Tag: Ethereum

Crypto is going back: Ethereum front-runner charged, Coinbase looking to re-enact 2022 crash, Uniswap responds to SEC, the not-Telegram Open Network, Wyoming

I’ve been quite busy of late but David has finished a newsletter. A lot of David jokes in here — as well as an explanation of the charges against the two brothers who front-ran the front-runners on the Ethereum blockchain.

The DoJ will have to explain to a jury how Ethereum validation works, that you can order transactions in a block, that you can exploit that to front-run people, and that some front-running is officially part of the system, but only because they couldn’t work out how to stop it. And that this front-running is bad, for reasons.

Read more on David’s website.

Posted on by Amy Castor 0

Consensys gets a Wells notice over MetaMask Swaps and Staking

  • By Amy Castor and David Gerard
  • Help our work: if you liked this post, please tell just one other person. It really helps!
  • You can also send money to our one-way ETFs! Here’s Amy’s Patreon and here’s David’s. For casual tips, here’s Amy’s Ko-Fi and here’s David’s.

Consensys is the center of the Ethereum ecosystem. Its founder, Joe Lubin, is the man who’s made more money from Ethereum than anyone.

Consensys makes the immensely popular MetaMask crypto wallet. They offer a swaps service and a staking service through MetaMask.

Anyway, Consensys got a Wells notice of impending enforcement action from the SEC on April 10. The SEC thinks Consensys is operating as an unregistered broker-dealer by making money on the MetaMask Swaps and MetaMask Staking products.

To head this off, Consensys is preemptively suing the SEC first! [Blog post; complaint, PDF; docket]

Consensys wants a ruling that:

  • MetaMask Swaps does not make Consensys a broker-dealer;
  • MetaMask Staking is not an offering of securities;
  • Ether (ETH), the native token of the Ethereum blockchain, is not a security.

It also wants an injunction against the SEC even investigating MetaMask Swaps or Staking, and against investigating the company’s sales of ETH in terms of ether being a security. And a pony would be nice too.

The complaint

The SEC has been investigating Consensys for two years. The agency first sent Consensys a letter in April 2022 advising them that they were investigating MetaMask. Then in September 2022, Consensys got another letter that the SEC was investigating staking protocols on the Ethereum network.

Consensys complains that it “did not have fair notice” of only two years.

The complaint was filed in the Northern District of Texas — Consensys used to be in Brooklyn, New York, but moved to Fort Worth sometime last year. 

Consensys has hired Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, one of the best-known law firms on Wall Street. It’s the same firm Coinbase is using to fight back against the SEC. 

MetaMask

MetaMask is a self-custody crypto wallet that Consensys distributes free as a web browser extension. You can move ETH or tokens running on top of Ethereum, such as altcoins or NFTs, between blockchain addresses.

Two services that Consensys sells via MetaMask are MetaMask Swaps and MetaMask Staking. It even calls these “core features” — though Swaps was introduced in 2020 and Staking in 2023. 

MetaMask Swaps

Swaps lets you “communicate with third-party decentralized exchanges.” Consensys charges a 0.875% fee for use of the service. What does Swaps do?

MetaMask Swaps software itself does not execute transactions and never comes into possession of users’ digital assets. It simply displays pricing information collected from third-party aggregators and sends user commands to DEXs, which execute the transactions. 

Now, you might think this closely resembles a stockbroker buying and selling stocks for you and taking a fee for doing so.

In the world of conventional securities, facilitating trade in beneficial ownership rights in stocks whose owner of record is the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) is also non-custodial. We still call this job being a “broker.”

But this only matters if any of the tokens are securities. Are they? Well … yes. Almost all of the tokens you can use on MetaMask would be considered securities under the Howey test. They were created as schemes to profit from the efforts of others. The SEC’s 2017 DAO Report and 2019 framework for investment contract analysis bludgeon this point home.

The SEC has settled or won in court in previous cases arguing that many tokens of this sort are securities — such as its actions against Bittrex, Terraform, and ShapeShift — so we expect that a complaint will name various tokens traded in Swaps and detail why they are securities.

Consensys admits that it’s helping customers buy and sell these tokens and it’s taking a fee for doing so. The SEC just has to show that some of the tokens are securities.

MetaMask Staking

MetaMask Staking lets you “stake” ETH to earn more ETH.

Ethereum doesn’t use proof-of-work mining like bitcoin — instead, it uses proof-of-stake. You put up a validator node with 32 ETH locked in it and you have a certain chance to generate a block that goes into the blockchain. If you do, you win the block reward.

Ethereum staking hits all of the elements of the Howey test of whether something is a security:

  • “an investment of money” — your 32 ETH stake
  • “in a common enterprise” — Ethereum
  • “with a reasonable expectation of profits” — the validator specification document literally says “verify and attest to the validity of blocks to seek financial returns” [GitHub]
  • “derived from the efforts of others” — promotion and management of the scheme by the Ethereum Foundation and money from the retail suckers who buy your ETH winnings.

The Ethereum Foundation, which determines how Ethereum works, is based in Switzerland. However, staking that involves a US entity would be under SEC jurisdiction.

Various companies have offered staking as an investment to institutional and accredited investors. That’s fine — but it’s not so fine when they offer it to ordinary mom-and-pop retail investors.

In June 2023, the SEC and ten state securities regulators came down on Coinbase for offering its staking product to retail investors. The SEC fined Kraken $30 million in February 2023 over its staking offerings. Kraken had to remove its staking product from the US market. 

Consensys offers its ordinary retail customers using MetaMask access to the Lido and Rocket staking pools. Consensys doesn’t mention it in the complaint, but they take a 10% fee for staking via MetaMask. [Consensys]

The complaint hammers again on the non-custodial nature of the staking service:

Like the rest of the MetaMask wallet software, the MetaMask Staking feature is entirely non-custodial; at no point does Consensys come into possession, custody, or control of a user’s tokens, nor can it alter in any way the user’s transaction instructions to the protocol. 

But that doesn’t matter — because they’re blatantly offering an investment scheme to retail investors and taking a 10% fee.

In fact, Consensys admits that it put a lot of work into the new staking mechanism, and the SEC subpoenaed information on this work:

They also seek detailed information concerning the role of Consensys, including its software developers, in a host of Ethereum Improvement Proposals related to the Ethereum Merge, the transition from a proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake validation mechanism. 

That is, Consensys themselves helped move the Ethereum network to its current very security-like operating mode, which is entirely different from the 2018 mechanism that wasn’t considered an investment contract.

Is ETH a security?

The complaint rants at length about whether ETH is a security, and even says that “the SEC now claims that ETH is a security subject to SEC regulation.”

This isn’t something the SEC has actually declared yet. What SEC chair Gary Gensler has done is suggest that ETH might possibly be a security now — particularly after Ethereum’s move to proof-of-stake in September 2022.

Consensys is outraged by this. The complaint cites lengthy historical evidence of the SEC and its commissioners telling the world that ETH is not a security. However, most of this dates back to 2018.

In 2018, Ethereum was running on a proof-of-work network, where crypto miners got rewards for spending electricity to guess a number and not for putting in funds.

Consensys notes the switch — but not how the payment model changed.

The crypto world is very good at going “la la la I can’t hear you” when obvious concerns such as this are raised early, then acting surprised when they suddenly become relevant. But crypto people were already talking in 2019 about the then-planned Ethereum staking really obviously being a security in the US, and both the SEC and the CFTC started looking into the question in that year. [Grant Gulovsen, 2019; CoinDesk, 2022]

If ETH is determined to have changed its operating model to now run as an offering of securities, that takes out Consensys’ entire business. It also undermines Lubin’s massive wealth. We’re surprised Consensys was dumb enough to even raise the question.

What happens next?

We’re not lawyers ourselves, but the expensive lawyers who wrote this complaint seem only to have been able to find the crayons that day.

Consensys admits upfront to most of what the SEC would need to nail them on MetaMask Swaps and Staking. The SEC would just need a ruling that tokens on Swaps were securities. On Staking, it looks like Consensys doesn’t have a case.

The extended table-pounding on the history of ETH leaves out how present-day staking works — that is, just like an investment contract. The SEC just needs to note the fact.

After that incredibly stupid Ripple ruling, we won’t say that Consensys can’t prevail here. We do think their chances of winning are incredibly thin, and the complaint leaves itself wide open to the SEC’s obvious responses.

Update 1: One possible reason for Consensys filing this bizarre complaint in the Northern District of Texas is that it’s likely to go to Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee known for his history of such bizarre rulings that even the present Supreme Court has consistently knocked them back. O’Connor might plausibly go for the complaint’s good ol’ boy hollering about the evils of fed overreach.

Consensys is weirdly vague about precisely when they moved to Texas. There wasn’t a press release. CoinDesk says Consensys’ office is in a WeWork, though WeWork only has the fourth floor of 5049 Edwards Ranch Road, Fort Worth, TX 76109, and there are other companies in the building. Various sources give their move date to Fort Worth as December 2023, though they were sending out press releases datelined Fort Worth as early as June 2023. [CoinDesk]

Did Consensys move to Fort Worth specifically to try to win a bizarre ruling from O’Connor with this weird filing as their judicial lottery ticket? This is almost too crypto an idea to seriously posit, but it’s less nonsensical than any other interpretation we have. Ideas welcome!

Update 2: Nevermind! Consensys straight up admits they moved to Ft. Worth for the courts.

Laura Brookover, Consensys head of litigation, tells Unchained: “For us, we moved to Texas because it’s a wonderful laboratory for innovation. Texas celebrates individual freedom, celebrates technology, and it’s a great opportunity for us being headquartered here to call on the courts and to say, please help us, because what the SEC is doing is unlawful.” [Unchained]

Feature image: Joe Lubin of Consensys and the Ethereum team in 2014.

Posted on by Amy Castor 1

Amy and David answer your questions — bitcoin mining, ETH staking, FTX, Tether, and more! 

  • By Amy Castor and David Gerard

We asked readers what they were curious about in crypto. We posted part one of our answers earlier this month. Now here’s part two! [Twitter; Bluesky] 

Sending us money will definitely help — here’s Amy’s Patreon, and here’s David’s.

Q: An update on the carbon footprint of the crypto industry for 2023, if this hasn’t been done by someone else already? Thanks [Thomas Endgame on Twitter]

The news is still dismal. The bitcoin network’s annual carbon footprint is a shocking 76.79 million tons of carbon dioxide, comparable to the entire country of Oman, according to Digiconomist. [Digiconomist, archive]

In terms of energy, bitcoin uses as much electricity as the country of Ukraine — 137.68 terawatt-hours annually. Energy consumption was highest in the first half of 2022 — 204 terawatt-hours per year — but started to go down in July, after the crypto collapse. 

The network currently produces 23.75 kilotons of e-waste per year, comparable to the entire Netherlands, and every bitcoin transaction uses enough water to fill a swimming pool.

This is why some of the good citizens of Texas are fighting back against the crypto mines there. 

Q: Who’ll be left holding bags when Tether collapses? [Julius Cobbett on Twitter]

Tethers (USDT) function as substitute dollars on offshore crypto exchanges that have no access to US dollar banking.

The biggest holders of tethers are arbitrageurs, such as Cumberland, who pass tethers along to secondary users in exchange for bitcoins and other crypto. [CoinTelegraph, 2020; Protos]

If all tethers were suddenly switched off tomorrow, that would be nearly 100 billion “dollars” in liquidity instantly sucked out of the market.  

Any secondary users stuck holding tether would find their virtual dollars suddenly worthless. Arbitrageurs would have nothing to buy and sell bitcoin with on offshore exchanges — they would have to switch over to a different stablecoin — and the price of bitcoin would likely take a serious hit.

We would expect to see a large number of bitcoin holders trying to dump their holdings on actual-dollar exchanges like Coinbase in a mad rush to get out of the market. It might look like a bunch of mice trying to squeeze out of a tiny hole. 

Q. We all know crypto is garbage, why does YAHOO finance continue to have the BTC ticker and other crypto related garbage up? I’d have thought by now it would be gone. [Barsoapguy on Twitter]

Sadly, with bitcoin ETFs and so on still all over the finance press, it’s a relevant number to put up. Even if they just pull the number from whatever CoinMarketCap says.

Q. In the bankruptcy of FTX, about 7B of the $8.7B said to be “lost” has been found, and with Crypto making a comeback all creditors may become whole or better. But SBF rots in prison for decades? And BK firms make over a billion in fees? [Bill Hochberg on Twitter]

There are two misconceptions here — one is that John Jay Ray and his team have found all the money and everything will be fine. The other is that Ray and his lawyers are gouging the creditors and nobody can stop them.

FTX got itself into trouble because it had stolen the customer assets, then inflated its balance sheets with worthless FTT tokens — its own illiquid supermarket loyalty card points. The FTT made up a third of its balance sheet. When FTX filed for bankruptcy in November 2022, it had a shortfall of $8.7 billion.

As we wrote at the time, FTX’s debts were real, but its assets were fake. The FTT was unsaleable garbage, not something that Ray and his team could turn into cash.

In August 2023, Ray estimated his team had recovered $7 billion — but that included spurious dollar values for trash crypto assets. A lot of it will be FTT and other worthless tokens that aren’t realistically convertible to cash in those quantities. 

In October 2023, FTX said it would refund up to 90% of “distributable assets” to creditors. That’s 90% of the amount of funds that FTX was able to recover — not 90% of the amount owed to creditors. [FTX]

Bitcoin has gone up in price since FTX fell over. The price of bitcoin was $17,000 when FTX filed for bankruptcy. Now it’s over $40,000. If FTX held onto its crypto holdings, instead of converting them into cash as soon as possible, they might have made some money. But bankruptcy lawyers typically don’t gamble on volatile markets. 

Bankruptcy professionals are super expensive. Ray’s team has so far cost about $200 million. That’s a lot of money, and many people questioned this — but even the independent fee examiner said, yep, that looked about right for the ridiculous mess Ray had to sort out here.

An appeals court has ordered the appointment of an independent examiner reporting to the US Trustee, paid for out of the bankruptcy estate, which will likely cost another $100 million or so.

Q: Eth staking and destaking? It was not possible to unstake at launch, does it work now? Are stakers happy? How scammy is the whole thing? There was some stuff about OFAC compliance for stakers too? I don’t know? I might use an explainer? [Laventeot on Twitter]

Ethereum proof of stake uses validators rather than miners like bitcoin does. Every validator has a chance at winning this moment’s ETH. If your block is the winner, you get the block reward, transaction fees, and all the MEV you can steal.

You can set up a validator at the cost of staking 32 ETH. When Ethereum moved to proof of stake in September 2022, this 32 ETH couldn’t be unstaked. But since Ethereum’s Shanghai upgrade in April 2023, it is now possible to unstake your staked ETH.

Unstaking has a queueing mechanism to avoid there being too much churn. So when there’s a big dump — such as when Celsius Network destaked 30,000 ETH recently to hand back to their bankruptcy creditors — it can take days or even weeks to process. [Nansen]

The staking process seems to work as advertised and the stakers are pleased with it.

The process closely resembles an unregistered security in the US — the Ethereum Foundation (incorporated in Switzerland) promotes that you put in your ETH and you get a return on it from the efforts of others.

Some exchanges offer staking as a service — this is probably okay if the customers are accredited or institutional, and an excellent way to accumulate cease and desist letters from the SEC and state securities regulators if the customers are retail.

Anyone moving money — or, in FinCEN’s terms, “value that substitutes for currency,” including “convertible virtual currencies” — as a business in the US is required to comply with sanctions law. This is usually assumed to mean not validating transactions for sanctioned blockchain addresses listed by OFAC. US-based validators would be very foolish to flout this.

OFAC compliance in transaction processing doesn’t directly relate to the economics of staking in itself — US bitcoin miners would similarly be liable under law for processing transactions for sanctioned entities, even if OFAC hasn’t called them up yet.

Q: maybe a check-in on the enterprise blockchain pitch decks? is the same dead horse still being beaten? [Stephen Farrugia on Twitter]

Enterprise blockchain has gone back into hibernation. Corporate interest in non-cryptocurrency blockchain goes up and down with the price of bitcoin — lots of interest in 2017 and 2018, almost none in 2019 and 2020, and a sudden burst of interest in 2021 as the number went up.

The problem with enterprise blockchain is that it’s a completely useless idea. A blockchain doesn’t actually work any better than using a conventional database in any situation where you have a trusted entity who’s responsible for the system. If you’re a business, that’ll be yourself. Just use Postgres.

The main remaining interest in enterprise blockchain is inside banks. We’ve had many reports of bank fintech research units infested with coiners trying to do something — anything — that they can say is “blockchain.” Société Générale’s completely useless euro stablecoin is one recent example.

Q. Something on the way that Bitcoin Magazine and BitMEX bought commercial places on the Peregrine Mission One so they could say they’d “gone to the moon” … and the spacecraft is going to miss the moon. [BiFuriosa on Bluesky]

Private companies have of late been offering to send personal items — cremated remains, time capsules, and even crypto — to the moon. Astrobotic, which owns Peregrin-1, is one of them. 

In May, BitMEX and Bitcoin Magazine announced they were going to send a physical bitcoin to the moon via Astrobotic — that is, a metal medallion with a bitcoin private key engraved onto it. They declared that this would mark a “defining moment for bitcoin as we explore the possibilities of Bitcoin beyond planet Earth.” [BitMEX, archive]

Peregrin-1 made it into space earlier this month — but it never managed to land on the moon. So when it burned up on re-entry to Earth’s atmosphere, everything onboard burned up with it, including the time capsules, the ashes of more than 200 people, and the bitcoin. [Gizmodo]

Dogecoin fans had earlier funded a similar effort to send a physical dogecoin to the moon in 2015, also via Astrobotic. As of 2023, they were still trying to get it sent up. If the physical dogecoin had been onboard, it would have met the same fate. [Twitter, archive]

Sadly, even the moon hates crypto. 

Q. Why are people still falling for this nonsense? [Peter Nimmo on Mastodon]

Dude, they can get rich for free! Maybe.

Thankfully, fewer people are falling for the nonsense. Retail trade is one-eighth of what it was in the 2021 bubble. Most of the dollars boosting the price of bitcoin since 2017 have been fake. 

By the end of 2017, a billion USDT was sloshing around in the crypto markets; today in 2024, we’re coming up to 100 billion USDT. Bitcoin’s price is largely manipulated.

Crypto media — CoinDesk, The Block, Decrypt, and others — play a major role in promoting the nonsense. These outlets, owned and/or financed by crypto companies, are the public relations machines for the crypto industry. The finance press treats these sites as specialist trade press rather than fundamentally a promotional mechanism.

Crypto has also put big money into lobbying efforts, so we see senators like Cynthia Lummis, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Rand Paul shamefully repeating the propaganda. 

Crypto skeptics are a smaller group who try to warn people of the dangers of investing in crypto. So it’s important to send money to us. Instead of bitcoins, we spend it on useful things like wine to get through all this guff.

Q. Once Crypto blows over what will we salt our popcorn with? [EamonnMR on Mastodon]

We don’t expect crypto to ever disappear completely. We do expect the number to eventually go down to the point where fewer people pay attention.

Meme stocks blew out even harder than crypto did. The remaining devotees are like QAnon for finance, posting to Reddit with their theories of how much they’ll surely get for their deactivated BBBY shares when the Mother Of All Short Squeezes finally descends.

Now that the well of dumb crypto money has dried up, venture capitalists are pivoting to AI as the next big thing. The tech is running out of steam, though. But the power consumption is likely to be even worse than bitcoin mining by 2027, and the AI grifters are using the same excuses for it as the bitcoin grifters. [Digiconomist]

Suckers are eternal. As long as money exists, fraud and get-rich schemes will be with us. And we’ll have something to write about.

Image: Hans at Pixabay, CC-0 

Posted on by Amy Castor 4

Amy and David answer your questions on crypto! (Part 1)

  • By Amy Castor and David Gerard

Crypto is still hungover from New Year’s and there’s no news. So we asked readers what they were curious about in crypto. [Twitter; Bluesky]

Keep your questions coming for part 2, some time or other!

Sending us money will definitely help — here’s Amy’s Patreon, and here’s David’s.

Q: I keep wondering what’s keeping the circus alive, given that the retail dollars are practically gone, and the last remaining on/off-ramps are all but down the drain. [Tomalak on Bluesky]

The circus is fed by dollars — real and fake — and its product is hopium, the unfaltering belief that number will always go up. The hopium runs on narratives, such as the current story that a bitcoin ETF will result in a magical influx of fresh dollars.

In crypto, the retail dollars have largely gone home — but too many people have large piles of crypto accounted as dollars to let the number go down. So they deploy fake dollars to keep the crypto flowing.

There are currently 93 billion dubiously-backed tethers sloshing around the crypto markets. We expect that to go over 100 billion as we get closer to the bitcoin mining reward halving in April.

The circus is advertised by the crypto media, which functions as PR outlets for the space. The CoinDesk live-wire feed on any given day is about half hopium, for instance. There are no respectable media outlets in a crypto winter.

(Except us, of course. Subscribe today!) 

Q: Why can’t or wouldn’t the average investor make money in crypto? We criticize it, and rightfully so, but why should the person looking to make a profit care? [King Schultz on Twitter]

There is no source of dollars other than fresh retail investors. Old investors can only be paid out with money from new investors.

Crypto isn’t technically a Ponzi scheme — it just works like one. So investing in crypto will always be a slightly negative-sum game.

Functionally, crypto is a single unified casino, run by a very small number of people, with no regulation. Binance is the tables, Coinbase is the cashier window. The flow of cash is from retail suckers to very few rich guys at the top.

There are many, many complicated mechanisms in the middle, and they’re fascinating to look at and describe and watch in action. But the complex mechanisms don’t change what’s happening here — money flows from lots of suckers to a few scammers.

Some people make money in crypto, just like some people make money in Las Vegas — but gambling in Vegas isn’t an investment scheme either. And the house always wins.

You can make money in crypto if you’re a better shark than all the other sharks in the shark pool, who built the pool. It can be done! Good luck!

Q: be interested in reading about money laundering [Broseph on Bluesky]

Money laundering is when you try to turn the proceeds of crime into money that doesn’t appear to be the proceeds of crime. Laundering money is also a specific crime in itself.

With money going electronic, it’s harder to obscure the origins of ill-gotten gains and avoid unwanted attention from banks and the authorities. Many crooks have attempted to launder money by using crypto as the obfuscatory step.

Bitfinex money mule Reggie Fowler set up a global network of bank accounts. He told the banks the accounts were for real estate transactions. He was sentenced to six years in prison.

Heather “Razzlekhan” Morgan and Ilya Lichtenstein tried laundering the bitcoins from the Bitfinex hack through the Alphabay darknet market. This would have completely covered their trail! Except that the police had pwned Alphabay by then, and Lichtenstein’s transactions were all right there for the cops to track him. Whoops.

We also highly recommend Dan Davies’s fabulous book on fraud, Lying for Money.

Q: Not so much baffled but curious as to how law enforcement can and does identify people using blockchain. Also, do some coins not have a public blockchain? [Bob Morris on Twitter]

Cryptocurrencies run on publicly available blockchains. In theory, you can trace the history of every transaction on a blockchain right back to when it started.

The hard part for authorities is linking someone’s real-world identity to a specific blockchain address. Achieving this was the key to busting Heather Morgan and Ilya Lichtenstein, for instance. The hardest part for crooks is cashing out successfully without being busted.

The trail can be difficult to trace, especially if the crook has put effort into obfuscation — e.g., running transactions through a mixer such as Tornado Cash. But specialists can get good at tracing blockchain transactions and several companies sell this as a service.

Privacy coins like Monero and ZCash try to obfuscate the traceability of transactions on the blockchain itself. But users often give themselves away by other channels — e.g., transaction volumes elsewhere that coincidentally correspond to amounts of Monero sent to a darknet market.

Even if you can protect yourself cryptographically, one error can leave your backside hanging out — and crypto users are really bad at operational security.

Q: nfts aren’t really relevant these days but I’ve never been clear on what ‘mint events’ are and how they relate to the icos. Are users generating new nfts paid for by using the coins they previously bought? [Robert Kambic on Bluesky]

Initial coin offerings (ICOs) were huge in 2017 and 2018 — but the SEC came down hard on them because they were pretty much all unregistered offerings of penny stocks.

Since that time, crypto has tried to come up with other ideas for doing unregistered offerings while making them look at least a little less illegal. There were SAFTs, airdrops, and now NFT mint events. These are all about creating fresh tokens out of thin air and promoting them as an investment in a common enterprise that will make a profit from the efforts of others.

A “mint event” is when you buy into an NFT collection early — when it first mints — hoping the value will increase astronomically over time.

But these are not securities, no, no, no. Yuga Labs wasn’t selling you shares in a company — they were selling you ape cartoons! You weren’t getting dividends, you were getting Mutant Apes, dog NFTs, and ApeCoins! You’re not investing in a speculative startup, you’re buying art!

The SEC has so far sued one NFT company, Impact Theory, after it raised $30 million through NFT sales. The SEC said the NFTs were promoted as investment contracts and not registered. [Complaint, PDF]

We didn’t say too much about NFTs in our 2024 predictions, but we expect that the SEC will go after more NFT projects this year, as they clear their backlog of violators.

Q. I’d like a definitive explanation on the amount of apes you can feed with a single slurp juice. [Etienne Beureux on Twitter]

Slurp juices were popularized in a tweet about Astro Apes, a Bored Apes knockoff, which also featured tokens called “slurp juices” that you could apply to your Astro Ape tokens to generate more Astro Ape tokens and get rich for free.

The tweet was posted on May 4, 2022 — just a few days before Terra-Luna exploded and popped the 2021-2022 crypto bubble.

Also, the guy who tweeted about slurp juices is a neo-Nazi. Welcome to crypto. [BuzzFeed News]

Q: I’ve often wondered why new languages like Solidity were necessary for smart contracts. [David John Smailes on Twitter]

The Ethereum team originally just wanted to use JavaScript, but it didn’t quite do what they needed in terms of functionality and data types — so they created Solidity, a new language based on JavaScript.

A blockchain is an extremely harsh programming environment. It’s hard or impossible to modify your code once deployed — you must get it right the first time. It’s about money, so every attacker will be going after your code.

In situations where programming errors have drastic consequences, you usually try to make it harder to shoot yourself in the foot — functional programming languages, formal methods, mathematical verification of the code, not using a full computer language (avoid Turing completeness), and so on.

Solidity ignores all of that — and the world’s most mediocre JavaScript programmers moved sideways to write the world’s most mediocre smart contracts and cause everyone to lose all their money, repeatedly. Smart contracts are best modeled as a piñata, where you whack it in the right spot and a pile of crypto falls out.

Other blockchains saw Ethereum-based projects making a ton of money (or crypto) and wanted that for themselves — so they tend to just use the Ethereum Virtual Machine so they can run buggy Solidity code too.

There are other, somewhat better, smart contract languages — but Solidity is overwhelmingly the language of choice, which keeps the comedy gold flowing nicely.

Q. Miner extracted value? [Cathal Mooney on Twitter]

Miners — or now validators — supposedly make money from block rewards and transaction fees.

There is a third way for validators to make money. Smart contract execution depends on the order of transactions within a block. Since the validator controls what transactions they can put in a block and how they order those transactions, they can front run the traders — the validator sees an unprocessed transaction, creates their own transaction ahead of that one and takes some or all of the advantage that the trader saw.

The term “Miner Extractable Value” was coined in the paper “Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability” in 2020. [IEEE Xplore]

Front-running is largely illegal in real finance. But since the Ethereum Foundation couldn’t stop their validators from front-running their users, they decided to claim it was a feature, which they have renamed “maximal extractable value.” [Ethereum Foundation]

Q: What do you think will eventually happen to all the Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin wallets? [Steve Alarm on Twitter]

Quite likely nothing. We suspect the keys, and thus the million bitcoins, are simply lost. Nobody has heard anything verifiably from Satoshi since April 13, 2011, when he sent a final email to bitcoin developer Mike Hearn. [Plan99]

If the Satoshi coins ever did move, there would be a lot of headlines. But we don’t think the crypto trading market would be affected much — the market is so thin, there are multiple large holders who could crash the market any time they felt like it, and the market is already largely fake. We think everyone will just pretend nothing happened and everything is fine.

Q. Did Do Kwon actually sell all his BTC to prop up Luna? [Saku Kamiyūbetsu on Twitter]

Terra (UST) was an algorithmic dollar stablecoin and luna was its free-floating twin. Terraform Labs ran the Anchor Protocol, which promised 20% interest on staked UST. At peak, there were 18 billion UST in circulation.

It turned out there was money to be made in crashing UST — so in May 2022, someone did. There is a strong rumor (and DOJ investigations) that it was Alameda. Other parties who collapsed because of Terra-Luna left the gaping hole in Alameda that eventually killed FTX. If Alameda fired the first shot directly into their own leg, that would be extremely crypto, as well as extremely funny.

UST was crashing, so Terraform Labs tried to prop up Terra-Luna. The bitcoins came from the Luna Foundation Guard, which promised to deploy $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin to defend UST. This didn’t work. [Twitter, archive]

We haven’t found a smoking gun that Luna actually spent the bitcoins on buying up UST or luna. In 2023, the SEC charged Terraform Labs and Do Kwon and said that Kwon and Terraform took over 10,000 BTC out of Luna Foundation Guard in May 2022 and converted at least $100 million into cash.

Q: I’m baffled at the lack of interest from crypto critics that the DoJ will not be pursuing additional charges against SBF. Specifically, the charges that could make some politicians very uncomfortable. [Amer Icon on Twitter]

The issue was specifically whether to further prosecute Sam Bankman-Fried. The prosecution letter to the judge quite clearly explains their reasons why a second case wouldn’t do anything useful in this regard. [Letter, PDF]

The evidence that Sam was the guy who made these bribes was presented in the case that just concluded and will be considered when he’s sentenced in March — they don’t need a second trial to nail those facts down.

Hypothetical other evidence that might have come to light about other parties wasn’t a factor in considering what to do about Sam Bankman-Fried. It’s quite reasonable to want to get those guys, but you will probably need a more direct method than a side factor in an additional case against a guy who is already likely going to jail forever.

Q. snarkier memes would be worthy [Chris Doerfler on Twitter]

“Esto no puede ser tan estúpido, debes estar explicándolo mal.”

We did a follow-up on this story. Part 2, though not labeled as such, is here!

Image: Amy Landers and Dear David reading today’s Web 3 Is Going Just Great

Posted on by Amy Castor 2

Crypto collapse: Treasury comes after DeFi, SEC comes after crypto exchanges, stablecoin bill, FTX first interim report

  • By Amy Castor and David Gerard

“Please god let FTX go back into business, take a lot of money from crypto rubes, then collapse and lose everything again. Please let there be people who lost money in two separate FTX collapses.”

– Ariong

The Treasury brings good news for DeFi

The US Treasury released its “Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance.” The 42-page report examines DeFi from the perspective of anti-money laundering and sanctions laws. [Press release; Report, PDF] 

This report is not about consumer protection — it’s about national security, sanctions busting, and terrorist financing. The Treasury is not happy:

“The assessment finds that illicit actors, including ransomware cybercriminals, thieves, scammers, and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) cyber actors, are using DeFi services in the process of transferring and laundering their illicit proceeds.

… In particular, this assessment finds that the most significant current illicit finance risk in this domain is from DeFi services that are not compliant with existing AML/CFT obligations.”

The report makes clear: blockchain analysis is not sufficient for KYC/AML. Calling something “decentralized” or a “DAO” doesn’t absolve you of responsibility. And almost everything in DeFi falls squarely in the ambit of existing regulation.

How’s regulatory clarity for crypto? Just fine, thank you:

“Through public statements, guidance, and enforcement actions, these agencies have made clear that the automation of certain functions through smart contracts or computer code does not affect the obligations of financial institutions offering covered services.”

The report recommends “strengthening U.S. AML/CFT supervision and, when relevant, enforcement of virtual asset activities, including DeFi services, to increase compliance by virtual asset firms with BSA obligations” and “enhancing the U.S. AML/CFT regulatory regime by closing any identified gaps in the BSA to the extent that they allow certain DeFi services to fall outside of the BSA’s definition of financial institution.”

Nicholas Weaver tells us the report “should be thought of as being as serious as a heart attack to the DeFi community, as this represents the US government regulation at its most serious. Indeed, the report can be summarized in a sentence: ‘If you want to continue to OFAC around, you are going to find out.’”

The SEC brings good news for Coinbase and DeFi

SEC chair Gary Gensler is fed up with Coinbase blatantly trading unregistered securities and not registering with the SEC as a proper securities exchange. So he’s going to update the rules.

The SEC has reopened the comment period for a proposal, initially issued in January 2022, that would update the definition of an “exchange” in Rule 3b-16 of the Exchange Act. [SEC press release; Fact sheet, PDF; Gensler statements]

Gensler’s comments are laser-targeted at Coinbase — and also DeFi:

“Make no mistake: many crypto trading platforms already come under the current definition of an exchange and thus have an existing duty to comply with the securities laws.”

He reiterates that “the vast majority of crypto tokens are securities” — the SEC’s position since 2017 — so “most crypto platforms today” meet the definition of a securities exchange. He adds:  

“Yet these platforms are acting as if they have a choice to comply with our laws. They don’t. Congress gave the Commission a mandate to protect investors, regardless of the labels or technology used. Investors in the crypto markets must receive the same time-tested protections that the securities laws provide in all other markets.”

A regulatory framework for casino chips

On Saturday, The US House Financial Services Committee published an as-yet-untitled discussion draft bill for regulating stablecoins a few days before a hearing on the topic on Wednesday, April 19. [Discussion draft, PDF; hearing agenda]

The bill refers to stablecoins as “payment stablecoins.” This is utterly hypothetical. Nobody uses stablecoins to buy things. They’re chips for gambling on speculative assets in the crypto casinos.

This bill was a sudden surprise for a lot of people — but it appears to be a version of a draft bill that Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-PA) was circulating last year. [Stablecoin TRUST Act, 2022]

The bill divides stablecoin issuers into banks and nonbanks. Credit unions and banks that want to issue stablecoins would need approval from the financial regulator they fall under‚ the National Credit Union Administration, the FDIC, or the OCC. Non-bank stablecoin issuers would fall under the Federal Reserve.

For this bill, USDC or Pax Dollars, under the Fed, might pass muster. But Tether would be kicked out of anything touching the US because they wouldn’t be able to meet the transparency or liquidity requirements.  

All stablecoins that circulate in the US would need to be backed by highly liquid assets — actual dollars and short-term treasuries — and redeemable within one day. That doesn’t leave much room for the issuers to turn a profit by putting the deposits in longer-term investments.

Custodia is not a bank under the Bank Holding Act, so for this bill, it would also be considered a non-bank. This bill would derail Custodia’s lawsuit against the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City to try to force a Fed master account out of them.

The bill also calls for a moratorium on new algorithmic stablecoins until a study can be conducted.

Finally, the bill includes a request for federal regulators to study a central bank digital currency (CBDC) issued by the Fed. As we noted previously, FedNow would make a CBDC completely superfluous.

Hilary Allen, a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, points out important shortcomings in the stablecoin bill. She argues that the bill is stacked in favor of stablecoins, and notes that the bill’s payment stablecoin definition could be a way of avoiding SEC jurisdiction. And while the bill calls for monthly attestations, it doesn’t say anything about full audits for stablecoin reserves. [Twitter]

FTX’s first interim report reads like Quadriga

John Jay Ray III, FTX’s CEO in bankruptcy, released his first interim report on the control failures at FTX and its businesses. Ray documents a shocking level of negligence, lack of record keeping, and complete disregard for cybersecurity at FTX. [Doc 1242, PDF]

The report confirms what we’ve been saying all along: all crypto exchanges behave as much like Quadriga as they can get away with. A few highlights:

  • FTX Group was managed almost exclusively by Sam Bankman-Fried, Nishad Singh, and Gary Wang. The trio had “no experience in risk management or running a business,” and SBF had final say in everything.
  • SBF openly joked about his company’s reckless accounting. In internal docs, he described Alameda as “hilariously beyond any threshold of any auditor being able to even get partially through an audit,” and how “we sometimes find $50m of assets lying around that we lost track of; such is life.”
  • FTX kept virtually all of its assets in hot wallets, live on the internet, as opposed to offline cold wallets, where they would be safe from hackers. 
  • FTX and Alameda also kept private keys to billions of dollars in crypto-assets sitting in AWS’s cloud computing platform.
  • SBF stifled dissent with an iron fist. Ex-FTX US president Brett Harrison quit after a “protracted argument” with Sam over how FTX US was run. Sam cut Harrison’s bonuses, and when “senior internal counsel instructed him to apologize to Bankman-Fried for raising the concerns,” Harrison refused.

Ray and his team have so far recovered $1.4 billion in digital assets and have identified an additional $1.7 billion they are in the process of recovering. (We’re still waiting for him to ask for money back from The Block, but maybe that’s coming.)

In other FTX news, Voyager and FTX and their respective Unsecured Creditors’ Committees have reached an agreement on the money FTX paid to Voyager before FTX filed bankruptcy that FTX wants to claw back now — $445 million in cash will go into escrow while things are sorted out. [Doc 1266, PDF]

Terraform Labs did nothing* wrong

South Korean prosecutors have seized 414.5 billion won ($312 million) in illegal assets linked to nine Terraform Labs execs. None of the assets tied to Do Kwon have been recovered. Kwon converted everything to BTC and moved the funds — worth an estimated 91.4 billion won ($69 million) — to offshore exchanges. [KBS, Korean]  

Who crashed UST in May 2022? Terraform Labs seems to have played no small part. In the three weeks leading up to the collapse, Terraform dumped over 450 million UST on the open market. [Cointelegraph]

Crypto mining: the free lunch is over

A bill limiting benefits and tax incentives for crypto miners in Texas unanimously passed a Senate committee vote and now it’s in the chamber. The bill was sponsored by three Republican state senators. Even they’re sick of the bitcoin miners. [SB 1751, PDF; CoinDesk; Fastdemocracy]

Bitcoin mining doesn’t create jobs — so Sweden has ended the 98% tax relief it gave data centers, including crypto miners. Crypto is outraged. [CoinDesk]

More good news for exchanges

The downfall of peer-to-peer bitcoin exchange Paxful is a comedy goldmine. Paxful cofounders Ray Youssef and Artur Schaback originally blamed Paxful’s closure on staff departures and regulatory challenges — but now they’re turning against each other in court.

As an example of their good judgment, in 2016, the pair drew police attention when they were spotted in Miami aiming an A15 rifle off their penthouse balcony for photo purposes. Former employees allege “favoritism, erratic dismissals, lavish spending on travel and reports of routine cannabis usage on the job by Youssef himself.”

Paxful’s business model was based on price-gouging fees on gift cards, according to one former employee. You want 10 euros worth of bitcoin? That’ll be 20 euros worth of gift cards. Coincidentally, money launderers are usually quite happy to pay fees on the order of 50%. Schaback thinks Paxful is still a viable enterprise. [CBS, 2016; CoinDesk]

As you might expect, OPNX, the new exchange for tokenized crypto debt run by the founders of the failed Three Arrows Capital and CoinFLEX, has gotten off to a feeble start. Trading volume in the first 24 hours was $13.64. [The Block]

The Winklevoss twins made a $100 million loan to Gemini. The move came after Gemini had informally sought funding from outside investors in recent months without coming to any agreements. We can’t find if the loan was in actual dollars or in crypto — or if it was just an IOU. [Bloomberg] 

Binance relinquished the financial services license for its Australian derivatives business, Oztures Trading, after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission said they were likely to suspend it. Customers have until April 21 to close their accounts. [ASIC] 

Who were the unnamed “VIP” traders on Binance mentioned in the CFTC suit? Jane Street, Tower, and Radix. [Bloomberg] 

The Mt. Gox payout window has opened! Slowly. [Mt Gox, PDF; The Block]

Cryptadamus thinks that Crypto.com’s Canadian bank accounts are frozen. [Mastodon]  

Good news for bitcoin

The Ethereum Shanghai upgrade went through on April 12. You can now withdraw your staked ether! As we predicted, there wasn’t a rush for the exits. [CoinDesk]

Bitfinex money mule Reggie Fowler will be sentenced on April 20. His lawyer wrote a lengthy letter to the judge asking for clemency — no jail time — because Fowler lived a hard life and never did anything wrong before. Nothing he was busted in court for, anyway. [Letter, PDF]

Michael Saylor’s MicroStrategy has bought yet more bitcoin, digging itself ever deeper. The company purchased an additional 1,045 BTC for $23.9 million, or an average price of $28,016, between March 23 and April 4. [8-K filing]

Tether got its tendrils into the US dollar system via Signet — former Signature Bank’s real-time payments system. Tether instructed crypto firms to send dollars to its Bahamas-based banking partner Capital Union Bank via Signet. We’re not clear on whether this violated the New York settlement — though if they lied about who they were, it broke banking law. [Bloomberg] 

Cross River Bank, the banking partner of Coinbase and Circle, built its business on buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) and pandemic loans. What could go wrong? [Dirty Bubble] 

With its firm commitment to quality cryptocurrency journalism, CoinDesk is hot on getting into generating its hopium space-filler using AI text generators. [CoinDesk] 

Media stardom

“Ukraine wants to fund its post-war future with crypto” — with quotes from David. [Techmonitor]

“A lot of ordinary people who got into crypto just lost everything in various ways or lost chunks of it,” Gerard said. “And this is a lot of  why I think retail investors should just keep the hell away from crypto.” [Business Insider]  

Posted on by Amy Castor 0

My first story in MIT Tech Review with added ramblings on Web3 and Ethereum’s Beacon Chain

I just wrote my first story for MIT Tech Review. 

It is an explainer piece on Ethereum’s move to proof of stake. What follows are notes from the story — along with additional ramblings and quotes from your favorite crypto skeptics.

When NFTs became a big thing in 2021, that drew a lot of attention to Ethereum, where most NFTs are traded. It also brought a lot of attention to the environmental horrors of proof of work.

Bitcoin and Ethereum both rely on proof of work to add new blocks to the chain. Together, they consume as much electricity as the entire country of Italy, according to Digiconomist. 

Meanwhile, venture capitalists are shoveling cash at companies building Web3 — a supposedly new iteration of the internet where apps will run on permissionless blockchains, mainly Ethereum. 

The problem is that permissionless blockchains — those that are open to the public and depend on a cryptocurrency to incentivize miners and maintain their security — are incredibly inefficient. They are sluggish. They can’t handle much data, and they don’t scale.

Case in point: CryptoKitties slowed the entire Ethereum network to a crawl in 2017. 

In his article “The Web3 Fraud” Nicholas Weaver, a researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at Berkeley, explains that Web3 is “a technological edifice that is beyond useless as anyone who attempts to deploy a real application will quickly discover.”

Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital firms, is a big promoter of Web3. It has invested heavily in at least a dozen platforms that support NFTs alone, among them: Dapper Labs, OpenSea, Manifold, and soon, possibly, Bored Ape Yacht Club. Ethereum is crucial to a16z’s Web3 story.

Clearly, that story needs something more to support it. It needs a rocket-boosted ETH 2.0.

Scaling to the moon

In a proof of stake system, validators replace miners. Instead of investing in expensive ASIC systems that eventually end up in landfills, you invest in the native coins of the system.

Ethereum Foundation, the nonprofit behind Ethereum, says its proof of stake will consume 99.95% less electricity than proof of work. Ethereum currently handles roughly 15 transactions per second. Its founder Vitalik Buterin said ETH 2.0 could potentially handle a whopping 100,000 transactions per second. That would beat out Visa, which claims 65,000 transactions per second.

Ethereum was supposed to be a proof of stake blockchain from the start, according to its whitepaper. But in 2014, Buterin concluded that developing a proof of stake algorithm was non-trivial. So Ethereum settled for proof of work instead, while it went to work developing a proof of stake algorithm. Ethereum’s switch to proof of stake has been six months away for years. 

Now, supposedly, the big moment is soon to arrive.

Ethereum is currently testing a proof of stake blockchain called the Beacon Chain. This will be the heart of ETH 2.0. So far, 9.7 million ETH ($25 billion) is staked on the Beacon Chain. To become a validator, you have to lock up 32 ETH. If you don’t have that much ETH on hand, you can join a staking pool.

In an upcoming event called “The Merge,” which was supposed to happen in Q1 2022 but got pushed to to Q2 2022 in October, Ethereum will combine the Beacon Chain with the Ethereum Mainnet.  

After The Merge takes place, the next step is sharding — splitting the Ethereum chain up into 64 separate chains, so the network can scale. Sharding won’t happen until 2023. This is where the network reaches toward that theoretical number of 100,000 transactions per second.

Critics, however, doubt sharding will be any more efficient than a single chain. 

Jorge Stolfi, a computer science professor at the State University of Campinas in Brazil, told me: “Almost every transaction will require updating two shards in an ‘atomic’ way (either both are updated or neither is updated). That will be the job of the central (Beacon) chain. I doubt very much that they can do that more efficiently than the current single-chain scheme.”

Ethereum, a centralized system

Scaling isn’t the only issue at hand in Ethereum’s move to proof of stake.

Proof of work’s decentralization suffers from economies of scale. Large mining operations are better able to maximize profits while lowering costs. This resulted in five mining operations controlling more than half of Bitcoin’s hash rate in 2020.

Like proof of work, proof of stake will naturally tend toward centralization.

Those who have the deepest pockets and stake the most coins will have the best chances of “winning the lottery,” thus reaping newly minted coins in the form of the block reward.

The big staking validators are already getting themselves into position. US crypto exchanges Coinbase and Kraken hold 78,000 out of 296,000 validators on the Beacon Chain.

A16z is also getting in on the action. It invested $70 million into staking provider Lido and is using Lido to stake an undisclosed portion of its venture arm’s ETH holdings on the Beacon Chain.

Proof of work and proof of stake both aim to get rid of a central gatekeeper, but that comes at a huge cost. One wastes electricity; the other wastes coins, which get locked up and pulled out of circulation.

“Whatever Sybil defense they use, economics forces successful permissionless blockchains to centralize; there is no justification for wasting resources in a doomed attempt at decentralization,” David Rosenthal said in a recent blog post. Rosenthal is known for co-creating Stanford University’s LOCKSS technology for the distributed preservation of digital content. 

The one advantage of proof of stake that we can count on? At least it won’t destroy the planet.

If you like my work, please consider supporting my writing by subscribing to my Patreon account for as little as $5 a month — or more, if you are feeling generous!

Posted on by Amy Castor 1

News: ETC hacker returns some of the money, Constantinople will have to wait, and a new twist in the QuadrigaCX saga

Stealing money is not easy. So why go to all the effort if you’re not serious? Screen Shot 2019-01-20 at 12.41.31 AM.png

Earlier this month, Ethereum Classic fell victim to a 51% attack when someone got hold of the majority of the network’s computing power and used it to double spend coins, stealing $1 million in funds. Now the hacker has returned some of the money. 

Gate.io, which originally lost $271,000 worth of ETC said the hacker returned $100,000 worth. And YoBit reported it got back $61,000 of $65,000 worth of stolen ETC. 

“We still don’t know the reason [for the return],” Gate.io said in a blog post on January 10. “If the attacker didn’t run it for profit, he might be a white hacker who wanted to remind people the risks in blockchain consensus and hashing power security.”

If you are a crypto exchange, you’re probably not seeing the profits you did back in the crypto heydays of 2017 and early 2018. So how do you make up for that? One option is to start listing lots of questionable coins. Another is to set the stage for the long-hoped-for influx of institution money.

Along those lines, Bittrex announced an over-the-counter (OTC) desk on January 14. The service handles trades of $250,000 or greater for the nearly 200 coins already offered by the exchange. In doing so, Bittrex joins other U.S.-based exchanges in launching OTC trading desks, including Coinbase and Poloniex.

Ethereum’s Constantinople upgrade has been delayed yet again. Shortly before the scheduled January 17 release, smart contract audit firm ChainSecurity found vulnerabilities in one of five ethereum improvement proposals (EIP). ChainSecurity describes the vulnerability in detail here. Ethereum core developers are now weighing late February as a time to move ahead with the upgrade—sans the buggy EIP.

A new twist has emerged in the saga of QuadrigaCX, one of the largest crypto exchanges in Canada. The saga began in January 2018 when the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce froze about $22 million in US dollars in an account opened by Quadriga’s payment processor. The majority of the frozen funds were released in December, but customers still aren’t getting their money.

Now, after waiting more than a month to post the news, Quadriga says that its CEO and founder Gerald Cotten is dead. Usually, when the CEO of a company dies, that is something you want to tell people right away.   

The announcement (archive) on the company’s website appears to come from Cotten’s wife, Jennifer Robertson, who explains that Cotten went to India to build an orphanage for needy children. While there, he died of complications to Crohn’s disease.  

“Gerry cared deeply about honesty and transparency — values he lived by in both his professional and personal life. He was hardworking and passionate, with an unwavering commitment to his customers, employees, and family,” Robertson wrote. [Emphasis mine.]

Several of Quadriga’s customers went to Reddit asking for proof of Cotten’s death. Some wondered how Cotten found time to travel to India when his company was in the midst of major litigation. 

Binance, one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges by trading volume, has launched a  fiat-to-crypto exchange in Jersey. A tiny 5-by-9-mile island in the English Channel, Jersey is one of the world’s wealthiest offshore tax shelters.

In October, Binance also set up a fiat-to-crypto exchange in Uganda. And it is planning to set up more of these entities in countries like Singapore, Malta, South Korea, Liechtenstein, Argentina, Russia, Turkey, and Bermuda.

Tron’s accelerator developer contest is looking like a big scam. The event was supposed to offer $1 million in prizes, with the first prize being $200,000. After the competition ended on January 4, developers took to Twitter and Reddit to complain that something “fishy” was going on. Apparently, Tron changed the prize amounts, and the main prize went to some vague company nobody has ever heard of.  

Brave browser, the project run by JavaScript creator and former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, claims that is is no longer fundraising on behalf of others, after releasing version 0.58.21 of the browser. David Gerard wrote an update and posted some pics of the new interface. If you get a chance, tip Gerard some BAT via his YouTube channel, so he can continue to test out the platform.  

Also, Brave browser has started allowing developers and testers to view ads. You can’t earn BAT for viewing the ads yet, but all that is coming. Eventually, Brave says, “users will then be able to earn 70% of the revenue share coming from those ads.”

The business model has gotten a ton of criticism. Essentially, the browser strips all ads and add trackers — which is how most publishing sites make their money — and then substitutes its own Brave-approved ads.

There’s been some important developments in the Tezos class-action litigation. Next up, likely the court will rule on whether the Tezos initial coin offering—which raised a record-setting $232 million in mid-2017—was an unregistered securities offering.

A ransomware threat known as Ryuk has pulled in $3.7 million in bitcoin over five months.

The Winklevoss Twins still think Bitcoin will be worth more than gold, maybe in the hopes they will be billionaires again. “The only thing gold has over bitcoin is a 3,000 year head start,” Cameron told Fortune.  

Brock Pierce, who got into cryptocurrency in the early days, and his wife Crystal Rose Pierce are expecting a child in March. They are naming the baby Crypto Pierce.

About 5% of daily Bitcoin transactions involve tether (USDT), according to a Medium post by Omni, the platform that tether operates on.  

Despite competition from a slew of new stablecoins, tether still dominates the stablecoin market, according to the latest report from CryptoCompare.

In case you missed it, I published a complete Tether timeline. I’m continuing to to update the story based on whatever new info I stumble upon. So keep checking back—and if you have information to add, send me details!

 

Posted on by Amy Castor 0