For the third consecutive year, 65 central banks participated in the BIS survey. The representatives of these financial institutions consider it unlikely to issue CBDCs in the short to medium term.

In recent days, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Agustín Carstens, spoke about central banks. He said that only they can “stabilize the value of digital currencies and ensure the elasticity of the aggregate supply of said money.” He added that they are also in charge of “guaranteeing the supervision and security of the operation of the system.”

According to the BIS, this role “requires a solid and unequivocal legal framework to issue central bank digital currencies (CBDC).” However, the most recent survey by the agency revealed that 44% of central banks are in a situation of legal uncertainty. This situation limits their ability to issue and manage this type of currency.

The BIS published those results in the report “Ready, Steady, Go?”, in which they explore the development of digital currencies. They report that 26% of central banks do not yet have the legal authority to issue a CBDC. Besides, they explain that about 18% are adapting the current laws and just over 5% are changing their laws to issue these currencies.

Those results agree with a review that the International Monetary Fund recently made. They indicate that about 80% of the world’s central banks do not have laws that allow them to issue CBDCs. In other words, they would not be able to legally issue this type of assets without the approval of new legal regulation.

Interest from Central Banks in CBDC

The BIS report states that all this has occurred in a context in which 86% of the banks surveyed express their interest in the subject. They note that “the numerous in-depth evaluations of designs and policies related to these currencies demonstrate.”

The Bank for International Settlements applied the questionnaire to 65 central banks, representing 72% worldwide, late in 2020.

Sixty percent of the respondents indicate that they have not yet advanced in the development and preparation of a CBDC. The BIS concludes that it is unlikely that most central banks will be able to issue digital currencies in the short to medium term.

About 48% of central banks are still unsure whether they can issue a digital currency, according to the report. They say that many have not even sought clarification on their mandates in this regard.

Only Advanced Economies Will Issue a CBDC

According to the report, only some central banks in advanced economies are more likely to issue a CBDC in the next three years. In that sense, Carstens spoke about the Sand Dollar (of the Central Bank of The Bahamas) and the Digital Yuan (of the People’s Bank of China).

“There is a great need to issue digital currencies in the current financial context,” emphasized the BIS manager. He reiterated that the agency has been in favor of rushing central banks to issue digital money.

The Bank for International Settlements also asked the banks about the reasons why their interest in CBDCs grew. The latter mentioned in the survey that they need to join the acceleration process of digital payments that emerged due to COVID-19. Besides, they indicated that they seek to achieve greater financial inclusion.

By Alexander Salazar

The VBTC exchange also adhered to batch transactions in this latest update. The overall goal is to lower withdrawal costs for users.

VBTC, the first Bitcoin exchange of Vietnamese origin, opted to consolidate the Bitcoin Lightning Network (LN) and SegWit transactions grouped by batch for withdrawals of its funds. The adoption received praises from the Lightning Labs group, Elizabeth Stark, who believes that the exchange will help this payments network expand in Asia.

According to a series of tweets that appeared on the official VBTC account, users of the exchange will now withdraw bitcoin purchases through Lightning. The directive explained that this new network brings to their clients the ability to choose minimal transaction fees.

The increasing demand for bitcoins, especially in bullish periods, has also increased transaction fees recently. According to VBTC calculations, some clients pay 100,000 satoshis in commission to withdraw cryptocurrencies from the exchange due to this event. This payment would cost up to $ 30 to concrete a transaction. This price may vary due to bitcoin’s sudden changes in price (volatility).

The exchange’s directive assures that the current cost of a transaction would be around the 1,000 satoshis, an equivalent to 0.30 cents thanks to the Lightning payment network’s adoption. The main goal is that the commission does not surpass 0.2% of the transactions’ total value.

The Adoption of SegWit Signatures in its Nodes

Stark pointed out that exchanges can be the perfect tool to lower the fees that users pay with Bitcoin’s Lightning and take advantage of the benefits of instant transactions. Exchange houses such as Kraken has also chosen to incorporate LN into their menu of services.

Although the Lightning Network has been at the central focus of the Bitcoin ecosystem in recent years, it is still at an experimental phase. The adoption of the network has influenced the North American community in a very positive way.

More than 40% of its nodes accumulate. University-level studies concluded that a continent like Asia only has a little more than 6% of the network, even though this is a market where Bitcoin is very popular.

By: Jenson Nuñez

There is an expectation about the transition to Ethereum 2.0. There are probabilities of acquiring a greater capacity to process transactions. Trying to differentiate Ethereum 1.0 from version 2.0 would imply false sequentiality.

According to him, users should not talk about both networks as if they were different things because Ethereum 1.0 is going to merge with Ethereum 2.0, which means an extension of the blockchain. Ryan points out that these are enough reasons to see both phases of Ethereum as a single network.

In the text published on January 20, 2021, Ryan explains that the transition to a new Ethereum chain has been plan under development for a long time, which goals, among other things, is the capacity to process a more significant number of transactions per second.

This developer also reiterates how wrong it is even to try to differentiate Ethereum 1.0 and Ethereum 2.0. This perception would presume that version 1.0 will set itself apart even if it represents different layers of the same development.

Ryan mentions that the current developments of Ethereum 1.0 refer in the first stance to the operation and updating of the network user layer (status, transactions, and accounts), which is everything the end-user considers when interacting with this network.

Whereas, in Ethereum 2.0, these developments consist of updates that will lead to the transition from current proof of work (PoW) to proof of stake (PoS).

Ethereum 2.0 Focuses on Consensus and the Current Version on the User

Ryan delves into Ethereum 1.0 and Ethereum 2.0 and the most prominent features that differentiate them. It refers first of all to version 2.0’s software and protocol updates with which said blockchain works.

Fundamentally, Ethereum 2.0 is Ethereum’s consensus transition from proof of work to proof of stake and the addition of a chunky data layer that aims at greater scalability.

Ryan sustains that the updates here connect with the “user layer,” such as contracts and transactions. “If the consensus is the brain, the user layer is the body; almost all Ethereum enhancements since its inception have targeted the (relatively small) body, and brain of the proof of work has remained stable,” he added.

Enhancements for Ethereum at Work

The final merger between the two chains seems to be far from getting a completion. Meanwhile, the development of the current version of Ethereum is still at work.

One of these updates is EIP 1559, which aims to improve the user experience regarding commissions in Ethereum. In a few words, this proposal configures the base commission according to the demand of the network. The commissions will split into two parts; one will go to the miner while the other suffers a burn.

By: Jenson Nuñez

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has recently launched a cryptocurrency fund to fight cancer. That organization will accept payments in BTC, BCH, and ETH.

In recent days, the American Cancer Society (ACS) announced a new partnership with the non-profit company The Giving Block. This cryptocurrency donations company helped them launch a new “Crypto Cancer Fund” to help fight cancer.

This cancer research project will receive funding exclusively with cryptocurrencies. By the beginning of this year, they set a fundraising goal of USD 1 million.

The fund will go directly to the Cancer Research in Society program, supporting research for “new discoveries and better treatments.”

The first donor to contribute USD 250,000 or more in cryptocurrencies can choose a name for the fund. The news about the creation of a cryptocurrency fund to fight cancer has had a good reception.

When the largest donation occurs, the ACS will announce the change in the name of the fund to fight cancer. Among the cryptocurrencies that they will accept are Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Ethereum (ETH), Litecoin (LTC), Zcash (ZEC), Gemini Dollar (GUSD), Basic Attention Token (BAT), and Chainlink (Link).

According to a Survey, 31% of British People Are Curious About Cryptocurrencies

Cryptocurrency trading platform Ziglu surveyed 2,000 British people through OnePoll. That consultation on cryptocurrencies revealed that nearly a third of the British respondents are curious about investing in digital assets.

Despite the interest that 31% of the respondents showed, 62% of them remained on the sidelines. They say that they do not understand the market or do not know a safe way to buy crypto assets.

However, the lack of information does not prevent all potential investors from buying cryptocurrencies. Of the 14% of respondents who have already bought cryptocurrencies, 13% say that they had not had previous experience and 23% consider themselves novices.

The survey found that cryptocurrencies are most popular in London, where 30% of the respondents have already purchased them. The part of the UK with the least knowledge of cryptocurrency is Wales, where this figure fell to 9%. Cryptocurrencies have gained legitimacy in the UK, where a growing number of people would choose to invest at least GBP 100 in them. However, the most surprising thing is that 19% of the respondents would rather invest in real estate.

Bitmain Claims that CEO’s Departure Will Not Affect Sales of Bitcoin Mining Equipment

Bitmain announced that they will resume normal business operations following the departure of former CEO and President Jihan Wu from the company. The manufacturer of Bitcoin (BTC) mining equipment said that they had to stop sales. The internal power struggle at the Beijing-based hardware company was the reason for that.

The two Bitmain co-founders, Micree Zhan and Jihan Wu sought to remove each other from the leadership of the company. That led Zhan to temporarily prevent a subsidiary from shipping equipment to their customers. After buying USD 600 million in shares from Zhan and other shareholders, Jihan Wu amicably left the company. The team behind Bitmain’s flagship product, Antminer, told their customers to wait for a return to normality.

By Willmen Blanco

RobinHood, Interactive Brokers, and Ameritrade suspended the purchase of some shares. Discord also vetoed the server from the subreddit belonging to the WallStreetBets group.

Wall Street shows an unusual reaction to the recent events regarding the video game chain GameStop’s actions. Due to retail investors’ movements, the shocking rise in prices is now creating restrictions on what is supposed to be a free market.

The companies RobinHood, Interactive Brokers, and Ameritrade, which are intermediaries for the sale of shares between private users, announced that the acquisition of titles for GameStop, for example, suffered a suspension until further notice. Traders can only sell or hold their positions.

The same situation is happening with other companies such as the AMC cinema chain, Blackberry, Nokia, Bed Bath & Beyond, Express, Koss Corporation, and Naked Brand Group. The latter also got a suspension from the Robinhood application. The investment services allege that there is volatility, so these preventive actions aim to protect all their users.

“To reduce the risk for our company and our clients, we have established various restrictions on some transactions with $ GME, $ AMC, and other securities. We took these steps out of an excess of caution amid unprecedented market conditions and other factors, “Ameritrade said in a statement.

Adena Friedman, CEO of the Nasdaq market, also pointed particular suggestions about how the exchange could suspend its commercial activities, alleging these actions to fear getting “attacked” by Internet users. The executive advocates an investigation so that all investors can “recalibrate.”

The primary regulator of securities in Massachusetts, William Galvin, also argued that the GameStop shares should be withdrawn from the market for 30 days since what happened has no “rational basis.” And he added: “This will probably hurt these small and unsophisticated investors.”

Blockades to Reverse the Situation and Do Damage Control

A big group of Reddit users brought Wall Street to its knees using Wall Street’s own rules and procedures, something that has escalated quickly once the pronouncements and actions from different companies appeared. The intention would be to reverse the situation and do damage control among institutional investors.

Another reactive behavior came from the chat service for video game players, Discord. The platform vetoed the server that supports the r / WallStreetBets subreddit. However, the company alleges that its decision does not relate to any of these recent events.

On January 28, an opinion article expressed that The Financial Times called on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to intervene and set a concrete definition to the borderlines between a legitimate discussion online and the prospects of a share of the abuse of the market.

The Financial Times text suffered later some modifications due to some delicate political themes regarding extremist political positions from some United States users.

By: Jenson Nuñez