Blockchain.com Inks Sponsorship Deal With the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys – Bitcoin News
[ad_1]
On Wednesday, the firm Blockchain.com announced it inked a deal with the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys as the team’s “exclusive digital asset partner.” The deal will bring Blockchain.com a great deal of exposure in terms of television, signage, and radio and the digital currency company will also have its own club space inside AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.
Blockchain.com Becomes the ‘Exclusive Digital Asset Partner’ for the Dallas Cowboys
Blockchain.com is joining a large swathe of digital asset companies targeting sports as the firm that was founded in 2011 is now partnering with the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. According to reports from Dallas, Blockchain.com will become the team’s “exclusive digital asset partner.” Blockchain.com follows a number of crypto companies entering the sports industry like FTX and Crypto.com.
The company founded by Peter Smith, Nicolas Cary, Antony Jenkins, and Jim Messina will enjoy a number of sponsorship opportunities like advertising and branding. Blockchain.com CEO Peter Smith met Cowboys owner Jerry Jones at The Star in Frisco in order to reveal the new partnership.
“When you have a chance to really delve into the kind of future that you have in the digital world, I wanted the Dallas Cowboys to be a part of that future in any and every way we could,” Jones said in a statement on Wednesday.
Smith explained that the company chose the Cowboys because of the team’s legacy status and Cowboys fans will get some crypto perks. Cowboys fans will be able to win rewards and “exclusive experiences,” according to dallasnews.com reporter Alexandra Skores.
“Over the course of our long-term partnership, our goal is to partner with the Dallas Cowboys on helping the world to understand cryptocurrency,” Blockchain.com’s CEO said during the announcement.
Furthermore, the company is running a promotion where Cowboys patrons who purchase $100 in digital assets from Blockchain.com will get an additional $50 bonus reward. The reports from local news stations in Dallas offered a lot of details concerning the partnership between the Cowboys and Blockchain.com, except for the financial details. According to Skores, at The Star in Frisco Peter Smith and Jerry Jones “did not address what Blockchain.com is paying for the sponsorship.”
“Over the past year, we have taken a cautious approach to sponsorships — why? We wanted to partner with only a select few teams and businesses that are first in their category, founder or family led, and have a reputation for integrity and long-term thinking. With the Cowboys, we’ve found our match,” the Blockchain.com CEO explained in a blog post hosted on the company’s website.
Tags in this story
Antony Jenkins, Barstool Sports blog President, Blockchain.com, Blockchain.com CEO, Cowboys, Cowboys fans, Crypto Sports, Crypto.com, Dallas Cowboys, ftx, Jerry Jones, Jim Messina, long-term partnership, NFL, nicolas cary, Peter Smith, Sponsorship, The Star in Frisco, undisclosed financial details
What do you think about Blockchain.com’s sponsorship deal with the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Jamie Redman
Jamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 5,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
Outflows Rock Bitcoin, Ethereum In Wake Of Price Decline
[ad_1]
Bitcoin and Ethereum had led the market in the recent price decline. It has led to a lot of profit-taking on the part of investors that want to avoid incurring more losses in the long term. Nevertheless, investors remain undeterred as they continue to accumulate coins. The result of this has been intense outflows for both Bitcoin and Ethereum leading to a negative net flow for both digital assets.
Bitcoin, Ethereum Investors Not Backing Down
Bitcoin slid down below $40,000 at the start of the week and brought with it a wave of long liquidations. These prices have seen sentiment turn mostly negative in the meantime but for those who are accumulating, it has been a good time to increase their bags and the exchange outflows corroborate this.
Related Reading | TA: Ethereum Steadies Above $3K, Why Upsides Could be Capped
For the past day, exchange outflows have surpassed that of inflows by more than $200 million. It has come out to $1.1 billion in bitcoin being moved out of centralized exchanges while inflows remain at $886.4 million for the same time period.
The same trend was the case for the second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap, Ethereum. Outflows had also come out ahead of inflows by more than $70 million. In total, there was $658.2 million worth of inflows and outflows went as high as $729.2 million.
📊 Daily On-Chain Exchange Flow#Bitcoin$BTC ➡️ $886.4M in ⬅️ $1.1B out 📉 Net flow: -$236.2M#Ethereum$ETH ➡️ $658.2M in ⬅️ $729.2M out 📉 Net flow: -$70.9M#Tether (ERC20) $USDT ➡️ $816.5M in ⬅️ $648.4M out 📈 Net flow: +$168.0M
The amount of Tether that flowed into exchanges compared to that which flowed out also supports investors are continuing the accumulation trend. Mostly when investors are moving their Tether to exchanges, it is so they can purchase cryptocurrencies, a large portion of which ends up going to Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Related Reading | How Shiba Inu Soared 20% On Robinhood Listing, Watch Out For Volatility
$816.5 million were moved into centralized exchanges over the past day and $648.4 million were moved out. This saw a positive net flow of $168 million worth of Tether moving into exchanges.
It follows the same trend from the previous day which had seen bitcoin record a negative net flow of -$45.4 million for bitcoin and -$74.4 million for Ethereum. Tether had also recorded a positive net flow of $132.3 million, indicating that investors are accumulating through the downtrend.
Wintermute introduces new ‘NODE’ platform for enhanced multi crypto-asset OTC trading
[ad_1]
Wintermute, an algorithmic market maker in crypto-assets operating since 2017, today announced Wintermute NODE, its flagship platform that allows institutional investors, blockchain natives, and high net worth individuals superior access to OTC crypto trading.
The new Wintermute NODE platform stands out on three major fundamentals: variety & flexibility, efficiency, and trustworthiness.
Variety & Flexibility
Wintermute NODE allows trading of any token, any product, in any way (web interface, API, chat), anytime. Counterparties have access to the same tokens Wintermute algorithms trade across a wide range of CeFi and DeFi venues. Plus traders will have access to perpetuals, futures, CFDs, and NDFs.
List of Assets Includes:
Top 25 tokens by market cap
Key tokens in DeFi ecosystems, including Ethereum and L2s, Solana, Terra, and more
All major fiat currencies
Stablecoins that make it possible to trade virtually any pair
Note that the Wintermute team is continuously increasing the number of tokens it covers.
Wintermute NODE Web Interface:
A new user-friendly click-to-trade platform gives access to top-tier proprietary pricing to a much wider audience than previously possible. Now traders don’t need to spend scarce IT resources to connect to an API, it’s now viable to trade directly with Wintermute.
Wintermute NODE API
Access is a core feature of NODE that enables more bespoke integrations or institutional needs — multiple crypto-native and traditional finance order/execution management systems have routed their clients enabling doing thousands of trades every day with a flexible mary settlement routine allowing them to serve their customers better and achieve true best execution.
Combined together, the variety in token coverage, execution type, and tailored derivatives aims to differentiate NODE from other single dealer platforms.
Efficiency
Pricing
Wintermute NODE uses the exact same pricing as the algorithms used in its proprietary trading business. Algos run 24/7 on 60+ centralized and decentralized exchanges, with liquidity over $5M traded per day.
Zero Service Fees
By connecting to Wintermute NODE directly, traders have access to the source of liquidity bypassing any intermediaries and their explicit or hidden fees.
“Wintermute NODE is not just another single dealer platform! It is going to be the home for all things OTC trading and our roadmap of new products, and new features are extremely ambitious. By onboarding to Wintermute NODE, you would be the first to know about all the new additions!” – The Wintermute Team
The post Wintermute introduces new ‘NODE’ platform for enhanced multi crypto-asset OTC trading appeared first on CryptoNinjas.
Here’s how OpenSea NFT hacks hurt owners, buyers and even entire collections
[ad_1]
The nonfungible token (NFT) market has been booming since the summer of 2021 and as NFT prices skyrocketed, so too did the number of hacks targeting NFTs.
The most recent high-profile hack siphoned approximately 600 Ether (ETH) worth of NFTs from Arthur0x, the founder of DeFiance Capital, which were then sold on OpenSea.
A 2022 Crypto Crime Report published by Chainalysis highlighted that the value sent to NFT marketplaces by illicit addresses jumped significantly in 2021, topping out at just under $1.4 million. There was also a clear increase in stolen funds sent to NFT marketplaces.
Given the concerning rapid increase in illicit value flowing into the NFT platforms, it is natural to ask whether security measures and procedures are in place and if so, whether these measures are effective in protecting owners.
Let’s take a look at OpenSea, the largest NFT platform, and its security measures.
The security measures at OpenSea cannot protect users
OpenSea has two main security measures that kick in once an account has been “hacked” — locking the compromised account and blocking the stolen NFTs. These two measures are very ineffective when looking at them closely.
Locking the account can be done on the OpenSea website without human approval as shown here, whereas blocking the NFTs involves a lengthy process of raising a ticket and waiting for the OpenSea help team to respond.
In a situation where a hacker has already compromised the wallet and is in the process of transferring the NFTs out, locking the account will only be effective if it’s done before the hacker transfers everything out.
Similarly, blocking the NFTs is also only effective before the NFTs are sold to another buyer by the hacker. What’s even worse is this security measure creates a series of indirect victims who end up with blocked NFTs that cannot be sold or transferred. This is because the response time for tickets raised in OpenSea is at least one day. By the time the NFTs are blocked by OpenSea, they would have already been sold to another buyer who now becomes the new victim of the crime.
In the case of the 17 stolen Azuki from Arthur0x, 15 were stolen within the same minute and two were stolen three minutes later. The average time these stolen NFTs stayed in the hacker’s wallet before they were sold is 43 minutes. The security measures from OpenSea are in no way responsive and quick enough to inform the victim and stop the hacker; neither can they inform the buyers promptly enough to stop them from buying the stolen NFTs and becoming indirect victims.
Blocking stolen NFTs creates indirect victims
An indirect victim is someone who is not the target of the hack but indirectly suffers from the financial losses caused by the blocking of the stolen NFTs. As seen from many recent NFT hacks, the NFTs are always sold before the block is implemented by OpenSea. The consequence of blocking the NFTs too late is that it creates indirect victims and more losses for more people.
To illustrate in more detail how anyone could end up buying a stolen NFT and become an indirect victim of a hack, here are three common cases:
Case 1: Alice bought an NFT but only found out later that it is a stolen asset. The NFT is blocked and Alice cannot sell or transfer it on OpenSea. She then proceeds to raise a support ticket. After several weeks, the OpenSea Trust & Safety team offers to refund the 2.5% platform fees; and possibly the email address of the victim who reported the theft if lucky. Then, she’ll likely have a lengthy discussion with the victim to negotiate the possibility of lifting the block, which most likely will end up nowhere.
Alice can still sell the NFT in other marketplaces but the volume of sales is very low for this particular collection and there is no buyer who can offer a fair price on platforms other than OpenSea.
Case 2: Alice made multiple offers while bidding on NFTs from a collection. One of the offers was accepted by the hacker, who then received the payment from the bid in the victim’s wallet and proceeded to clear out the wallet. The NFT was blocked later on as part of the stolen assets from unauthorized transactions by the victim.
Cases like this often happen because listed NFTs cannot be transferred unless the listing is canceled. The hacker, who is under time pressure, will be more likely to accept a bid offer and get the proceeds from the sale and transfer the money out. The case below shows how the indirect victim’s entire NFT collection was blocked by OpenSea without explanation.
Here’s my thread about how @opensea unreasonably blocked my account and frozen all my NFTs after my offer 40 weth for @BoredApeYC #6267 was accepted. I think it’s very important to spread this case among NFT community! Let’s start ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/xnxctpzzpL
Case 3: Alice has owned an NFT for quite some time and suddenly it is blocked and marked as “reported for suspicious activity.” The seller’s account is not compromised and the transaction happened a while ago. Since there is no evidence required to report a stolen NFT and block it, anyone can send an email to OpenSea’s anti-fraud team to block any NFT.
Although a police report can be requested later on, there is neither a clear statement by OpenSea to specify the evidence needed to prove the hack nor a condition under which a falsely reported stolen NFT can be identified and lifted from the block. There is no consequence for falsely reporting stolen NFTs.
NFTs are often blocked with no explanation or evidence such as police reports provided to the indirect victim. Theoretically, these NFTs can still be traded on other platforms, but given OpenSea’s monopoly in the marketplace, with 95% of the total NFT trading volumes, blocking any NFT on OpenSea is almost equivalent to taking them out of the market forever.
Blocking NFTs could artificially increase the price
The danger of blocking stolen NFTs from trading on the largest NFT platform OpenSea is the permanent reduction in supply. Based on the law of supply and demand in economics theory, when supply goes down, the price goes up.
As an example, the Azuki collection has 10,000 NFTs and currently, only 1,100 are on sale on OpenSea. The Arthur0x hack resulted in 17 being stolen and blocked. Although 17 NFTs are only around 1.5% of the 1,100 circulating supply, the price has already shown a trend of increasing after the hack. The hack happened on March 22 and the price peaked on March 28 to 20.96 E prior to the airdrop announcement on March 31 — a 55% increase within a week.
Although not all of the 17 stolen NFTs are blocked as Arthur managed to recover some through negotiating with the indirect victims to buy them back, future hacks in a similar form will happen continuously and the cumulative number of blocked NFTs can only increase as hacks continue and no procedures are in place to unblock them.
Using Azuki as an example again, the graph below collects the historic number of sales and average price to create a demand curve and assumes the supply curve is linear. The point where the supply and demand curves intersect is the equilibrium price.
As the supply continuously decreases, the speed of increase in the price becomes faster as the slope of the demand curve gets steeper. An equal decrease of 300 NFTs in supply from 1,000 to 700 verss from 700 to 400 results in a larger price increase for the latter.
As shown in the graph below, the price increases from 15 ETH to 21 ETH from the 1,000 to 700 reduction, but increases more from 21 ETH to 28 ETH from the 700 to 400 reduction.
It is clear to see that blocking the stolen NFTs could artificially increase the price of the collection. If someone wanted to take advantage of the loophole in the OpenSea security system by falsely reporting many NFTs from the same collection as stolen (since no evidence is required to report stolen NFTs), the price of the collection could dramatically increase if the supply is low. This loophole could create opportunities for price manipulation in the illiquid NFT market.
In any case, blocking NFTs is not an effective measure to stop the hack or punish the hacker, but on the contrary, creates more indirect victims and loopholes for market manipulators. This is certainly not the way to go, so is there any effective security measure?
Preventive measures and an evidence-based system need to be in place
The current OpenSea security system has no preventive measures in place to protect users in advance. All the safety measures are implemented only after the hack, which is one of the main reasons why they are ineffective.
Based on the behaviors of the hackers, time is an essential component. Security measures that can slow down the hacker or inform the victims early are the keys to winning the battle. Here are some more effective preventive measures that can be implemented by OpenSea:
Create an early warning system that can detect abnormal account activity and send instant text messages or email alerts to inform users of such activity so they have enough time to respond. For example, if the account has never bought or transferred more than one NFT within one minute; or if the account has never had any activities in the past during a specific time period (i.e. time zones when the user is asleep), the occurrence of such activities will be detected by machine learning algorithms. The account holder can choose to be informed immediately, or allow the account to be automatically locked for safety.
Provide users with the option to constrain the maximum number of NFT transfers or sales allowed within a timeframe, i.e., a maximum of one transfer or sale within one minute; or a minimum time interval imposed between each transfer or sale, i.e., the next transfer or sale can only happen 15 minutes after the previous one. These measures can prevent hackers from stealing a large number of NFTs in one go.
Create suspicious account dashboards that allow victims to instantaneously add compromised accounts and hacker’s accounts for public scrutiny. This will give all buyers real-time information about suspicious accounts and the ability to cross check if the seller is on the list before they buy. Evidence such as a police report can be requested later on from the victim to prove the reported accounts are indeed compromised.
Some of these measures might create false alarms and inconvenience. But given it is a race of time against the hacker when it comes to preventive measures, users would rather be safe than sorry to avoid becoming the next victim.
Common misconceptions about crypto hacking
A common misconception about crypto hacking is that “this won’t happen to me because my security awareness is high and I use a hard wallet.” It might be true that a direct malicious hack could be avoided through good security practice, but anyone could become an indirect victim of a hack targeting someone else. When the number of hacks increases, the chance of becoming an indirect victim is also much higher.
Another misconception is, “as long as I don’t keep too much money in my hot wallet, it doesn’t matter if the wallet is compromised.” What most users fail to realize is that monetary loss is only one repercussion of the hack. Losing a Web3 wallet is like losing you entire credit history. Any future benefits based on past activities such as airdrops or access to loans and leverage could also evaporate with the compromised wallet.
Although blockchain is one of the most secure financial technologies ever created, malicious hacks toward crypto-based platforms are the greatest threat to the Web3 venture.
Given blockchain’s irreversible nature and OpenSea’s lack of preventive security measures, it is not hard to see the best solution OpenSea came up with after the Ethereum domain auction hack is to offer the hacker a 25% profit from the sale in exchange for the return of the stolen NFTs. Only in the world of the NFT market can a criminal get rewarded rather than punished for such a serious crime.
As the monopoly of the NFT market, OpenSea can certainly do better than this and take security measures more seriously and provide more protection to its users.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. Every investment and trading move involves risk, you should conduct your own research when making a decision.
SolidProof to make its automated blockchain audit tool freely available » CryptoNinjas
[ad_1]
After introducing the SolidProof Automated Auto Tool (SAAT), German blockchain audit company SolidProof will now make the product available on a large scale.
The developing team plans to release this significant update by the end of April, and soon users will be able to get their hands on this tool.
New Feature Available for Everyone
In order to detect faults, mistakes, and inefficiencies in any DeFi project’s smart contract, SAAT uses pre-installed parameters. SolidProof’s team accurately provides audit reports on time and transparently.
As a result, SolidProof can examine quite complicated smart contracts thanks to its automated audits. Anyone familiar with smart contracts will quickly understand how challenging it can be to audit every one of them manually, which is why this feature attracts the market’s interest.
After the automatic review, SolidProof auditors deliver an audit report to the project development team. The severity of vulnerabilities is evaluated in this deliverable using three levels: critical, medium, and low.
The auditors then provide suggestions for resolving any remaining issues or inefficiencies in the system. They work with the project’s backers to resolve any flaws that have been discovered. In the end, the team produces the final audit report and a certificate proving that the project is safe for widespread usage.
As mentioned, the plan is for SolidProof’s new tool at the end of the current month, promising to have an essential service for blockchain projects to detect hard-to-find vulnerabilities. The system will play a key role in boosting DeFi projects’ safety and building trust with their customers.
Other Developments at SolidProof
To understand the success of SolidProof, one can find it helpful to look at the project “live tracker” feature that the audit company introduced in November 2021. This counter shows over 500 projects in SolidProof’s ecosystem, indicating that the group has knowledge that goes beyond 1,000 crypto projects.
Among the teams that decided to trust SolidProof include Cult DAO, UniCrypt, Kryxivia, and Arker.
Finally, SolidProof announced it will expand its business in the Asian market. The team wishes to introduce several tools to overcome language obstacles and raise the level of verification for Asian professionals and documents providing KYC services.
A Pastry Denounces Coinbase’s Listing Process
[ad_1]
Crypto exchange Coinbase has generated controversy due to its listing process. The platform recently posted a list of possible projects to include which, according to pseudonym user PastryETH, makes some wonder if Coinbase is “willfully ignorant, or intentionally deceiving?”.
Related Reading | Arthur Hayes’ Crystal Ball Predicts: Bitcoin And Ethereum To See Carnage In June
Some of the projects were created before 2020 and have a dubious reputation. Amongst these tokens is Big Data Protocol (BDP), Pastry said. This project managed to attract over $6 billion in total value locked (TVL) and generate a lot of hype.
This allowed BDP whales to “dump” their tokens on retail investors, as discovered by Igor Igamberdiev, The Block’s director of research. As Pastry noted:
These addresses farmed massive amounts of $BDP and dumped it on LPs in BDP’s Pool2 which rewarded users with $bAlpha for providing liquidity to BDP/ETH. It was exit liquidity for whales. The BDP token feel from $13 to $3, while bAlpha dumped from $25k to $5k.
Second on the list is BOTTO which, the pseudonym user said, has a market cap of around $4 million. Therefore, could see high volatility and an illiquid market cap to the detriment of its potential traders. Pastry asked the following about Coinbase’s prospects:
Really, Coinbase? Are you not aware of the risks you expose thousands of traders to by listing a project that is so small and illiquid? Coinbase does $327 BILLION in quarterly trading volume, yet they want to list a project with a market cap of $4m. Irresponsible.
The same goes for $KROMATIK another of Coinbase’s potential crypto to add to its platform. The token has a small market of under $10 million. Pastry questioned the rise in its trading volume just days before Coinbase’s announcement.
Is Coinbase Purposely Listing “Crypto Scams”?
MONA and PMON made the list. The former has a small market cap with a daily trading volume of around $10,000 which, Pastry emphasized, could be hurtful for the users.
On the other hand, PMON is a project dubbed “one of the largest marketing failures this bull-run, by Zachxbt a popular investigator. Similar to BDP, this token was used by insiders to dump on retail investors, according to Pastry.
On the list, there was also RAC a token with a $0 trading volume, and Student Coin (STC) a project with a similar trading volume. The list is comprised of mostly unknown crypto, according to the pseudonym user, with high probabilities of hurting the users due to low trading volume or illiquid markets.
Responding to the question of whether the exchange is listing out of “ignorance or malice”, Pastry said, he referred to evidence of a potential Coinbase insider purchasing large amounts of the tokens before the listing announcements. Presented by influencer Cobie.
Found an ETH address that bought hundreds of thousands of dollars of tokens exclusively featured in the Coinbase Asset Listing post about 24 hours before it was published, rofl pic.twitter.com/5QlVTjl0Jp
Coinbase, If you want to maintain what little relevancy you have left, I recommend you hire a new listing department ASAP (direct messages are open, by the way). You are listing utter trash and subjecting thousands of your users to unnecessary risk in the process. Do better.
Related Reading | TA: Ethereum Steadies Above $3K, Why Upsides Could be Capped
At the time of writing, ETH trades at $3,000 with a 1.4% profit in the last hour.
Bitcoin (BTC) and major altcoins are attempting a recovery after the sharp fall on April 11. According to Glassnode’s recent weekly report, Bitcoin has witnessed a “modest volume of profit-taking by investors” since mid-February, which could “be providing sufficient headwinds to prices.”
While some investors are booking profits, the Luna Foundation Guard, the nonprofit organization attached to Blockchain protocol Terra, has continued to grow its stockpile of Bitcoin. Terra added 2,508 Bitcoin on April 13 to take its total holding to 42,406 Bitcoin, just shy of Tesla’s corporate treasury at 43,200 Bitcoin.
Larger investors do not seem to be perturbed by the volatility and sharp declines in cryptocurrencies and are taking a long-term view. Pantera Blockchain Fund, which had plans to raise $600 million, has amassed about $1.3 billion, indicating huge demand.
Will bulls be able to sustain the bounce in Bitcoin and altcoins? Let’s study the charts of the top-10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
BTC/USDT
Although Bitcoin broke below the psychological level at $40,000 on April 11, the bears could not build upon this momentum. This indicates that the bulls are buying at lower levels.
The relief rally could hit a wall at the 20-day exponential moving average (EMA) ($42,967). If the price turns down from this resistance, it will suggest that bears are selling on rallies. The downsloping 20-day EMA and the relative strength index (RSI) below 44 suggest a minor advantage to sellers.
The bears will have to sink the price below $39,200 to resume the decline. The BTC/USDT pair could then drop to the support line of the ascending channel. On the contrary, if the price continues higher and breaks above the 20-day EMA, the pair could challenge the overhead resistance at $45,400.
ETH/USDT
The bulls are attempting to arrest the decline at the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) ($2,958). Although Ether (ETH) attempted a rebound on April 12, the buyers could not sustain the higher levels.
The bulls are again attempting to extend the relief rally on April 13. The bounce is likely to face selling at the 20-day EMA ($3,172). If the price turns down from this level, the likelihood of a break below the 50-day SMA increases. If that happens, the ETH/USDT pair could decline to the uptrend line.
Contrary to this assumption, if the price breaks above the 20-day EMA, it will suggest aggressive buying by the bulls. The pair could then attempt a rally to the 200-day SMA ($3,490). The pair may then consolidate between the 50-day SMA and the 200-day SMA for a few days.
BNB/USDT
BNB plunged below the 50-day SMA ($402) on April 11 but the bears could not capitalize on this breakdown. The bulls purchased the dip aggressively and pushed the price back above the 50-day SMA on April 12.
The buyers are attempting to push and sustain the price above the 20-day EMA ($420). If they succeed, the BNB/USDT pair could rally to the 200-day SMA ($470) where the bears may mount a strong resistance. That could keep the price inside the range between the 200-day SMA and the 50-day SMA for a few days.
Conversely, if the price fails to sustain above the 20-day EMA, it will indicate selling at higher levels. The bears will then make one more attempt to sink the price below the immediate support at $391. If they manage to do that, the pair could slide to $350.
SOL/USDT
Solana (SOL) bounced off the 50-day SMA ($99) on April 12 but the bulls could not push the price above the 20-day EMA ($110). This suggests that bears are selling on rallies to the 20-day EMA.
The bears will now attempt to sink and sustain the price below the 50-day SMA. If they manage to do that, the SOL/USDT pair could drop to the strong support at $81. The bulls are expected to defend this level with all their might because a break and close below it could resume the downtrend.
Contrary to this assumption, if the price rises from the current level and breaks above the 20-day EMA, the bulls will make another attempt to clear the overhead hurdle at $122.
XRP/USDT
Ripple (XRP) bounced off the strong support at $0.69 on April 12 but the bulls could not sustain the recovery. This indicates that the bears are active at higher levels. The inside-day candlestick pattern on April 13 suggests indecision among the bulls and the bears.
The 20-day EMA ($0.77) is sloping down and the RSI is near 39, suggesting that the path of least resistance is to the downside. If the price breaks below the strong support at $0.69, the selling could pick up momentum. The XRP/USDT pair could then decline to $0.62.
Conversely, if the price continues to move up, the pair will attempt to rise above the 50-day SMA ($0.78). If that happens, it will suggest that the pair could trade inside a large range between $0.69 and $0.91 for some more time.
ADA/USDT
Cardano (ADA) attempted a relief rally on April 12 but the bulls could not clear the overhead hurdle at the psychological level at $1. This indicates that bears are attempting to flip the $1 level into resistance.
If the price once again turns down from the overhead resistance and breaks below $0.91, the correction could resume. The ADA/USDT pair could then drop to $0.86 and later to the critical support at $0.74. The 20-day EMA ($1.04) is sloping down and the RSI is in the negative zone, suggesting advantage to bears.
This negative view will be invalidated in the short term if the price turns up and breaks above the 20-day EMA. Such a move could open the doors for a possible rally to the overhead resistance at $1.26.
LUNA/USDT
Terra’s LUNA token formed an inside-day candlestick pattern on April 12 but the long wick on the day’s candlestick suggests that bears sold at higher levels. A minor positive is that the buyers are again trying to extend the recovery on April 13.
If bulls push the price above $89, the LUNA/USDT pair could rise to the 20-day EMA ($96) where the bears are likely to mount a strong resistance. The downsloping 20-day EMA and the RSI in the negative zone indicate advantage to sellers.
If the price turns down from the overhead resistance and breaks below $80, the correction could resume and the pair may slide to the strong support at $75.
Alternatively, if the price continues to move up and breaks above the 20-day EMA, the pair could rally to the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level at $104.
The bulls are attempting to arrest the decline in Avalanche (AVAX) at the uptrend line but the bounce is likely to encounter strong resistance from the bears near the moving averages.
If the price fails to break above the moving averages within the next few days, the possibility of a break below the uptrend line increases. If that happens, the AVAX/USDT pair could decline to the next support at $65.
This level is likely to act as a strong support as the bulls have defended it successfully on two previous occasions. A strong rebound off it will indicate that the pair may trade inside the range between $65 and $99 for a few more days.
Alternatively, a break and close below $65 could intensify selling and the pair may drop to the critical support at $51.
DOT/USDT
Polkadot (DOT) is attempting a recovery after the sharp fall on April 11, which suggests buying at lower levels. However, the bulls are likely to face stiff resistance from the bears at higher levels.
If the price fails to rise above the immediate overhead resistance at $19, the bears will try to sink the DOT/USDT pair below the strong support at $16. If they succeed, the decline could extend to $14. The downsloping 20-day EMA ($19) and the RSI in the negative territory indicate that the path of least resistance is to the downside.
Alternatively, if the price moves up sharply and breaks above the 20-day EMA, it will suggest accumulation at lower levels. The pair could then consolidate inside the range between $16 and $23 for a few more days.
DOGE/USDT
The buyers are attempting to defend the 50-day SMA ($0.13) but the weak rebound off the strong support suggests a lack of buyers in Dogecoin (DOGE) at higher levels. This increases the possibility of a break below the 50-day SMA.
If the price fails to sustain above the 20-day EMA ($0.14), the sellers will attempt to extend the decline by pulling the DOGE/USDT pair below the 50-day SMA. If they succeed, the pair could drop to $0.12 and then slide to the critical support at $0.10.
Contrary to this assumption, if the price turns up sharply and rises above $0.15, it will suggest strong buying at the 50-day SMA. The pair could then remain stuck between the 200-day SMA ($0.18) and the 50-day SMA for a few days.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.
Node infrastructure provider BlockSpaces adds Lightning Network support for bitcoin
[ad_1]
BlockSpaces, a blockchain node infrastructure provider, has announced that it will soon launch its Lightning Connect; a simplified, non-custodial Lightning Network node management solution designed to enable fast, low-fee bitcoin (BTC)-based payment processing.
The Lightning Network is a layer two protocol that locks transactions in off-chain smart contracts via a mechanism called “channels” which are tied to on-chain bitcoin transactions.
As such, the protocol upholds the security of Bitcoin while enabling faster transactions.
With this addition, BlockSpaces continues to expand its infrastructure which currently supports over 10,000 blockchain nodes across the world.
Management with the BlockSpaces Platform
Lightning Connect will add auto-provisioning and management of Lightning nodes for businesses to simplify using the network while retaining full ownership and control of their funds.
Users can manage their node via the BlockSpaces interface where balances of bitcoin, recent invoices (through the integration of a BTCPay app), and an overview of channels and liquidity will be displayed.
“We’re very excited to announce our enterprise-grade Lightning nodes. This has been a long time coming, as I have been interested in and watching the development of the Lightning Network progress for years.” – Gabe Higgins, Co-Founder & Chief Blockchain Officer of BlockSpaces
BlockSpaces will be a premier Lightning Service Provider (LSP), offering “Super Channels.”
Those looking to use Lightning no longer have to manually manage nodes or channels and can now take advantage of auto-balance, receive, and send specified amounts that scale with channel activity.
Lightning Connect brings users fully managed infrastructure and operations to manage liquidity while reducing capital and resource requirements to run Lightning nodes.
The Lightning Network improves Bitcoin’s scalability in key areas:
Fast transactions – Transactions can be settled instantaneously. Speeds native to the internet.
Low transaction fees – Fees are minuscule over Lightning. Less than a penny.
High throughput – Lightning can handle tens of millions of transactions per second.
Security & Privacy – Since transactions are off-chain, it is hard to trace payments over the network.
Recently, BlockSpaces closed a $6M funding round to ramp up development and accelerate growth.
The post Node infrastructure provider BlockSpaces adds Lightning Network support for bitcoin appeared first on CryptoNinjas.
Fed’s Secret Repo Loans to Megabanks in 2020 Eclipsed 2008 Bailouts, Data Dump Shows $48 Trillion in Stealth Funding – Bitcoin News
[ad_1]
Following the controversial bank bailouts and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008, reports show in late 2019 and 2020, the U.S. Federal Reserve participated in providing trillions of dollars in secret repo loans to megabanks. At the end of March, investigative journalists, Pam and Russ Martens from Wall Street on Parade, uncovered $3.84 trillion in stealth repo loans from the Fed to the French financial institution, BNP Paribas in Q1 2020. Additional data indicates that the U.S. central bank leveraged secret repo loans to provide a whopping $48 trillion to megabanks in late 2019 and into 2020.
Reports Show the Fed Funneled Tens of Trillions to Megabanks in 2019 and 2020
While Wall Street eagerly awaits the Federal Reserve’s next benchmark rate hike decision, a number of investigative reports show the U.S. central bank participated in massive bank bailouts that are of biblical proportions. The first report stems from Wall Street on Parade’s Pam and Russ Martens, which accuses the Fed of secretly loaning the French megabank BNP Paribas $3.84 trillion in the first quarter of 2020.
The Martens’ findings highlight many more secret loans that come from a data dump derived from the New York Federal Reserve branch. The data dump showcases secret repo loans from the Fed to megabanks from September 17, 2019, to July 2, 2020. The Wall Street on Parade authors say the media has not reported on the data dump at all.
“Mainstream media has heretofore instituted a news blackout on the names of the banks that received the repo loan bailouts and the Fed’s data releases,” the Martens expose details. “As of 4:00 p.m. today, we see no other news reports on this critical information that the American people need to see,” the authors said on March 31, 2022. As of today, April 13, 2022, there are no mainstream media outlets that have covered this news, after Bitcoin.com News searched for more information.
Pam and Russ Martens’ findings are scathing, and the data dump’s numbers almost seem unfathomable. The report states:
The Fed data released this morning shows that the trading units of six global banks received $17.66 trillion of the $28.06 trillion in term adjusted cumulative loans, or 63 percent of the total for all 25 trading houses (primary dealers) that borrowed through the Fed’s repo loan program in the first quarter of 2020.
Bailouts Given to Banks on the ‘Verge of Failure’ and Institutions Holding Mountains of ‘Risky Derivatives’
Another report published on substack.com written by “Occupy the Fed Movement” also highlights the report from Wall Street on Parade, as it explained how the “NY Fed quietly dumps data on tens of trillions in repo loan bailouts to Wall Street.”
The researcher notes that Wall Street wants to keep the Fed’s “$48 trillion repo bailout secret.” The Occupy the Fed author asks why the Fed did this, and notes the central bank explains it was meant to “support overnight lending liquidity.” The research adds:
The data tells a very different story. In the fall of 2019, over 60 percent of the repo loans went to just 6 trading houses: “Nomura Securities International ($3.7 trillion); J.P. Morgan Securities ($2.59 trillion); Goldman Sachs ($1.67 trillion); Barclays Capital ($1.48 trillion); Citigroup Global Markets ($1.43 trillion); and Deutsche Bank Securities ($1.39 trillion).” These firms are all massively exposed to risky derivatives, especially Japan’s Nomura. Moreover, Germany’s Deutsche Bank was literally on the verge of total failure at the time.
Famed Economist Tells Wall Street on Parade Journalists the Fed’s Secret Repos ‘Broke the Law’
In addition to the massive secret repo loans, another report highlights statements from the renowned economist Michael Hudson that says the Fed’s secret loans may have been illegal. Hudson claims there was “no liquidity crisis whatsoever,” and “emergency repo loan operations for a liquidity crisis that has yet to be credibly explained.”
The economist explains that the bailouts were supposed to be stopped by the Dodd-Frank Act, but U.S. Treasury secretary Janet Yellen helped change that. “Well, what happened, apparently, was that while the Dodd-Frank Act was being rewritten by the Congress, Janet Yellen changed the wording around and she said, ‘Well, how do we define a general liquidity crisis?’ Hudson told the Martens during a phone interview. “Well, it doesn’t mean what you and I mean by a liquidity crisis, meaning the whole economy is illiquid,” Hudson added.
The professor of economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City continued:
[Dodd-Frank] was supposed to say, ‘OK, we’re not going to let banks have their trading facilities, the gambling facilities, on derivatives and just placing bets on the financial markets – we’re not supposed to help the banks out of these problems at all.’ So I think the reason that the newspapers are going quiet on this is the Fed broke the law. And it wants to continue breaking the law.
Fed Members Split on Whether or Not US Inflation Will Be Persistent
Meanwhile, as people are awaiting the Federal Reserve’s decision to raise the benchmark bank rate a second time in 2022, a couple of Federal Reserve members are split on whether or not inflation will be a huge problem going forward and whether or not a series of rate hikes are needed.
The two split members include Federal Reserve governor Lael Brainard and Richmond Fed president Thomas Barkin. Brainard told the Wall Street Journal that getting inflation down to the 2% mark is the Fed’s “most important task.” Brainard expects inflation to cool down and Barkin agrees with her.
The Richmond Fed branch president explained that corporate entities need to make supply chains resistant to any possible issues and Barkin is targeting a more conservative inflation rate of around 2.4%.
“The best short-term path for us is to move rapidly to the neutral range and then test whether pandemic-era inflation pressures are easing, and how persistent inflation has become,” Barkin told an audience at a Money Marketeers conference in New York. “If necessary, we can move further,” the Richmond Fed branch president added.
Tags in this story
Bailouts, Bank Bailouts, Barclays Capital, bnp paribas, CitiGroup, Deutsche Bank Securities, Dodd-Frank Act, famed economist, Fed’s secret loans, Goldman Sachs, investigative journalists, investigative reports, J.P. Morgan Securities, Lael Brainard, Liquidity Crisis, Mainstream media, Martens, Michael Hudson, no liquidity crisis, Nomura Securities, Occupy the Fed, Occupy the Fed Movement, Pam and Russ Martens, repo loan program, Thomas Barkin, Wall Street, Wall Street on Parade
What do you think about the reports that claim the Fed’s participated in secret bailouts that were against the law according to the economist Michael Hudson? Do you think this is something the American populace should pay attention to? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Jamie Redman
Jamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 5,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
Hierarchical Threshold Signature Scheme — An Approach to Distinguish Signers in Threshold Signature Scheme | by Coinbase | Mar, 2022
[ad_1]
This report updates on what AMIS, Coinbase Crypto Community Fund grant recipient, has been working on over the first part of their year-long Crypto development grant. This specifically covers their work on hierarchical threshold signature.
AMIS is a financial technology company creating bonds between traditional and decentralized worlds. We provide security and accessibility for blockchains as well as for cryptocurrencies. With us, our customers can manage blockchain technology with ease and confidence.
Distributed computing in computer science focuses on achieving the common purpose by a system having separate components, which are connecting, interacting, and conveying messages to each other. Multi-Party Computation (abbrev. MPC) makes sure the desired tasks are executed securely in a distributed system to prevent malicious entities. Many malicious entities steal the inputs of all components in the system or induce to deviate the correct results for their own purposes. Therefore, any secure protocols of MPC require the following two properties:
Privacy: Each party should not learn anything more than its prescribed output.
Correctness: Each party is guaranteed the correct output.
In the world of blockchain, the possession of private keys is the control of your assets. How do you protect your private key? A natural answer is that you entrust professional custodial service to manage private keys. However, it is easy to become the target of hackers. On the other hand, if users hold private keys, it is very likely to be stolen by adversaries due to weak awareness of information security, or some inappropriate operations.
Inspired by the practice of maintaining treasure maps, a naive idea is to divide the map into many parts and hide them in the distributed places. In this setting, the cost of attacks will increase owing to multiple spots. The next upcoming question is how to safely take these parts out for use. Since we are now in a distributed system, MPC becomes a natural option to solve the issue. This is because each component can safely and correctly execute the computational requirements guaranteed by MPC.
Threshold signature scheme (abbrev. TSS), a special application of MPC technology, dramatically decreases the risk of private key management. Most importantly, TSS does not save the private key, which is *split* into many parts called “share”, on the server and provides risk control as well as separation of duties. Meanwhile, compared to multi-signature, TSS provides the native multi-signature capability for those blockchains that lack shorter signatures and better privacy. These significant advantages make TSS suitable for implementing hot wallets without revealing private keys and providing the service in real-time.
Compared to TSS, shares in this Hierarchical Threshold Signature Scheme (abbrev. HTSS) are allowed to have different ranks. The main merit of this scheme is vertical access control such that it has “partial accountability”. Although TSS achieves joint control to disperse risk among the participants and avoid single points of failure, the importance of all shares is equal. It is impossible to distinguish which share gets involved in an unexpected signature which is because TSS only supports horizontal access control. For example, an important contract not only requires enough signatures but also needs to be signed by a manager. In the HTSS framework, assigning different ranks of each share induces that any valid signature generated includes the share of the manager. We call this library Alice. The aim of Alice is to provide an open and audited TSS Library. At the same time, we will also organize some useful cryptography libraries independently in the developing process. In addition, AMIS will continuously keep updating this library and fixing potential security issues.
By means of sharing articles in the medium and opening research papers and libraries continuously, AMIS is motivated to a progressively higher capability. More precisely, we have:
Except for academic research, AMIS also developed the following products:
In March, we will implement a new protocol of ECDSA: UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts including Key Generation, Key-Refresh & AuxiliaryInformation, Three-Round Sign, and Six-Round Sign. The part that hasn’t been integrated yet is the echo protocol which provides a secure broadcast environment for each node but adds one extra round of communication.
For EdDSA, we also adopt the well-known protocol: FROST, which supports the elliptic curves: ed25519 and sr25519. However, this part has not been integrated into the master branch of Alice. Of course, the above libraries also support Hierarchical secret sharing. We hope to complete all the above-mentioned tasks in May and prepare to audit in June. Finally, I am very grateful for the support of Coinbase’s grant, so that we can continue to accomplish this project.