by anyone removes middle men fees and reduces the barrier for new entrants to enter and make new products. Also DeFI has an edge in terms of onboarding - to get a bank account or an exchange account you need to do lots of KYC and give private info. That takes time and is troublesome. With DeFi you just load up your funds and transact. Very fast user flows.

Q50:

Plan, KAVA how to raise capital? Kava is being supported by more than 100 business entities around the world, including major cryptocurrency investment funds like Ripple and Cosmos, so what did kava do to convince investors to join the project?

  • Answer: We have been doing crypto research and development for years. Ripple and Cosmos were partners before we even started this blockchain with Kava Labs. When we announced Kava the DeFi platform they knew us already to do good work and they liked the idea so they support us.
submitted by Kava_Mod to KavaUSDX [link] [comments]

License to Kill – Bond(s) explained

The below is the text from my latest blog post about bonds, if you want to see the original with pretty pictures, charts, graphs etc then click on this link.
Ok, the title is an obvious dad joke, but as it happens it still fits in with my naming convention for posts so happy days! On to more serious stuff.
The most common proposed asset allocation for people pursuing FIRE seems to involve having absolutely as much invested in equities (or to a lesser extent property) as possible, and reducing every other asset class to as little as possible. Which is certainly one way of doing things, and given the great performance of shares and property over the last 20 years or more there is an argument to be made for doing things this way.
It’s certainly not the only way of doing things though, and I will be trying to show why there is a case to be made for investing some money in other asset classes, in particular Fixed Income aka Bonds.
So what are bonds?
Bonds are a type of debt that is issued by governments, semi-government organisations, and corporations, so basically you’re lending them money. In Australia we also have what are called hybrid securities, but they’ve got some big enough differences that I’ll talk about them in a future post (probably).
Bonds are also one of those fun areas where there is an exception to every rule, so although what I’ve written below is broadly accurate there is always going to be some type of bond or a specific issue that breaks one of the rules.
So please don’t be an internet hero and “well ackshually” me about premium redemption/issue bonds, soft calls, hard calls, investor puts, floaters, PIK notes and all the rest of it because broadly speaking it isn’t going to make much difference for the purposes of explaining bonds. Basically play nice readers!
Talk numbers to me…
Bonds are all about math. As I’m sure regular readers of this blog can imagine this makes me very happy, and probably explains in part why I spent a large part of my career working in an area where understanding bonds was crucial, although to make things more interesting we added on a bunch of other stuff like equity options, credit derivatives, FX etc.
The main numbers to think about are the price you paid for the bond, the coupon on the bond, the yield on the bond, the time to maturity, and the maturity value of the bond. From those main numbers we also derive a bunch of other numbers I’ll talk about later.
Bonds are normally issued at a price of 100, with a fixed coupon (interest payment based on the maturity value of the bond) and a fixed maturity value at a known maturity date. So that’s 4 of the numbers covered already, happy days!
A lot of the time though you’re not going to be buying that bond when it is issued, you’ve buying it when it’s already trading in which case chances are pretty good you didn’t pay 100 for the bond. Buying it along the way doesn’t affect the coupon or the redemption amount at maturity or when it matures.
What it does affect though is the yield. There are a bunch of different yield measures but I’m going to go with yield to maturity, ie what yield (return) will you get if you hold the bond to maturity.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but one way to think about bonds is that they’re like a term deposit where the amount that you can buy it for moves around. If you buy a bond for $10,000 that is going to mature in a year and it has a 2% coupon and redeems for $10,200 (redemption price plus coupon payment), then your yield (2%) is the same as your coupon (2%).
But if interest rates have changed and so the price of the bond has changed and you buy that bond for $9,900 or $10,100, then your yield will be different from your coupon, either 3% or 1% respectively. Hopefully that makes sense? BTW I’ve rounded the numbers here to try and keep it nice and simple.
Most bonds pay interest on a semi annual basis (I used an annual payment in the example above to make things easier) so to figure out how much interest you get when it gets paid it’ll be the coupon divided by two.
Hopefully all of that makes sense, if not let me know in the comments.
Issuers of Bonds
As I said above the main issuers of bonds are governments, semi government organisations, and corporations.
Debt issued by governments is generally the safest type, because so long as they control the printing press then they can always print more money to pay you back. The Eurozone is a bit of an exception to this (understatement of the year) but in most of the other major sovereign bond markets like the US, Australian, the UK etc it’s true.
Emerging markets are a bit different because they often issue debt in USD, which means that if things go pear shaped then they can’t just print more money to pay off bondholders.
There can also be issues with getting your money back from sovereigns if they have too much debt, such as when they either don’t control the printing press (Greece) or the bond is issued in a different currency (Argentina) but for the most part if you lend money to a developed country in their own currency then you can pretty reliably count on getting your money back.
There are also bonds issued by semi government organisations like the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development etc, these are slightly less safe for the most part but you’re still not taking on much risk of not getting your money back.
Debt issued by corporations is riskier, partly because businesses obviously can’t just print more money to pay you back, and because corporations can and do go bust. Sure it doesn’t seem likely that Telstra or Woolworths or the big banks are going to blow up any time soon, but there are plenty of other bond issuers out there with much more fragile finances.
As you would expect the more risk you are taking on the more return you want in order to be compensation for doing so. This is because unlike a term deposit the value of your capital isn’t protected. If you put $10,000 into a term deposit for a year with an interest rate of 2%, then you know that in a year’s time you will get back that $10,000 plus $200 in interest.
If for some reason the bank you invested that money through goes bust, the government will make you whole (up to the value of $250,000 per entity per approved deposit institution.
If you invest in a corporate bond and the company goes bust, well you’re probably not going to get all or maybe any of your money back. The good news is that you’re more likely to get money back than equity holders, but if the debts of the company are a lot more than the assets then you’re going to be in trouble.
There’s a clear framework for what happens if a company goes bust and who gets paid first and in how much etc, the short version of this is that equity holders are absolutely last in line but depending on what type of bonds you own you may not be a meaningful better position either.
And unlike a stock, when you own a bond you don’t own a piece of the issuer of the bond, you just own part of their devt. So if the company does great and starts making a fortune, you as a bondholder don’t get paid any more than what the terms of the bond state. Basically you can get a fair chunk of the downside and none of the upside beyond the terms of the bond. On the plus side this doesn’t happen particularly often, most of the time you’ll get what you were promised
Bond ratings
Now obviously some companies are more secure and stable than others. If you take a bond from the biggest company in the ASX200 which is CBA, then it’s more likely to fulfil the terms of the bond than whatever the 200th company is. That’s not to say the 200th company won’t, just that there is more risk. The actual degree of this risk is quantified in a couple of different ways.
First of all there are ratings agencies out there who will assign a rating from anywhere to super safe (AAA) to D (in default) with a bunch of graduations in between. Anything rated from AAA to BBB- is what is called Investment Grade (IG), everything below that is called High Yield (HY) or less politely Junk.
Just because a bond is IG doesn’t guarantee it will pay off, likewise something which is HY isn’t guaranteed or even likely to fail. For the most part though the different ratings given tend to play out that way in the real world, with far less defaults for bonds rated AAA vs bonds rated BB for example.
The big three ratings agencies are Standard & Poors (S&P), Moodys, and Fitch, and between them they’ll rate most of the bonds and/or issuers. They tend to be fairly backward looking in my opinion, and they were hugely and obviously wrong on rating mortgage backed securities back in the GFC. Still, they will generally give you a reasonable idea of the creditworthiness of the bond issuer.
Because bonds are also traded in the marketplace you can take the yield offered on a bond with a particular maturity, compare it to an equivalent government bond, and using some fun math (yeah baby!) back out a credit spread which that bond trades over treasuries (or swaps but I’m not going to get into that). The higher the spread, the higher the perceived risk of the bond, and vice versa of course.
Are bonds safe?
Well it kinda depends on what you mean by safe. If you mean are the bonds likely to deliver what the issuer of the bonds promised, then generally yes. As I said with government and semi government bonds you will almost certainly get all your coupons and the maturity value of the bonds delivered on time. Yeah, there are some exceptions to this but you’re unlikely to run into trouble with Australia, the US, the UK, the more economically sensible members of the Eurozone etc.
Similarly with corporates the vaast majority of the time you will get your money back on investment grade bonds, and it’s pretty rare to not get your money back on high yield bonds as well. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, but it doesn’t happen much.
If you mean am I going to get back what I put into the bond, well no they’re not necessarily safe, particularly if you sell before maturity. Remember when I said bonds are kinda like term deposits that can trade? Well when they trade those prices move around, and they can move around a lot!
Why do bond prices move?
There are a bunch of reasons why bond prices move around, the main ones are changes in the interest rate environment, changes in economic conditions, and changes specific to the issuer of the bond.
We’ll talk about interest rates first. Bond prices have an inverse relationship with bond yields, which is a fancy way of saying if interest rates (yields) go down then bond prices go up.
How much do they go up? Well that depends on the magnitude of the change in rates, and a bunch of factors involving the bond. Basically the longer till maturity on the bond, and the lower the coupon on the bond, the more sensitive it will be to changes in interest rates. This is measured using modified duration and convexity.
Modified duration takes into account the timing of the cashflows of the bond (so coupons and maturity) and gives you a number which is typically a little less than that number of years to maturity, the higher the coupon the more it decreases the modified duration. If you multiply that modified duration by the change in interest rates in percentage terms, it will tell you how much the bond price will move by (in theory at least).
So if you have a modified duration of say 7.117, then for every 1 percent move in interest rates the bond price will change by 7.117 points. So if your bond price was previously 100 and rates moved down by 1%, then your bond should now be worth 107.117. Happy days! Conversely if rates moved up, well your bond is now worth 92.883. Not so happy days.
I’ve used the [ASX bond calculator](http://%20https//www.asx.com.au/asx/research/bondCalculator.do) to give a couple of examples using the current Aussie 10 year bond. You can hopefully see below that by changing the yield on the bond from 1.5% to 1% the market price has gone from 116.87 to 121.83, roughly a 4.25% change in price for a 0.5% change in rates, so presumably the modified duration on the bond is about 8.5.
To make things slightly more complex, that relationship isn’t fixed due to something called convexity. Instead of being a linear relationship, it’s actually a changing one (a curve rather than a line). Basically the more bonds prices move away from where they were issued the more that relationship will change.
Then there are things like GDP numbers, employment numbers, consumer sentiment surveys, PMI surverys, and all sorts of other economic news which will potentially move bond yields around, generally pretty slightly but it really depends on how important that economic number is and how much of a change from expectations it is.
On top of that for corporations changes in their own situations will have an effect on what their credit rating/spread is which will affect prices as well. If a company goes from being loss making to suddenly making a profit, then that’s going to be good for their credit and the bond price is likely to go up. Bad news like a profit warning will potentially mean a higher credit spread and lower price for the bond.
There is also general investor appetite for risk, so if investors are happy to take on more risk in their asset allocation (risk on) then they will likely sell off lower risk assets like bonds and buy higher risk assets like equities and to a lesser extent property. If things change and they want to go risk off, then the reverse happens and money tends to come out of equities and into bonds.
What happens to bonds if the stock market crashes or we have another GFC?
A stock market crash is actually one of the more compelling reasons to invest in bonds. This is because when stock markets crash investors tend to put their money into asset classes where they feel a lot safer ie, bonds. The rationale is that getting your money back is now hugely important, and even more important is not losing all your money as you will in those horrible equities which you knew you should never have invested in but that horrible financial adviser talked you into.
People. Are. Not. Rational. People panic. People sell assets which are going down in value even though they know they should be holding on for the long term. This applies not just to retail investors, but also to professionals who should know better.
In the GFC I spent plenty of time talking to institutional investors with a long term time horizon (ie 5 or 10 years etc) who suddenly decided they had to get out because of bad one month performance. People will bail out if the proverbial is hitting the fan. I wrote a bit about my experiences with the GFC here, and believe me there are a lot of people who are not going to be as cool calm and collected as they think they will be.
It’s very very very very (extra very for emphasis) important to note here that at this point in time investors will not be thinking that all bonds are much the same. When they are looking for somewhere to put their money that they now have after panic selling out of equities, they will park it in the safest place they can find, ie government bonds (aka treasuries). This will cause the price of those bonds to rise because of supply and demand.
If they still want to take on some amount of risk then they might put some into investment grade bonds, again this will push the price up a bit. They will almost certainly not put money into high yield bonds, because those are risky and in a crisis will behave pretty similarly to equities, ie they will fall in value. If anything they will more than likely try to pull money out of HY bonds, pushing the price down.
This excellent post really shows this in the below graph which shows the average performance of different types of bonds for a 10% or greater fall in the stock market (all of this is for the US but the same principle applies to Australia).
It doesn’t work in every case, as shown below (same source), but in almost all cases of a big crash in equities, treasury and to a lesser extent IG bonds gave you a big positive return to help out. HY, not so much and in some cases actually gave you a worse performance than equities themselves.
Please believe me when I say it is a huge help psychologically to have some of your investments going up when the others are going down, which to me at least is a great reason to have some money invested in bonds.
You’ve convinced me, how much should I have in bonds?
Ok so I’m probably being slightly optimistic here given the number of posts I see on reddit about how VDHG would be so much better if Vanguard got rid of that terrible 10% that’s invested in bonds and put it all in equities instead.
It would be nice to think though that some people are now realising that come the next crash they too might not behave entirely rationally, and it sure would be nice to own some assets that are going to zig when the stock market zags, so to speak.
On the off chance that I have actually convinced people, well it really comes down to your particular risk profile. This is going to be hard to believe for some people, but in the US the default portfolio for most investors is 60% stocks and 40% bonds.
Looking at Oz , the default balanced investment option for most super funds over here are supposed to have something like a 70:30 split between growth assets (shares and property) and defensive assets (bonds and cash) although the reality is a long long way from that if you actually look into how they invest (that’s a discussion for another time though). So that maybe provides a useful starting point.
I know that the average FIRE portfolio that gets talked about particularly from younger bloggers (who have likely never experienced a sustained down market) is pretty much 100% equities and property, maybe even leveraged up. Which is fine if you can hold on through the downturns, but not everyone can do this because it is extremely difficult to do psychologically. I wish them all the best of luck, but I am pretty sure that at least some of them will decide that it’s all too much and sell whenever we have the next crash.
There are exceptions to the rule though. One of my favourite bloggers, and someone who I know thinks deeply about this sort of stuff, is the FI Explorer who has about 15% in bonds and 15% in defensive alternatives (gold and bitcoin) as per his latest portfolio update.
Whilst I don’t like Bitcoin myself, or gold for that matter, he writes a good explanation about why he holds both here. I still don’t like either asset myself, but I recognise that I am not infallible, I could well be wrong about this, and certainly historically they have worked well as hedges.
In any case the more important point here is that there is basically a 30% allocation to what would be regarded as defensive type assets. This is actually a bit over his actual target of 25% in defensive assets, but he probably sleeps just fine at night.
I’m a little more aggressive in only having about 21% of my assets (excluding PPoR) in cash and bonds, but it’s not a huge difference. Both of us have been invested through stock market crashes and hopefully have come to realise that we are not the hyper rational investors that economists believe we are, and therefore it’s best to have a bit invested in stuff that will go up or at least hold it’s value when everything else is crashing.
How do I buy bonds?
You can buy bonds individually, but you tend to need to have a fair amount of money to do so and you can run into a lot of problems with liquidity, big bid/ask spreads etc, it’s hard to build up a diversified portfolio etc.
I buy bonds the same way I buy stocks, ie via an ETF. Most of the major ETF providers have some variety of index ETFs tracking Treasury only or Treasury plus Investment Grade bonds, or you can buy HY stuff if you want. Personally I just use one ETF which has about 75% in treasuries and the rest in IG. There are also some actively managed bond funds out there, either as ETFs or managed funds.
For the reasons I outlined above about bonds being a psychological safe harbour I personally would (and do) only invest in bonds which are likely to up in a crisis, but different strokes for different folks applies as always.
Any more questions?
I’ve only really scratched the surface here of talking about bonds, but at the same time I feel like it’s an overwhelming amount of information. If you have more questions then as always I’m happy to answer them in the comments!
Do you invest in bonds? If you enjoyed this post and would like to read more like it then please subscribe!
submitted by AussieHIFIRE to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

Creating synthetic foreign currencies with DAI

Hey guys
Just wanted to a sense check on this tweet.
The essence of it is that foreign currency synthetics could likely be a reality in 2020 How will it work?
Basically I've been thinking once a floor of reliance on DAI is established, it will be possible that synthetic foreign currencies in regions where foreign currency volatility is not high could likely sprout. Why does this matter? Because currencies set context for use-cases. Lending circles in Indonesia would rather prefer a regional currency than USD to hedge against inflation risks. Similarly traders in India may much rather prefer a synthetic INR to cash in on the premium (against Bitcoin) vs paying a premium on USDT purchases (Note : There's a typical 3-5% premium on buying dollars in India). I think contextual use-cases in geospecific regions could spur if synthetic stablecoin foreign currencies are launched.
The added use-cases for this are multiple

There's a lot more thinking that needs to happen around this. Just putting it out in the wild to know if someone else is working/ thinking about this.
Edit : Sorry if adding my tweet up there is shilly - will remove it
Regards
submitted by WiseAcanthisitta5 to ethfinance [link] [comments]

The most useful links I have found over the past few years to track Bitcoin's fundamentals as well as technicals.

= FUNDAMENTALS =
= TECHNICALS =
= Other Useful Links =
submitted by Oskar_Koch to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

2018 Cryptocurrency Crash (Elliott Wave): Inflection Point

2018 Cryptocurrency Crash (Elliott Wave): Inflection Point
Crosspost: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2711461.msg47569859#msg47569859
History
—08-JAN-2018: Elliott Wave, https://redd.it/7ptsg3
—12-JAN-2018: Crypto Black Monday, https://redd.it/7pxg0d
—24-JAN-2018: Dotcom vs Crypto, https://redd.it/7skzff
—21-FEB-2018: Bear Market Resumes, https://redd.it/7z8u6n
—28-FEB-2018: Halfway Through, https://redd.it/7umjf9
—13-MAR-2018: Fare Thee Well Ten Thousand, #10kNeverAgain: https://redd.it/842ssd
—19-MAR-2018: Equinox, https://redd.it/85m5tr
—03-APR-2018: April Fools’ Rally, https://redd.it/89jqye
—19-APR-2018: 420 High, https://redd.it/8dbz4f
—25-APR-2018: Symmetrical Triangle, https://redd.it/8ev2ki
—06-MAY-2018: Ten Thousand Tease, https://redd.it/8hdhjn
—29-MAY-2018: Triangle Phinance, https://redd.it/8mwx6z
—10-JUN-2018: Triangle Phinance II, https://redd.it/8q5p68
—23-JUL-2018: Redux, https://redd.it/913xx6
—02-SEP-2018: #ShortSeptember, https://redd.it/9c96vk
—04-NOV-2018: Inflection Point, https://redd.it/9u1y3z
TLDR: https://i.imgur.com/EGmziB1.png
The Bitcoin and cryptocurrency bear market of 2018 has reached a point of inflection, where alternative scenarios and projections can now be explored using Elliott Wave theory.
From the 17-DEC-2017 high to the 06-FEB-2018 low, the Bitcoin market endured a 70% price collapse from the all-time high of $19,891 to a low of $6,000 in just 51 days (BITFINEX). In Elliott Wave parlance, this first phase crash is a simple but sharp three wave a-b-c zigzag pattern.
From the 06-FEB-2018 low, the Bitcoin market then wandered sideways for 168 days until 24-JUL-2018, creating a floor of support at $6,000 whilst making successively lower highs. The psychological $6,000 price has been guarded since it marks support of the psychological USD$100 billion Bitcoin marketcap. In Elliott Wave parlance, this second phase of market development is a triangle pattern consisting of five a-b-c-d-e waves. The internal structure of the waves within the triangle are related to each other in terms of length as the following Fibonacci ratios:
wave-c = wave-a * 0.618 wave-d = wave-b * 0.786 wave-e = wave-c * 0.786 
https://i.imgur.com/Bm4Nx7a.png
The triangle phase of the Bitcoin market completed at the 24-JUL-2018 high. Since then, the third phase of market has been underway with an expectation of creating new lows for 2018 at sub $6,000 prices. Initial approx targets have been projected as follows (BITSTAMP):
@5920: Fibonacci 0.618% of wave-d low projected from wave-e high. @5220: Fibonacci 0.786% of wave-d low projected from wave-e high. @4327: Fibonacci 0.100% of wave-d low projected from wave-e high. @4200: Fibonacci 78.6% decline of entire Bitcoin market. 
Any of the aforementioned approx price levels based on Fibonacci projections are potential targets of where the 2018 bear market may conclude.
Should price retrace below the Fibonacci 78.6% of the entire Bitcoin market, i.e. below the psychological $4,000 level; it may suggest the bear market extends into 2019 with an expectation of a 90%-95% decline of the entire Bitcoin market to approx $1,000 by 2020. Such a scenario would be consistent with the collapse of other historical asset mania bubble bursts, which typically elapse 2 years on average: thebubblebubble.com/historic-crashes
However, the Bitcoin market has reached an inflection point. The third phase of the bear market appears to have stagnated in price and time. Since 09-SEP-2018, price has traded in a narrow 10% range at an average price of $6,400 for almost 60 days thus far. Volatility is now at a 22-month low and technicals such as moving averages are flat-lining across daily timeframes. This behaviour has been quite unexpected. Since completion of the consolidating triangle phase of the market, volume and volatility was expected to breakout. Speculators and traders have left the stabilised cryptocurrency marketplace in favour of the more volatile global equity bear markets.
An alternative scenario can now be considered: Since completion of the triangle at the 24-JUL-2018 high, the concluding phase of the bear market may have declined and truncated at the 11-OCT-2018 low. If so, a cyclical (i.e. short-term) bull market may be commencing within an overall secular (i.e. long-term) bear market. Such a bull market would be termed as a wave-X as part of a complex ongoing long-term bear market structure.
https://i.imgur.com/vePkBiL.png
In some schools of Elliott Wave thought, the wave-X bull market may unfold in five 1-2-3-4-5 impulsive waves; or, as three a-b-c corrective waves considered in other schools of thought. Either way, the size of a wave-X is challenging to predict. Typically, it may retrace either a Fibonacci 38.2%, 50%, 61.8% or 78.6% of the entire 2018 bear market; that is approx $11,081 or $12,720 or $14,360 or $16,705 respectively (BITSTAMP). In some cases, a wave-X may extend to, and even exceed prior all-time highs, like typically seen in commodity and forex markets. The wave-X cyclical bull market could be a swift parabolic move elapsing within 12 months during the course of 2019, and thus the overall secular bear market may still resume to unfold to a low in late 2020.
In summary, the parameters of the inflection point can be currently defined as follows, using BITSTAMP prices…
Bear Market Inflection Points
—A break below the 11-OCT-2018 low of $6,055 would be the first indication to suggest the bear market is still underway.
—A break below the 14-AUG-2018 low of $5,880 would confirm the ongoing bear market.
—A break below $4,000 may suggest an extended bear market leading to a 90%-95% collapse of the entire Bitcoin market by 2020.
Bull Market Inflection Points
—A break above the 15-OCT-2018 high of $6,756 would be the first indication to suggest a bull market may be commencing.
—A break above the 04-SEP-2018 high of $7,412 would likely confirm a bull market is underway.
Notes
—Bitcoin CBOE XBT futures expiries: 14-NOV-2018, 19-DEC-2018
—Bitcoin CME futures last trade dates: 30-NOV-2018, 28-DEC-2018
—Bitcoin ICE Bakkt daily futures tentative launch: 12-DEC-2018
—S&P500: global stockmarket indices appear to have topped, and a bear market is underway. Expectation is a rally into the end of year 2018 towards $2,800+ in the S&P500 index, followed by a decline to approx $2,400 by Easter 2019 to end the brief equity bear market.
—Gold: rally underway, expectation to conclude at approx $1,260, and then bear market resumes to sub $1,000 by 2020.
—US Dollar: expecting uptrend to be bounded by approx 98, and then bear market resumes.
Elliott Wave models are speculative and indicative of price and structure, not time; i.e. the projections may occur sooner or later than anticipated.
—BTC (Weekly): https://i.imgur.com/B0ftUHf.png
—BTC (Daily): https://i.imgur.com/ljfMvlt.png
—BTC (4-hr): https://i.imgur.com/Ip1QQTe.png
submitted by 12345abcde00001 to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Decred Journal – July 2018

Note: you can read this on Medium, GitHub or old Reddit to view all the links

Development

dcrd: Several steps towards multipeer downloads completed: an optimization to use in-memory block index and a new 1337 chain view. Maintenance: improved test coverage, upgrading dependency management system and preparing for the upcoming Go 1.11 release.
dcrwallet: A big change introducing optional privacy-preserving SPV sync mode was merged. In this mode dcrwallet does not download the full blockchain but only gets the "filters", uses them to determine which blocks it needs and fetches them from random nodes on the network. This has on-disk footprint of 300-400 MB and sync time of minutes, compared to ~3.4 GB and sync time of hours for full sync (these are rough estimates).
jy-p: the server side of SPV (in dcrd) was deployed in v1.2.0, the client side of SPV (in dcrwallet) is in our next release, v1.3.0. Still some minor bugs in SPV that are being worked out. There will be an update to add the latest features from BIP 157/158 in the next few months. SPV will be optional in v1.3.0, but it will become the default after we get a proper header commitment for it (#general)
Decrediton: besides regular bugfixes and design improvements, several components are being developed in parallel like SPV mode, Politeia integration and Trezor support.
Politeia: testing started on mainnet, thanks to everyone who is participating. A lot of testing, bugfixing and polishing is happening in preparation for full mainnet launch. There are also a few missing features to be added before launch, e.g. capacity to edit a proposal and versioning for that, discussion to remain open once voting starts. Decrediton integration is moving forward, check out this video for a demo and this meta issue for the full checklist.
Trezor: Decrediton integration of initial Trezor support is in progress and there is a demo.
Android: app design version 2.0 completed.
dcrdata: development of several chart visualizations was completed and is awaiting deployment. Specifically, voting agendas and historic charts are merged while ticket pool visualization is in testing.
atomicswap: @glendc is seeking reviews of his Ethereum support pull request.
Dev activity stats for July: 252 active PRs, 220 master commits, 34,754 added and 12,847 deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 6-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: the month started at 40.5 and ended at 51.6 PH/s, with a low of 33.3 and a new all time high of 68.4 PH/s. F2Pool is leading with 40-45%, followed by the new BeePool at 15-25% and coinmine.pl at 18-23%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 92.6 DCR (-2.1). The price started the month at 94.6 and quickly retreated to month's low of 85 until 1,860 tickets were bought within a single period (versus target 720). This pushed the pool of tickets to 41,970 (2.5% above target), which in turn caused 10 price increases in a row to the month's high of 100.4. This was the highest ticket price seen on the new ticket price algorithm which has been in effect since Jul 2017. Second half of the month there was unusually low volatility between 92 and 94 DCR per ticket. Locked DCR held between 3.75 and 3.87 million or 46.6-48.0% of supply (+0.1% from previous peak).
Nodes: there are 212 public listening and 216 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 67% on v1.2.0 (+10%), 24% on v1.1.2 (-1%), 7% on v1.1.0 (-7%). Node count data is not perfect but we can see the steady trend of upgrading to v1.2.0. This version of dcrd is notable for serving compact filters. The increased count of such full nodes allows the developers to test SPV client mode in preparations for the upcoming v1.3.0 release.

ASICs

Obelisk posted three updates in July. For the most recent daily updates join their Discord.
New miner from iBeLink: DSM7T hashes Blake256 at 7 TH/s or Blake2b at 3.5 TH/s, consumes 2,100 W and costs $3,800, shipping Aug 5-10.
There were also speculations about the mysterious Pangolin Whatsminer DCR with the speed of 44 TH/s at 2,200 W and the cost of $3,888, shipping November. If you know more about it please share with us in #pow-mining channel.

Integrations

Meet new stake pool: dcrpool.ibitlin.com has 1% fees and is hosted by @life.
An interesting detail about decredbrasil.com stake pool was posted in chat:
emiliomann: stakebrasil is one of the pools with the lowest number of missed and expired tickets. It was one of the first and has a smaller percentage than the most recent ones who haven’t had the time to do so. (...) The Brazilian pool should be the one with the more servers spread around the world: 6 to decrease the latency. This is to explain to you why the [pool fee] rate of 5% (currently around 0.06 DCR) on the reward is also one of the highest. girino: 8 voting wallets now. I just finished setting up a new one yesterday. All of them in different datacenters, 3 in europe, 3 in north america, 1 in brazil and one in asia. We also have 3 more servers, 1 for the front end, one for "stats" and one for dcrdata. (#general)
On the mining side, Luxor started a new set of pool servers inside mainland China, while zpool has enabled Decred mining.
StatX announced Decred integration into their live dashboard and public chat.
Decred was added to Satowallet with BTC and ETH trading pairs. Caution: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.

Adoption

VotoLegal update:
Marina Silva is the first presidential candidate in Brazil using blockchain to keep all their electoral donations transparent and traceable. VotoLegal uses Decred technology, awesome use case! (reddit)
The story was covered by criptonoticias.com (translated) and livecoins.com.br (translated), the latter received hundreds of upvotes and comments on brasil.
On the OTC trading front, @i2Rav from i2trading reports:
We continue to see institutional interest in DCR. Large block buyers love the concept of staking as a way to earn additional income and appreciate the stakeholder rights it affords them. Likening a DCR investment to an activist shareholdebondholder gives these institutions some comfort while dipping their toes into a burgeoning new asset class.

Marketing

Targeted advertising reports released for June and July. As usual, reach @timhebel for full versions.
Big news in June: Facebook reversed their policy on banning crypto ads. ICO ads are still banned, but we should be OK. My team filled out the appeal today, so we should hopefully hear something within a few days. (u/timhebel on reddit)
After couple weeks Facebook finally responded to the appeal and the next step is to verify the domain name via DNS.
A pack of Stakey Telegram stickers is now available. Have fun!

Events

Attended:
Upcoming:

Media

Featured articles:
Articles:
Some articles are omitted due to low quality or factual errors.
Translations:
Videos:

Community Discussions

Community stats:
Comm systems update:
Articles:
Twitter: Ari Paul debates "There can be only one" aka "highlander argument".
Reddit and Forum: how ticket pool size influences average vote time; roadmap concerns; why ticket price was volatile; ideas for using Reddit chat for dcrtrader and alternative chat systems; insette's write-up on Andrew Stone's GROUP proposal for miner-validated tokenization that is superior to current OP_RETURN-based schemes; James Liu's paper to extend atomic swaps to financial derivatives; what happens when all DCR are mined, tail emission and incentives for miners.
Chats: why tickets don't have 100% chance to vote; ideas for more straightforward marketing; long-running chat about world economy and failure modes; @brandon's thoughts on tokenizing everything, ICOs, securities, sidechains and more; challenges of staking with Trezor; ideas how to use CryptoSteel wallet with Decred; why exchange can't stake your coins, how staking can increase security, why the function to export seed from wallet is bad idea and why dcrwallet doesn't ever store the seed; ticket voting math; discussion about how GitHub workflow forces to depend on modern web browser and possible alternatives; funding marketing and education in developing markets, vetting contractors based on deliverables, "Decred contractor clearance", continued in #governance.
#dex channel continues to attract thinkers and host chats about influence of exchanges, regulation, HFT, lot sizes, liquidity, on-chain vs off-chain swaps, to name a few topics. #governance also keeps growing and hosting high quality conversations.

Markets

In July DCR was trading in USD 56-76 and BTC 0.0072-0.0109 range. A recovery started after a volume boost of up to $10.5 m on Fex around Jul 13, but once Bitcoin headed towards USD ~8,000 DCR declined along with most altcoins.
WalletInvestor posted a prediction on dcrtrader.
Decred was noticed in top 10 mineable coins on coinmarketcap.com.

Relevant External

One million PCs in China were infected via browser plugins to mine Decred, Siacoin and Digibyte.
In a Unchained podcast episode David Vorick shared why ASICs are better than GPUs even if they tend toward mining centralization and also described Obelisk's new Launchpad service. (missed in June issue)
Sia project moved to GitLab. The stated reasons are to avoid the risk of depending on centralized service, to avoid vendor lock-in, better continuous integration and testing, better access control and the general direction to support decentralized and open source projects.
Luxor explained why PPS pools are better.
@nic__carter published slides from his talk "An Overview of Governance in Blockchains" from Zcon0.
This article arguing the importance of governance systems dates back to 2007.
Bancor wallet was hacked. This reminds us about the fake feeling of decentralizaion, that custody of funds is dangerous and that smart contracts must have minimum complexity and be verifiable.
Circle announced official Poloniex mobile apps for iOS and Android.
On Jul 27 Circle announced delisting of 9 coins from Poloniex that led to a loss of 23-81% of their value same day. Sad reminder about how much a project can depend on a single centralized exchange.
DCR supply and market cap is now correct on onchainfx.com and finally, on coinmarketcap.com. Thanks to @sumiflow, @jz and others doing the tedious work to reach out the various websites.

About This Issue

This is the 4th 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.
Chat links were changed to riot.im from the static web viewer that suffered from UX issues (filed here and here). We will consider changing back to the static viewer once they are resolved because it does not require javascript to read chat logs.
In the previous issue we introduced "Featured articles". The judgement is subjective by definition, if you feel unfairness or want to debate the criteria please check this issue.
Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room.
Contributions are also welcome, some areas are adding content, pre-release review or translations to other languages.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Haon and Richard-Red.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.54^2 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited

TL;DR
Details
(1) The current observed rates of increase in available network bandwidth (which went up 70% last year) should easily be able to support actual blocksizes increasing at the modest, slightly lower rate of only 54% per year.
Recent data shows that the "provisioned bandwidth" actually available on the Bitcoin network increased 70% in the past year.
If this 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth continues for the next 8 years, then actual blocksizes could easily increase at the slightly lower rate of 54% per year.
This would mean that in 8 years, actual blocksizes would be quite reasonable at about 1.548 = 32MB:
Hacking, Distributed/State of the Bitcoin Network: "In other words, the provisioned bandwidth of a typical full node is now 1.7X of what it was in 2016. The network overall is 70% faster compared to last year."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u85im/hacking_distributedstate_of_the_bitcoin_network/
http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/02/15/state-of-the-bitcoin-network/
Reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" for the next 8 years or so would effectively be similar to the 1MB "max blocksize" which Bitcoin used for the previous 8 years: simply a "ceiling" which doesn't really get in the way, while preventing any "unreasonably" large blocks from being produced.
As we know, for most of the past 8 years, actual blocksizes have always been far below the "max blocksize" of 1MB. This is because miners have always set their own blocksize (below the official "max blocksize") - in order to maximize their profits, while avoiding "orphan" blocks.
This setting of blocksizes on the part of miners would simply continue "as-is" if we reinstated Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" - with actual blocksizes continuing to grow gradually (still far below the 32MB "max blocksize" ceilng), and without introducing any new (risky, untested) "game theory" or economics - avoiding lots of worries and controversies, and bringing the community together around "Bitcoin Original".
So, simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would have many advantages:
  • It would keep fees low (so users would be happy);
  • It would support much higher prices (so miners would be happy) - as explained in section (2) below;
  • It would avoid the need for any any possibly controversial changes such as:
    • SegWit/Lightning (the hack of making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" necessitated by Blockstream's insistence on using a selfish and dangerous "soft fork", the centrally planned and questionable, arbitrary discount of 1-versus-4 for certain transactions); and
    • Bitcon Unlimited (the newly introduced parameters for Excessive Block "EB" / Acceptance Depth "AD").
(2) Bitcoin blocksize growth of 54% per year would correlate (under Metcalfe's Law) to Bitcoin price growth of around 1.542 = 2.37x per year - or 2.378 = 1000x higher price - ie 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
The observed, empirical data suggests that Bitcoin does indeed obey "Metcalfe's Law" - which states that the value of a network is roughly proportional to the square of the number of transactions.
In other words, Bitcoin price has corresponded to the square of Bitcoin transactions (which is basically the same thing as the blocksize) for most of the past 8 years.
Historical footnote:
Bitcoin price started to dip slightly below Metcalfe's Law since late 2014 - when the privately held, central-banker-funded off-chain scaling company Blockstream was founded by (now) CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell - two people who have historically demonstrated an extremely poor understanding of the economics of Bitcoin, leading to a very polarizing effect on the community.
Since that time, Blockstream launched a massive propaganda campaign, funded by $76 million in fiat from central bankers who would go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeded, and exploiting censorship on r\bitcoin, attacking the on-chain scaling which Satoshi originally planned for Bitcoin.
Legend states that Einstein once said that the tragedy of humanity is that we don't understand exponential growth.
A lot of people might think that it's crazy to claim that 1 bitcoin could actually be worth 1 million dollars in just 8 years.
But a Bitcoin price of 1 million dollars would actually require "only" a 1000x increase in 8 years. Of course, that still might sound crazy to some people.
But let's break it down by year.
What we want to calculate is the "8th root" of 1000 - or 10001/8. That will give us the desired "annual growth rate" that we need, in order for the price to increase by 1000x after a total of 8 years.
If "you do the math" - which you can easily perform with a calculator or with Excel - you'll see that:
  • 54% annual actual blocksize growth for 8 years would give 1.548 = 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 = 32MB blocksize after 8 years
  • Metcalfe's Law (where Bitcoin price corresponds to the square of Bitcoin transactions or volume / blocksize) would give 1.542 = 2.37 - ie, 54% bigger blocks (higher volume or more transaction) each year could support about 2.37 higher price each year.
  • 2.37x annual price growth for 8 years would be 2.378 = 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 = 1000 - giving a price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars if the price increases an average of 2.37x per year for 8 years, starting from 1 BTC = 1000 USD now.
So, even though initially it might seem crazy to think that we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars in 8 years, it's actually not that far-fetched at all - based on:
  • some simple math,
  • the observed available bandwidth (already increasing at 70% per year), and
  • the increasing fragility and failures of many "legacy" debt-backed national fiat currencies and payment systems.
Does Metcalfe's Law hold for Bitcoin?
The past 8 years of data suggest that Metcalfe's Law really does hold for Bitcoin - you can check out some of the graphs here:
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
https://i.redd.it/kvjwzcuce3ay.png
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*22ix0l4oBDJ3agoLzVtUgQ.gif
(3) Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would provide an ultra-simple, ultra-safe, non-controversial approach which perhaps everyone could agree on: Bitcoin's original promise of "p2p electronic cash", 100% on-chain, eventually worth 1 BTC = 1 million dollars.
This could all be done using only the whitepaper - eg, no need for possibly "controversial" changes like SegWit/Lightning, Bitcoin Unlimited, etc.
As we know, the Bitcoin community has been fighting a lot lately - mainly about various controversial scaling proposals.
Some people are worried about SegWit, because:
  • It's actually not much of a scaling proposal - it would only give 1.7MB blocks, and only if everyone adopts it, and based on some fancy, questionable blocksize or new "block weight" accounting;
  • It would be implemented as an overly complicated and anti-democratic "soft" fork - depriving people of their right to vote via a much simpler and safer "hard" fork, and adding massive and unnecessary "technical debt" to Bitcoin's codebase (for example, dangerously making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend", making future upgrades much more difficult - but giving long-term "job security" to Core/Blockstream devs);
  • It would require rewriting (and testing!) thousands of lines of code for existing wallets, exchanges and businesses;
  • It would introduce an arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" favoring some kinds of transactions over others.
And some people are worried about Lightning, because:
  • There is no decentralized (p2p) routing in Lightning, so Lightning would be a terrible step backwards to the "bad old days" of centralized, censorable hubs or "crypto banks";
  • Your funds "locked" in a Lightning channel could be stolen if you don't constantly monitor them;
  • Lighting would steal fees from miners, and make on-chain p2p transactions prohibitively expensive, basically destroying Satoshi's p2p network, and turning it into SWIFT.
And some people are worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, because:
  • Bitcoin Unlimited extends the notion of Nakamoto Consensus to the blocksize itself, introducing the new parameters EB (Excess Blocksize) and AD (Acceptance Depth);
  • Bitcoin Unlimited has a new, smaller dev team.
(Note: Out of all the current scaling proposals available, I support Bitcoin Unlimited - because its extension of Nakamoto Consensus to include the blocksize has been shown to work, and because Bitcoin Unlimited is actually already coded and running on about 25% of the network.)
It is normal for reasonable people to have the above "concerns"!
But what if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars - without introducing any controversial new changes or discounts or consensus rules or game theory?
What if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars using just the whitepaper itself - by simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize"?
(4) We can easily reach "million-dollar bitcoin" by gradually and safely growing blocks to 32MB - Satoshi's original "max blocksize" - without changing anything else in the system!
If we simply reinstate "Bitcoin Original" (Satoshi's original 32MB blocksize), then we could avoid all the above "controversial" changes to Bitcoin - and the following 8-year scenario would be quite realistic:
  • Actual blocksizes growing modestly at 54% per year - well within the 70% increase in available "provisioned bandwidth" which we actually happened last year
  • This would give us a reasonable, totally feasible blocksize of 1.548 = 32MB ... after 8 years.
  • Bitcoin price growing at 2.37x per year, or a total increase of 2.378 = 1000x over the next 8 years - which is similar to what happened during the previous 8 years, when the price went from under 1 USDollars to over 1000 USDollars.
  • This would give us a possible Bitcoin price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
  • There would still be plenty of decentralization - plenty of fully-validating nodes and mining nodes), because:
    • The Cornell study showed that 90% of nodes could already handle 4MB blocks - and that was several years ago (so we could already handle blocks even bigger than 4MB now).
    • 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth, combined with a mere 54% yearly increase in used bandwidth (plus new "block compression" technologies such as XThin and Compact Blocks) mean that nearly all existing nodes could easily handle 32MB blocks after 8 years; and
    • The "economic incentives" to run a node would be strong if the price were steadily rising to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars
    • This would give a total market cap of 20 trillion USDollars after about 8 years - comparable to the total "money" in the world which some estimates put at around 82 trillion USDollars.
So maybe we should consider the idea of reinstating Satoshi's Original Bitcoin with its 32MB blocksize - using just the whitepaper and avoiding controversial changes - so we could re-unite the community to get to "million-dollar bitcoin" (and 20 trillion dollar market cap) in as little as 8 years.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

2018 Cryptocurrency Crash (Elliott Wave): Redux

2018 Cryptocurrency Crash (Elliott Wave): Redux
Crosspost: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2711461.msg42706471#msg42706471
History
—08-JAN-2018: Elliott Wave, https://redd.it/7ptsg3
—12-JAN-2018: Crypto Black Monday, https://redd.it/7pxg0d
—24-JAN-2018: Dotcom vs Crypto, https://redd.it/7skzff
—21-FEB-2018: Bear Market Resumes, https://redd.it/7z8u6n
—28-FEB-2018: Halfway Through, https://redd.it/7umjf9
—13-MAR-2018: Fare Thee Well Ten Thousand, #10kNeverAgain: https://redd.it/842ssd
—19-MAR-2018: Equinox, https://redd.it/85m5tr
—03-APR-2018: April Fools’ Rally, https://redd.it/89jqye
—19-APR-2018: 420 High, https://redd.it/8dbz4f
—25-APR-2018: Symmetrical Triangle, https://redd.it/8ev2ki
—06-MAY-2018: Ten Thousand Tease, https://redd.it/8hdhjn
—29-MAY-2018: Triangle Phinance, https://redd.it/8mwx6z
—10-JUN-2018: Triangle Phinance II, https://redd.it/8q5p68
—23-JUL-2018: Redux, https://redd.it/913xx6
—02-SEP-2018: #ShortSeptember, https://redd.it/9c96vk
—04-NOV-2018: Inflection Point, https://redd.it/9u1y3z
Since the all-time high set on 17-DEC-2017, the cryptocurrency Bitcoin bear market has now elapsed 7 months with a peak decline of 70% in value thus far.
The first leg of the crash from 17-DEC-2017 to 06-FEB-2018, saw a 70% decline where price collapsed from the all-time high of $19,891 to a low of $6,000 in just 51 days (BITFINEX).
Since the 06-FEB-2018 low, price has wandered sideways on diminishing volume and volatility, contracting into a triangle pattern. A triangle formation reflects a balance of forces creating a directionless resolve: an equilibrium and indecisive psychological state of mind between the bulls & bears, a period of consolidation as the market deliberates its next move.
Five waves are expected in a contracting triangle pattern, labelled as a-b-c-d-e waves. Under textbook Elliott Wave analysis, at least two of the five alternate waves are typically related to each other by the Fibonacci 0.618 golden ratio, and it appears wave-c and wave-e are the alternating candidates:
https://i.imgur.com/77x90d4.png
—wave-a: Rallied 95% from 06-FEB to 05-MAR, retracing a 50% Fibonacci of the downtrend wave that began on 06-JAN.
—wave-b: Declined 45% from 05-MAR to 01-APR, retracing a 95% of wave-a.
—wave-c: ‘April Fools Rally’: Rallied 55% from 01-APR to 05-MAY. In regards to length, it was a Fibonacci 0.618% of wave-a and terminated just shy of the psychological $10,000 level.
—wave-d: ‘Sell In May And Go Away’: Declined 33% from 05-MAY to 24-JUN. In regards to length, wave-d equalled a Fibonacci 0.786% of wave-b.
—wave-e: The final leg of the triangle pattern, and the shortest, has been underway since 24-JUN. Should wave-e equal a Fibonacci 0.618% of wave-c, it would do so at around $7,958 (BITFINEX) —and converging trendlines of the triangle suggest by mid to late JUL. It is common for this final wave-e of a triangle to either undershoot or overshoot the converging trendlines of the triangle. However, this wave-e must terminate below wave-c for the overall triangle to remain valid; i.e. below the MAY high of $9,990 (BITFINEX). Summary of targets to complete the triangle (BITFINEX):
Textbook:
 @7873: wave-e retraces a Fibonacci 50% of wave-d @7958: wave-e equals a Fibonacci 0.618% of wave-c 
Overshoot:
 @8372: wave-e retraces a Fibonacci 61.8% of wave-d @8557: wave-e equals a Fibonacci 0.786% of wave-c @9084: wave-e retraces a Fibonacci 78.6% of wave-d 
Once the triangle completes, the second leg, and most devastating leg, of the cryptocurrency bear market is expected to resume with a breakout in volume and volatility —the crash redux. Taking out $7,330 may commence the second leg of the bear market, at which point signals time to exit all cryptocurrencies.
The Elliott Wave principle pinpoints the start of the ‘mania’ phase at $5,400 (BITFINEX) on 12-NOV-2017. At this level in time, price withdrew to create wave-4 as part of a 1-2-3-4-5 series of advancing waves:
https://i.imgur.com/5rD1eo2.png
From $5,400 to $19,891 manifests the steep parabolic price curve of the fifth and final wave. Therefore, taking out $5400 begins ‘capitulation’ of the earliest of public speculators and loyal hodlrs —amidst a volatile and instable marketplace surged in volume driven by margin calls, where mass media hysterics begin to peak reaffirming the ‘fear’ phase. Hence the psychological $6,000 has been guarded for the last +5 months since it marks support of the psychological USD$100 billion Bitcoin marketcap.
https://i.imgur.com/CmZqsZV.jpg
Initial expectation for the second leg bear market is towards $4,257 (BITFINEX) which marks a Fibonacci 78.6% retracement of the entire Bitcoin market which begins the ‘despair’ state of affairs; where reality of the bubble bursting only just is grasped as the 'blow-off' phase gains momentum.
From a political and socionomic standpoint, the following events termed as “FUD” may begin to unravel during the second leg of the bear market:
—Further laws/bans/restrictions upon cryptocurrencies invoked by countries/governments, calling for tighter regulation and fraud prevention: positive rulings, but perceived as negatives.
—Prolonged exchange outages preventing deposits/withdrawals and management of positions; including hacking and exploitation of security flaws.
—Exposure and collapse of further Ponzi schemes.
—Majority of Altcoins currently around US$2,000,000,000 market capitalization becoming extinct. Manipulated alt/BTC pairs at highest risk of collapse; see deadcoins.com
—Mergers & acquisitions of crypto companies, reduction of trading fees and margins/spreads, and launch of basket financial instruments (e.g. ETFs, index funds, etc), in the endeavour to revive and survive the market.
—Individual bankruptcies and suicides.
Based on historical manias, when a speculative asset bubble bursts, an approx 90%-95% collapse unravels in a period of 2 years:
—thebubblebubble.com/historic-crashes
—en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets
Chronicles of historical manias suggest the cryptocurrency bear market is likely to conclude by late 2019 or early 2020, with Bitcoin priced between $500 to $1,000.
It is musing to project whether or not Bitcoin survives the crash.
Commodities and currencies, and assets deemed as a store of value, unfold in A-B-C Elliott Waves in both bull and bear markets. Whereas assets such as stocks based on earnings unfold in 1-2-3-4-5 impulsive Elliott Waves in bull markets, and corrective A-B-C Elliott Waves in bear markets.
The wave characteristics of Bitcoin and the popular cryptocurrencies have unfolded in 1-2-3-4-5 impulsive Elliott Waves in bull markets, and corrective A-B-C Elliott Waves in bear markets.
Given the nature of wave characteristics, this suggests the behaviour of cryptocurrencies cannot be considered as a currency nor a commodity; and so therefore in their current state, shall never be adopted as robust mediums of exchange for goods and services or as a storage medium of value.
Quite possibly, a second generation of viable cryptocurrencies may emerge in post 2020. Either way, the days of speculative parabolic price curves in the cryptocurrency markets is over, and any hopes of a return to the all-time highs is foolish hodlr's fodder.
Elliott Wave speculative models indicative of price and structure, not time; i.e. the projections may occur sooner or later than anticipated; as follows:
—BTC (Weekly): https://i.imgur.com/hcT0S4a.png
—BTC (Daily): https://i.imgur.com/2CFdLqZ.png
—BTC (4-hr): https://i.imgur.com/yTaybkm.png
submitted by 12345abcde00001 to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Remains Strong, OmiseGO Explodes, Cardano Chip, BTC Vs USD & Bitcoin Accumulation Altcoin Trading Pairs - USD vs Tether vs Bitcoin/Satoshi ... Who ACTUALLY Created Bitcoin - YouTube HISTORY IS REPEATING: Bitcoin Holders MUST WATCH This ... Economist Jim Rickards On Gold Versus Bitcoin - YouTube

Discover historical prices for BTC-USD stock on Yahoo Finance. View daily, weekly or monthly format back to when Bitcoin USD stock was issued. Figure 3: Closer look at the historical volatility of BTC/USD and S&P 500. Bitcoin vs Fiat. Using the same methodology, the historical volatilities of main currencies (US Dollar index, JPY, CHF, EUR) are shown in Figure 4. As seen above, the volatility of Bitcoin is understandably much greater than that of fiat currencies so the volatility of the crypto asset is shown on a separate axis (black ... Bitcoin Cash price today is $270.22 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $2,137,539,756 USD. Bitcoin Cash is down 1.48% in the last 24 hours. The current CoinMarketCap ranking is #5, with a market cap of $5,013,793,060 USD. It has a circulating supply of 18,554,494 BCH coins and a max. supply of 21,000,000 BCH coins. You can find the top exchanges to trade Bitcoin Cash listed on our Bitcoin Statistics. Current Bitcoin (Bitcoin) price is 12963.6 USD. It has a current circulating supply of 18,522,900 BTC coins and a Market Cap of $240,124,000,000 USD. Bitcoin stock price is up by (5.91%) today.$42,395,900,000 USD worth of Bitcoin (BTC) has been traded in the past 24 hours. You can follow Bitcoin (BTC)'s progress by adding it to your favourites and creating a free portfolio ... Bitcoin price today is $13,157.97 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $23,730,036,740 USD. Bitcoin is up 1.33% in the last 24 hours. The current CoinMarketCap ranking is #1, with a market cap of $243,779,373,909 USD. It has a circulating supply of 18,527,131 BTC coins and a max. supply of 21,000,000 BTC coins. You can find the top exchanges to trade Bitcoin listed on our

[index] [16988] [15055] [30572] [26512] [23584] [46968] [26390] [3756] [19367] [22189]

Bitcoin Remains Strong, OmiseGO Explodes, Cardano Chip, BTC Vs USD & Bitcoin Accumulation

Bitcoin vs Ethereum vs XRP vs TOP 100 ALL-TIME History CHART This chart shows the top 100 cryptocurrencies price per day in $USD value, in a time frame from ... Bitcoin Remains Strong, OmiseGO Explodes, Cardano Chip, BTC Vs USD & Bitcoin Accumulation The Modern Investor. Loading... Unsubscribe from The Modern Investor? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working ... Jim Rickards is the editor of Strategic Intelligence and the author of Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis. He believes gold can go to $10,00... USD vs Bitcoin/Satoshi Value - Clearly Explained In this video I clearly explain cryptocurrency trading pairs on exchanges. Some Altcoins trade against USD o... Get a 30-day free trial of Dashlane here: https://www.dashlane.com/infographics Use the code "infographics" for 10% off of Dashlane Premium! It’s one of the ...

#