Litecoin Halving Came to Life this Wednesday, Now What?

Audy Castañeda
-
0
Litecoin Halving Came to Life this Wednesday, Now What?

The expected third halving of the Litecoin network took place this Wednesday, marking the beginning of a new phase of rewards for miners.

Anticipation of the halving has come to an end for the community of investors and miners of the Litecoin network since it was activated today at noon (Argentina time). Precisely at that moment, the expected automatic reduction of the rewards for the processing of block transactions took place.

This is the third cut of this type in the Litecoin Blockchain, which is one of the oldest and most secure. It is worth mentioning that this chain has been working uninterruptedly since 2011, the year it was split from Bitcoin.

The 50% cut in rewards occurred at the height of block 2,520,000. The first cut in this network occurred in 2015 at block 840,000 and the second was in 2019 at block 1,680,000. With the current cut, the block rewards for miners dropped from 12.5 to 6.25 LTC. What’s next for the community?

Halving Impact on Litecoin Price

As we have already pointed out in previous works, the halving in Litecoin, or in any other PoW currency, is considered an event with bullish characteristics. However, it should not be confused with an instant price increase, but rather a gradual one.

To the extent that the community adapts to the new reality of scarcity in the issuance of new coins, the price goes up. The latter does not mean that in the short term, there cannot be a strong boost in the price of the digital currency. However, the nature of this possible increase would be merely speculative.

The last scenario is of high risk since a situation of rapid collection by the whales could arise. Just before the halving took effect, the price of the cryptocurrency was already beginning to experience slight upward movements, which could intensify.

The historical trend of the Litecoin price after the halving is to regress in the short term. As shown in the image below, during the first and second halving there was a negative reaction from investors.

In any case, these types of events have their real results in the long term, and that is when they accumulate. The succession of several halvings causes a notable scarcity of the asset.

Some Network Data to Start this New Stage

Now that the halving has come to life and inaugurated a new stage of more scarce supply for Litecoin, it is worth reviewing some interesting data. The Blockchain entered this new post-third halving phase with a total circulation of approximately 73,500,000 coins out of a supply ceiling of 84 million. This means that so far 87.5% of all LTCs have been mined and 10.5 million remain to be mined.

Every four years (840,000 blocks) new 50% reward cuts will occur, suggesting that there will be a hash war to mine the remaining 10.5 million.

As for the market capitalization, it is counted at $6.77 billion dollars. This leaves Litecoin at number 11 in the CoinMarketCap ranking.

This network processes approximately 572 blocks per day, which means that the daily supply will now be 3,575 LTC for the miners. Until today, they extracted a total of 7,150 coins daily. If the pre-halving price of Litecoin holds, then daily miner rewards expressed in US dollars will take a significant plunge. These will drop from $657,000 to $328,900.

By Audy Castaneda

Brazil Court Orders Binance to Return BTC to Sao Paulo User Wallet

Audy Castañeda
-
0
Brazil Court Orders Binance to Return BTC to Sao Paulo User Wallet

São Paulo forced Binance and B Fintech to return just over $1,000 to an affected user in January last year. Binance ignored the calls of local judges until the city court forced it to restore the damage to Irapuan Paulino Leite. For Brazil, Binance is responsible for having “hosted” the affected party’s assets, in addition to being the owner of the user’s data.

The 9th Civil Court of the Regional Forum of Santo Amaro de São Paulo, Brazil, sued the world’s largest exchange, Binance, and its local partner, B Fintech, to refund the “stolen” BTC to a client, immediately. The person affected is called Irapuan Paulino Leite.

Brazil asked Binance to refund the BTC to a user who was stolen in January last year with a fraud. Last year, local judges invited Binance and B Fintech to pay back the damage, but with no response, a court in São Paulo went back on grounds and forced the exchange to return the funds.

Brazilian Court Accuses Binance of Encouraging the Case and Postponing the Return

The companies had to return $1,000, or 0.03265900 BTC. However, Binance alleged “illegitimacy” and invalidity of the subpoena. He even stated that B Fintech is not a subsidiary of the exchange in Brazil or a legal representative, to which the judges replied that it is “notorious” that Binance promotes its operations in the country through FinTech.

Binance previously alleged that the fraud was perpetrated on the affected party’s computer and that “it could not be held responsible” for the lack of caution of Irapuan Paulino Leite. The exchange argued that the assumptions of civil liability “are not met”, and initially challenged the moral damage claimed. The court responded to Binance as follows:

“Binance and B Fintech belong to the same economic group. It is a notorious fact that the first defendant carries out its operations in Brazil for the middle of the second row. Therefore, it becomes a legitimate party to integrate the legal-procedural relationship, based on the fact of the service, once constituted for the development of its business activities in the country.”

For Brazil, Binance is responsible for having “hosted” the affected party’s assets, it is the owner of the user’s data, which would have been tracked. In addition, the judge required a certain degree of “sensitivity” and abandoned traditional positions to understand the case. In addition to the above, the exchange would have refused to provide the necessary documents to support its defense.

For Brazil, Binance “the defendants are responsible for the damages caused to consumers in the provision of their services.” The author would also have requested compensation for non-material damage and the magistrate understood that non-compliance constitutes only a “daily nuisance”.

Lawsuits Against Binance Become Commonplace

Binance has experienced all kinds of accusations in recent months, from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for “inflating” its trading figures, to being accused of listing securities. Recently, the Department of Justice announced that it has assessed sanctions against Binance for fraud, including fines and deferred or non-prosecution agreements.

The Department of Justice fears creating a scandal with the accusations or massive transfers by its users and creating chaos similar to what happened with FTX. The dilemma persists that cryptocurrency companies take advantage of “grey areas” that allow them to provide the minimum protection to users.

By Audy Castaneda

Former Mt. Gox CEO Breaks Silence, Delivers Important Message to Creditors

Audy Castañeda
-
0
Former Mt. Gox CEO Breaks Silence, Delivers Important Message to Creditors

Former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles led the ongoing debate surrounding the leadership of 1Feex and its connection to the Mt. Gox hack.

Founded in 2010, Mt. Gox was once the world’s largest Bitcoin exchange, estimated to have facilitated around 70% of all BTC transactions before its implosion.

The defunct exchange lost 4% of all Bitcoin issued in a security incident in 2014, which resulted in the theft of more than 850,000 Bitcoin (BTC), worth approximately $450 million. The event made Mt. Gox one of the biggest cryptocurrency bankruptcies of all time, and its creditors have yet to be repaid nine years later.

The amount of Bitcoin to be paid to Mt. Gox creditors is comparable to the Bitcoin holdings of business intelligence firm MicroStrategy, which owns at least 152,333 BTC ($4.52 billion).

Since then, the search for the stolen Bitcoin has continued. In 2019, a group of creditors filed a petition for civil rehabilitation to recover the lost funds. The trustee in charge of the Mt. Gox estate, Nobuaki Kobayashi, has been selling the remaining assets of the exchange to pay off creditors.

Recently, Australian entrepreneur and self-proclaimed Bitcoin creator Craig Wright claimed ownership of the 1Feex address, which has been linked to the Mt. Gox hack. Wright’s claims have raised questions ever since the 1Feex address received a significant amount of Bitcoin in 2013, around the same time as the Mt. Gox hack.

The Mt. Gox Scandal Takes a New Twist

The controversy deepened further when former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles addressed the ongoing debate surrounding the leadership of 1Feex and its connection to the Mt. Gox hack.

Wright had claimed ownership of the 1Feex address, stating that the funds received were acquired through legitimate means.

However, Karpeles issued a statement certifying that the 79,956.55 Bitcoin sent to the 1Feex address on March 1, 2011, was transferred without proper authorization from the exchange’s original Bitcoin wallet and is considered stolen property belonging to Mt Gox estate for the benefit of Mt. Gox creditors.

Karpeles’ statement raises serious questions about the legitimacy of Wright’s property claims and the possibility that he received stolen funds, or was even an active participant in the Mt. Gox hack.

Destination of Stolen Funds Remains Unclear

The scandal surrounding the defunct cryptocurrency exchange has been at the forefront of the cryptocurrency industry for years, and this recent controversy only adds to the intrigue. As the legal battle continues, the fate of the stolen funds and the future of Mt. Gox’s creditors remain uncertain.

There are some potential outcomes for Mt. Gox creditors:

Full Refund: The best-case scenario for creditors would be to receive a full refund of their lost funds. However, this outcome seems unlikely, as the number of Bitcoins stolen far exceeded the number of assets recovered.

Partial Refund: Another possible result is that creditors will receive a partial refund of the lost funds. This could happen if the trustee is able to recover more assets or if the remaining assets are worth more than expected.

No Refund: The worst-case scenario for creditors would be no refund at all. This could happen if the remaining assets are not worth enough to cover creditors’ claims or if legal battles drag on for years without resolution.

By Audy Castaneda

Argentina and the European Union Debate on AI Regulation

Marina Meza
-
0
Argentina and the European Union Debate on AI Regulation

The EU and Argentina discussed personal data and Artificial Intelligence and the protection of personal information. European and Argentine officials agreed that AI is a “productive revolution” that requires structural changes. For the Andean Development Corporation, AI can be useful in Argentina in politics, in diagnoses, making predictions, and improving the provision of services to citizens.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina started a meeting with the European Union called “Trends and Challenges of International Cooperation in Personal Data Protection and AI”. In that forum, officials discussed privacy in the digital age.

European and Argentine officials agreed that AI is a “productive revolution” that requires changes to face specific challenges. They even created the panel on AI “Challenges in the Protection of Personal Data and AI”, where academics, businessmen, and civil society exchanged points of view.

Argentina and the EU Admit that AI is Behind a “Productive Revolution”

Argentina is one of the countries in the region that is creating a national AI strategy. In May, the Ministry of Science announced that it was negotiating a loan with the Inter-American Development Bank to strengthen the Argentine scientific and university system, linked to data science and AI.

In his meeting with European authorities, the Argentine Foreign Minister, Santiago Cafiero, pointed out the following:

“The productive matrix is ​​changing, there is a new revolution from the productive point of view and it is intertwined with the new technological developments and in this specific case the challenges regarding Artificial Intelligence. The challenges on AI, on this new productive revolution, have to be built as the change is taking place.”

For the Andean Development Corporation, AI can be useful for Argentina in politics, in diagnoses, making predictions, and improving the provision of services to citizens with personalized attention. On the risks, Cafiero suggested that the public sector should explain what it bases on to make decisions based on AI solutions, claiming “That is why we must work on having ethical frameworks for the development of artificial intelligence solutions from the public sector.”

Microsoft recently revealed that six out of ten Argentines would delegate as much work as possible to AI to reduce their workload. Additionally, three out of four workers felt they would “feel comfortable” using AI for more than just administrative tasks.

Yesterday, Cafiero tweeted that “With @RossiAgustinOk we shared a meeting between Argentina and the European Union on Trends and Challenges of International Cooperation in Personal Data Protection and Artificial Intelligence.”

Argentina Accelerates Adoption of AI as a Labor Tool

The adoption of AI in Argentina is such that Argentines consider using this technology for analytical and creative work. In both cases, 82 and 74%, respectively. Finally, executives from Argentina and the EU agreed that AI requires a geostrategic articulation:

“AI requires a different, global vision; This is challenging for the time to come because the norms of the countries, of the nation states, have to do with cultural, value, and traditional issues of each one of them. We are advancing in a different, global dimension, where we have to have enough creativity and respect to contemplate each of these diversities.”

In June, it was reported that the IDB lent 35 million dollars to Argentina for the development of sectors related to the field of AI. The “Support Program for Exports of the Knowledge Economy” aims to promote the development of the sector and subsequent international insertion.

By Marina Meza

Terraform Labs Denies Motion Seeking Dismissal of SEC Fraud Allegations

Audy Castañeda
-
0
Terraform Labs Denies Motion Seeking Dismissal of SEC Fraud Allegations

The SEC accused Terraform Labs of selling cryptocurrencies without registering them as securities and deceptively promoting their utility.

In a high-stakes decision for the cryptocurrency industry, United States District Judge Jed Rakoff on Monday denied Terraform Labs’ motion to dismiss the securities fraud lawsuit filed against it by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The decision allows the SEC’s case against Terraform Labs and its founder Do Kwon to move forward, rejecting defense arguments that the agency lacked jurisdiction and that Terraform’s TerraUSD stablecoin did not qualify as an unregistered security.

The implications of this ruling are significant for both Terraform and the broader ecosystem. Terraform Labs and its founder, Do Kwon, are facing a major setback in the wake of Judge Rakoff’s decision.

SEC Accusations Against Terraform and Its Ramifications

The SEC alleges that Terraform and Do Kwon were involved in fraudulent activity related to the sale of two digital assets. According to the SEC, these were sold to the public as investment contracts without registering them as securities, in violation of applicable federal law.

The SEC complaint alleges that Terraform and Kwon engaged in fraudulent practices by misleading investors about the stability of TerraUSD (UST) and making false promises about the potential appreciation of the firm’s crypto tokens.

According to the SEC, Terraform and Kwon misled investors by claiming that UST, the algorithmic stablecoin, would remain pegged to the US dollar at a 1:1 ratio and that the firm’s crypto token, including LUNA, would increase in value with time.

However, the SEC maintains that these commitments were not met, as UST finally fell below its parity to the US dollar in May 2022, which resulted in considerable losses for investors who had relied on Terraform and its founder’s promises.

Implications of the Judge’s Decision

Judge Rakoff’s ruling allowing the SEC to proceed with these claims indicates that the court finds sufficient evidence or merit in the regulator’s complaint to warrant further examination and legal action.

The ruling clears the way for the case to proceed, giving the regulator an opportunity to present its evidence and arguments against Terraform and Kwon in court.

The implications of this judgment are significant for both Terraform and the broader ecosystem. If the SEC successfully settles its charges in court, it could have far-reaching implications for how algorithmic stablecoins are produced, sold, and regulated in the future.

The verdict can potentially influence investor confidence in the cryptocurrency sector, encouraging additional scrutiny and due diligence by investors before undertaking similar initiatives.

Current Debate on Digital Asset Values

Meanwhile, the recent court ruling involving Ripple Labs Inc. and the sale of its associated token, XRP, has sparked a debate between Judge Rakoff and Judge Analisa Torres.

In the Ripple Labs case, Judge Torres ruled that XRP sales on public crypto exchanges do not constitute securities. However, in the case involving Terraform and its algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD (UST), Judge Rakoff took a different perspective.

He disagreed with the notion that the identity of the seller, in this case, Terraform, should be a determining factor in deciding whether a reasonable investor would interpret statements made by the company or its representatives as promises of earnings.

According to Rakoff, the focus should be on the content of the statements and the expectations they create among investors, rather than the technical classification of crypto.

The lawsuit now moves to the discovery phase unless it is dismissed on appeal, or a settlement is reached. The SEC seeks restitution of ill-gotten investor funds, in addition to imposing civil penalties.

By Audy Castaneda

Uruguay: Parliament Will Discuss AI Regulation in September

Audy Castañeda
-
0
Uruguay: Parliament Will Discuss AI Regulation in September

The discussion will be part of the world summit of Commissions for the future of 2023. The meeting will take place between September 25 and 27. The event will bring together parliamentarians representing at least three continents.

The Uruguayan legislature will debate artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on democracies. The discussion will be part of the 2023 Future Commissions World Summit, which will take place between September 25 and 27.

The meeting will bring together parliamentarians representing at least three continents. There they will be able to meet members of the world’s leading technology companies. The debate is also intended to be promoted at the local level, to put Uruguay at the forefront of a regulation on AI, introducing an article in the next Accountability.

Details of the Treatment of AI that Uruguay Seeks to Raise

The deputy of the National Party (PN) Rodrigo Goñi, is promoting the political debate. The representative explained to the Argentine media Ámbito the urgency of the discussion:

“There is no more urgent and important issue to address than a phenomenon that is undoubtedly not only the main engine of the economy, but we could say the engine of society. All economic activities are using and developing artificial intelligence systems to compete in productivity with the rest of the activities of the companies”.

When mentioning the risks associated with the implementation of AI, Goñi highlighted the so-called deepfakes. Regarding how the approach is proposed, the deputy maintained that there are two great models. One from Europe approved a regulation in the first instance, although it remains to finally have final approval. The United States is presented as the other mold of regulations.

Goñi detailed how he imagines it could be carried out in Uruguay:

“In these hours the Accountability is going to be approving a norm that, in some way, establishes a term for a national artificial intelligence strategy that protects these main rights. We have decided first to address the issue together with companies and experts, but also our great bet is that we can do it in a coordinated manner, not only among the American countries but also even globally.”

The consensus and multiplicity of views on the subject is what the Uruguayan call is pursuing. There are more than 100 confirmed parliamentarians to carry out an analysis and discuss the European model that is based on a risk model.

After the debate, a general framework article will be voted on that will seek to protect the privacy and all the rights that have to do with the protection of privacy and the transparency of the activity. The initiative seeks to preserve the rights that have to do with the protection of personal data.

What the Articles on IA Mention in the Accountability

Article 65 of the Accountability will be debated in the coming days in Parliament. The Information and Knowledge Society (AGESIC) should establish working groups, advisory committees and other participation mechanisms.

The AGESIC must gather opinions from the different actors involved in dealing with the issue. This task will have to be developed before the final elaboration of the strategy indicated in the first paragraph.

“Once the foregoing has been fulfilled, it must be sent to the consideration of the National Parliament for final approval, within a period not exceeding twenty-four months from the approval of this law.”

By Audy Castaneda

1...444445446...1,654Page 445 of 1,654