Ordinals and BRC-20 Featured a Heated Debate at Bitcoin 2023

Marina Meza
-
0
<strong>Ordinals and BRC-20 Featured a Heated Debate at Bitcoin 2023</strong>

Four specialists contrasted their views on Ordinals and BRC-20, phenomena that caused congestion in Bitcoin and divide its community.

As it could not be otherwise, the trending topics in the Bitcoin environment took place at the Bitcoin Conference 2023, an event that is taking place in Miami, Florida. A heated exchange of ideas centered on the Ordinals protocol and Bitcoin’s BRC-20 tokens on the main stage.

The panel was called The Great Ordinal Debate and featured Eric Wall and Udi Wertheimer, both founders of Taproot Wizards, an organization that promotes non-fungible tokens (NFT) Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens. Joining them were Shinobi Monkey, freelance writer and researcher, and Matt Corallo, developer of Spiral.

The dialogue began in earnest, with Shinobi Monkey saying that “in a way, Ordinals is an attack on Bitcoin” and commanding Taproot Wizards members to “behave like adults,” after they entered the stage dancing. “We broke Bitcoin,” was the response from the other side.

“All these things of proving ownership of something with NFT can be done much more efficiently with protocols like Counterparty,” Shinobi said, “but they are creating a protocol that is much less efficient intentionally,” he asserted.

Eric Wall took the floor and accused the anonymous speaker of being “a Karen of blockchain,” referring to the pejorative term “Karen” used to describe authoritarian people who tell others what to do. He also pointed out that protocols such as Counterparty are not as efficient, as they “resort to web 2 links to store files, many of which are down.”

For his part, Matt Corallo asserted that “Bitcoin is not there to prevent you from randomly throwing garbage onto the blockchain,” but noted that BRC-20 tokens have a “stupidly inefficient” way of doing what they are intended to do, unlike the Ordinals protocol. Shinobi seconded, adding that “BRC-20 is replicating Counterparty but three times more efficient for no reason.”

Wertheimer, known for his “improper” tweets in favor of the new tokens being generated in Bitcoin, sarcastically and facetiously thanked “all the laser eyes for saving our jpg’s on their nodes.”

Speaking a bit more seriously, he detailed two ways to approach token creation in Bitcoin: with an efficient protocol, “like Taproot Assets from Lightning Labs,” or use “something that works today” for users who want BRC-20s right now.

Bitcoin Rules, the Core of the Matter

Wall interjected that Segwit and Taproot allowed Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens to existing, “and all of you in this room supported” those protocol updates in 2017 and 2021, respectively. Shinobi Monkey replied that Segwit allowed the Lightning network to exist and that Taproot optimizes the use of multisig (multifirms) in Bitcoin “to lay the foundation for privacy in Lightning.”

On the other hand, Wall said, the information Ordinals stores in Bitcoin exists in the Witness segment, “which is the most leakable information” that is stored on the network. “If the blockchain is full of wizard images, it will be even easier to run a node. Otherwise, what are the protocol rules for?” he questioned.

By Marina Meza

Metaverse Scam Revealed: Las Vegas Resident Charged with $45 Million Fraud Scheme

Audy Castañeda
-
0
<strong>Metaverse Scam Revealed: Las Vegas Resident Charged with $45 Million Fraud Scheme</strong>

The intricate fraud, known as the CoinDeal scam, allegedly deceived more than 10,000 investors by luring them with promises of astronomical returns totaling $1 trillion.

Authorities today indicted a Las Vegas man on charges related to the CoinDeal crypto fraud scheme. The US Department of Justice alleged Friday that Bryan Lee, 57, worked with others to defraud more than 10,000 investors of $45 million.

Researchers say CoinDeal was a Blockchain investment scheme involving a new cryptocurrency and the metaverse. He promised investors “extremely high” returns, according to the Justice Department, because wealthy investors were willing to get involved.

The Deceptive CoinDeal Scheme

The indictment against Bryan Lee sheds light on his collaboration with three other individuals to orchestrate the CoinDeal investment fraud. Under the guise of developing virtual reality products within a legitimate family of companies, Lee and his cohorts lured investors with the prospect that their crypto token was tied to a fictional metaverse project.

They further amplified their scheme by falsely claiming they were associated with prominent billionaires, possibly alluding to the likes of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, renowned pioneers in the tech industry.

As part of the ruse, Lee and his henchmen, Neil Chandran and Michael Glaspie, emphasized the existence of a potential consortium of wealthy buyers interested in acquiring his Metaverse company. Such farce allowed them to raise substantial sums from unsuspecting investors under the guise of financing operating expenses until the lucrative sale materialized.

However, the reality behind the scenes painted a completely different picture. Prosecutors reveal the alleged scammers indulged in lavish personal spending, splurging on luxury cars and real estate, instead of pursuing the promised metaverse development.

The charges against Lee are the following: one count of conspiracy, two counts of mail fraud, one count of wire fraud, and three counts of involvement in money transactions on property derived from criminal activity.

Lee will appear in federal court today and faces up to 20 years in prison for each count of wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy, and up to 10 years in prison for each count of involvement in illegal money transactions, the Justice Department added. . —a total of 100 years behind bars.

Unraveling the Scam and Legal Proceedings

Although Lee’s name was not listed in the initial Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) complaint filed in January, he now faces indictment along with his accomplices. The indictment highlights Lee’s collaboration with Neil Chandran, the individual claiming ownership of the conglomerate orchestrating the fraudulent scheme.

The indictment also mentions Michael Glaspie, a Florida resident who was instrumental in raising funds from investors. Authorities have also charged an anonymous co-conspirator, “Individual-1,” who allegedly collected and laundered money for Chandran, possibly matching the description of Garry Davidson, a Nevada man named in the SEC complaint.

The charges against Lee, Chandran, Glaspie, and others involved in the CoinDeal investment scheme revolve around the unregistered offering and selling of securities. The SEC’s complaint further exposes Chandran’s record as a “repeat securities law violator and convicted felon,” noting that the fraud primarily targeted “less sophisticated investors.”

Despite the recent news, the crypto market has maintained its composure. In the last 24 hours, the global crypto market has seen a gain of almost 1%, with its value sitting firmly above $1 trillion.

By Audy Castaneda

Binance Loses its Banking Partner

Marina Meza
-
0
Binance Loses its Banking Partner

Due to reduced payment options, Binance loses its banking partner, as it has recently experienced a restriction on access to Australian dollar transfers through its PayID payment gateway due to reduced payment options by banks. As a result, Binance loses its banking partner. Australian users cannot transfer fiat money to Binance or withdraw funds from their bank accounts using PayID.

Even so, it is significant to note that customers still have the ability to buy and sell cryptocurrencies using credit and debit cards. Nor do they withdraw Australian dollars on short notice.

Cryptocurrency traders operating on Binance are facing challenging decisions amid increasingly stringent global scrutiny of companies in the sector. Recently, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) revoked Binance Australia’s derivatives license. This means that the exchange can no longer offer financial derivatives products to wholesale traders.

This regulatory body conducted a thorough investigation into how Binance distinguished between retail and wholesale customers. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) accused Binance of helping its U.S. customers illegally access its derivatives trading platform.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Limitations for Binance Traders

These developments are creating a climate of uncertainty for traders using Binance. They are affected by regulatory consequences and restrictions imposed by supervisory agencies.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) requires all derivatives exchanges to register under the Commodity Exchange Act. This agency is responsible for regulating Bitcoin and Ethereum futures contracts in the United States, ensuring a safe and transparent environment for investors.

On a broader stage, Binance has experienced a significant decline in its global market share, losing 18% to Asian exchanges since it stopped offering fee-free spot trading promotions in March. According to data from CCData, its global share of spot trading volume fell to 46.3% in April.

These trends can be attributed in part to global regulatory efforts to combat money laundering and ensure the integrity of the financial sector. Companies, including Binance, are facing headwinds. As regulators step up their measures and establish stricter requirements regarding transparency and security in cryptocurrency transactions.

Westpac’s Protection Measures and the Emergence of Revolut as an Alternative

Westpac Banking Corp, one of Australia’s leading banks, has begun implementing protection measures for its customers on cryptocurrency payments. The bank warns about the growing risk of hacker scams through offshore exchanges.

The bank highlights the difficulty customers face when they realize they have been scammed. Since their money has crossed borders, which complicates its recovery. Although there was no mention of whether Binance has been specifically banned, other companies have managed to maintain their banking access.

On the other hand, Revolut, a London-based company, has launched new accounts focused on payments for Australian traders. In addition to allowing Australian customers to buy and sell cryptocurrencies, Revolut is seeking to obtain a banking license to strengthen confidence in its brand.

This license would require, among other requirements, the implementation of a robust risk management system for both local and international transactions. Obtaining this banking license could give greater credibility to the crypto services offered by Revolut.

By Marina Meza

Assessment of Avalanche Performance in Different Verticals in April

Audy Castañeda
-
0
<strong>Assessment of Avalanche Performance in Different Verticals in April</strong>

In April, Avalanche’s monthly active addresses were up 86%; furthermore, there was a 35% drop in monthly decentralized exchange (DEX) volume.

In April, the Avalanche [AVAX] ecosystem released a status report that included significant updates on network performance and platform upgrades. One of the major conclusions was the exponential growth of active addresses.

On May 17, Avalanche announced the release of said report via Twitter, as follows:

“April saw tremendous growth in activity on Avalanche, including total gas burned, NFT mints and monthly active addresses, anchored by the launch of Avaissance, Evergreen Subnets, and more! Dive into the April edition of the Avalanche Watch data report.”

Monthly active addresses across all subnets hit nearly 780,000 in April, recording a massive 86% increase from the previous month. While most of the active addresses originated from C-Chain, the smart contract layer of the network, there were also appreciable increases in active addresses coming from new subnets such as Wraptag Subnet and XPLUS Subnet.

As a result of strong demand from the network, gas fees rose to levels last seen in May 2022, the phase just before the start of the 2022 bear market. This underscored the substantial recovery of on-chain activity on the layer-1 Blockchain last month.

Avalanche Staggers on Other Fronts

While the network’s performance was impressive, Avalanche’s decentralized finance (DeFi) activity tanked in April. Additional data from DeFiLlama revealed a 35% drop in monthly decentralized exchange (DEX) volume in said period.

When it comes to the total value locked (TVL) in the network, a sharp drop was observed on April 24. However, the losses were reversed, and TVL quickly resumed its previous course.

The report also outlines the state of Avalanche’s GameFi ecosystem. DeFi Kingdoms surpassed other gaming dApps to register the most active addresses, while other GameFi projects failed to register noticeable growth.

Avalanche’s performance in the non-fungible token (NFT) landscape was mixed. While the number of new NFT mints skyrocketed, the total sales volume decreased by more than 18%.

The jump in the number of NFT mints was mainly due to NFT POAPs (Proof of Attendance Protocol) which are usually sent out as rewards to people who have attended a certain event. While these do not contribute significantly to overall sales, their development provides NFTs with a new application case.

Avalanche recently announced the launch of a new NFT marketplace, Peek NFT, whose focus is hosting NFTs that have demonstrable utility. According to the Avalaunch weblog, Peek NFT “encapsulates a state-of-the-art NFT marketplace, with (…) a clear emphasis on attributes and less on speculation”.

The NFTs hosted by Peek NFT are “not just collectibles, but specifically designed to add value to both users and the protocol itself.” Said non-fungible assets are supposed to “evolve from digital arts to financial instruments and ultimately, RWAs.”

Can AVAX Recover?

AVAX recently changed hands at $15.03, having absorbed gains of 1.21% in the last 24 hours.

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) continued to move below the neutral 50 level, implying sustained selling pressure. The moving average convergence divergence (MACD) remained in negative territory, reinforcing bearish sentiment.

During the price’s sideways swing, though, the on-balance volume (OBV) increased, suggesting an imminent bullish move.

By Audy Castaneda

Ethics in AI: Anthropic’s Claude vs. ChatGPT

Audy Castañeda
-
0
<strong>Ethics in AI: Anthropic’s Claude vs. ChatGPT</strong>

The ethical issues raised by the widespread adoption of AI are the subject of global debate. Can an AI chatbot be trusted to behave ethically, and in accordance with the best interests of human users? Researchers have developed a constitution for the cognitive processes of one such chatbot.

As the age of AI progresses, the ethical stakes are high. Anthropic, a startup run by former OpenAI researchers, acknowledges this. In this sense, the company has worked on an ethical “constitution” for their chatbot, Claude, in order to guarantee responsible navigation in the digital world. This bold move combines several principles, addressing the transformative power of AI and the potential risks.

It is interesting to investigate this intriguing “constitution” and its implications for AI. It is also useful to compare Claude, from Anthropic to ChatGPT, from Open AI.

Claude’s Constitution: An Ethical Framework for AI

Borrowing from assorted sources such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as Apple’s app development regulations, Claude’s “constitution” is a testament to the creative melding of ethics and technology.

This constitution is not ornamental, it is instrumental. It is the foundation of Claude’s cognitive processes, informing its decision-making processes, and setting boundaries for interactions.

A possible scenario might consist of a computer program reading the Geneva Conventions before deciding to delete a file; this is the kind of ethical due diligence Claude is designed to do.

Another hypothetical situation could find Claude faced with the dilemma of user privacy versus providing a personalized service; in such case, Claude will be guided by the constitution to prioritize user confidentiality, building on the UN’s emphasis on the right to privacy.

It is worth noting that Anthropic’s approach breaks with the traditional paradigm of strict rules, as Claude will not be programmed to simply follow an exhaustive list of do’s and don’ts. Instead, Claude is expected to use reinforcement learning by following embedded ethical principles.

Anthropic aims to apply a pedagogical principle according to which Claude is given an explanation in case of errors and is guided toward more acceptable responses or behaviors. Thus, over time, Claude learns to align its behavior with its ethical makeup.

ChatGPT vs. Claude: A Comparative Study

OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude represent two cutting-edge forays into AI-powered conversation.

Powered by OpenAI’s GPT-3, ChatGPT has no inherent understanding or beliefs but mimics understanding by predicting the next word in a sentence based on context.

Anthropic Claude, on the other hand, not only focuses on generating coherent responses but also adheres to an ethical constitution. Its operation mode leans towards reinforcement learning rather than purely prediction-based responses.

Both ChatGPT and Claude aim for sophisticated and human conversation. They are impressive demonstrations of the potential of AI in understanding and generating languages. Both take advantage of large amounts of training data and powerful algorithms.

The key difference lies in their approach to ethical considerations. ChatGPT, while very advanced, does not have a specific ethical framework to guide its responses. Meanwhile, Claude has a constitution that shapes his interactions, potentially offering a more responsible AI.

While ChatGPT and Claude share a common goal of improving AI conversation, they represent divergent strategies. Their contrasts illuminate fascinating aspects of AI development and the ongoing search for ethical AI.

Clearly, the path to ethical AI involves not only tech giants and startups but also policymakers, ethicists as well as everyday users.

By Audy Castaneda

Ripple Acquires Metaco, the Swiss Crypto Custody Services Startup

Audy Castañeda
-
0
<strong>Ripple Acquires Metaco, the Swiss Crypto Custody Services Startup</strong>

Just months after a court ruling, Ripple acquires Metaco, a cryptocurrency custody company based in Switzerland, for $250 million in cash and Ripple equity.

Amid shaky regulatory pressure from the SEC, Ripple considers its location change. Ripple acquires Metaco, as regulatory pressures mount and its legal dispute with the SEC draws to a close.

The acquisition will expand Ripple’s potential customer base and continues to strengthen the company’s positions outside of the United States. After the recent period of crisis and banking instability, regulators seem less friendly to the environment. There is a marked difference between the United States and Europe, as the latter has advanced in the approval of MiCA, the regulatory framework for digital assets.

Ripple Acquires Metaco Amid US Regulatory Unrest

The SEC’s legal process against Ripple is coming to an end and could, with the sentence, decide the future of the cryptographic industry in the United States. Metaco is a Swiss crypto-custody firm, and its acquisition strengthens Ripple’s position.

Said news comes at the right time, as Metaco is one of the most important acquisitions in the sector in the last year, an event commented by Ripple CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, during a call for the international news channel CNBC.

Initially, the company’s investment was $250 million from its own balance sheet for the acquisition of Metaco, according to Garlinghouse. Regarding the acquisition, Ripple CEO stated that “at a time when others are closing their doors or facing layoffs, I think it’s a really important sign for the industry, it’s also a sign that Ripple is in a strong position – we’re going to play offense.”

This seems to be the appropriate moment for those who, during a booming market and large dividends, kept prudence, the same strategy followed by Ripple, as well as by Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao. This clear show of force ensures that it is still possible to do business in the industry in the face of the pressures in all markets today.

Ripple’s expansion in Switzerland seems plausible. In fact, it would not be the only firm that would consider leaving the United States after the strong regulatory line was established. Following the acquisition, Metaco will continue to operate autonomously and Adrien Treccani will continue in his role as CEO. In a recent statement, Treccani commented that the agreement “will allow Metaco to leverage Ripple’s scale and market strength to achieve the goals and deliver value to customers at a faster pace.”

The Clear Swiss Acquisition Opportunity

The agreement conveniently sealed months after the decision by the jury of the SEC lawsuit against Ripple, sheds light on the company’s movements. Garlinghouse repeatedly explained that a ruling against Ripple would set a very clear precedent for the entire industry in the United States.

According to Garlinghouse, Ripple acquires Metaco for being “a good fit in terms of strategic opportunity.” This will allow the company to have more presence in segments such as banking, and provision of payments, a strategy that combines with Ripple’s mission.

After what happened with FTX, the industry turned its interest towards self-custody and segregated cryptographic accounts. The fall of FTX was only the beginning of a long domino effect that ended up hurting the entire ecosystem.

By Audy Castaneda

1...494495496...1,654Page 495 of 1,654