1. Home
  2. Cointelegraph Consulting

Cointelegraph Consulting

Gaming and Web3 outlook, what’s available on the market? Report

Blockchain gaming is moving fast, are you up-to-speed? Cointelegraph Research’s latest report reviews 20 games of today, and a few to be looking out for tomorrow.

Where gaming and finance meet in Web3 has been termed GameFi, and it has been growing by leaps and bounds over the past few years. There are even several data analytical resources to try and figure out what are the hottest blockchain and Web3 games currently available. Cointelegraph Research dove into this topic head on and developed a top 20 games report.

The report goes over some of the differences between Web2 and Web3 gaming and some of the evolution in GameFi. Discussing play-to-earn and play-to-own, as well as providing some “insider insights” from C-suite executives in the industry, this report gives an overview of the current status of GameFi and potentially where it is moving to next.

Download this report on the Cointelegraph Research Terminal.

In addition to an overview of 20 games, there is also a section on some of the most anticipated games set to be released shortly. This report is equally fit for a casual crypto investor who wants to keep informed on different trends in the industry all the way to anyone looking to find out what Web3 game they will try out next.

GameFi combines blockchain, protocols, devs, investors and users

Web3 gaming goes far beyond a studio creating an engaging story slapped together with some cool-looking graphics. As opposed to Web2 or “traditional gaming,” which uses a gaming engine like Unreal Engine for example, the incorporation of nonfungible tokens (NFTs) makes owning a piece of the game and giving players control over the platform a reality. The use and tokenization of different cryptographic protocols also enable a greater ability to invest in the ecosystem of a particular game, like Axie Infinity.

Source: Cointelegraph Research “Top 20 Blockchain Games Report

The Cointelegraph Research team

Cointelegraph’s Research department comprises some of the best talents in the blockchain industry. Bringing together academic rigor and filtered through practical, hard-won experience, the researchers on the team are committed to bringing the most accurate, insightful content available on the market.

Michael Tabone is the deputy director of research at Cointelegraph. The research team consists of subject matter experts from across the fields of finance, economics and technology to bring to the market the premier source for industry reports and insightful analysis. The team utilizes APIs from a variety of sources in order to provide accurate, useful information and analyses.

With decades of combined experience in traditional finance, business, engineering, technology and research, the Cointelegraph Research team is perfectly positioned to put its combined talents to proper use with the “Top 20 Games Report 2023.”

The opinions expressed in the article are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual or on any specific security or investment product.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

Blockchain venture capital funding fell to a 12-month low in August

The crypto market downturn continues to impact private funding, but one fund is bullish about the future of Web3.

Data from Cointelegraph Research reveals that in August 2022, the blockchain industry saw $1.36 billion of venture capital invested in the blockchain industry — a 12-month low and the fourth consecutive month-on-month decline in capital inflows. August’s inflows represent a 31.3% drop from July’s $1.98 billion, and the 101 deals closed in August had an average capital investment of $14.3 million — a 10.1% decline from July. The data was drawn from the Cointelegraph Research Terminal’s Venture Capital Database, which contains comprehensive information on deals, mergers and acquisition activity, investors, crypto companies, and funds.

For access to reports and databases, visit the Cointelegraph Research Terminal.

August 2022 saw the lowest capital inflows in 12 months. Source: Cointelegraph Research VC Database

August’s funding focused on Web3, NFTs and infrastructure

August’s three most popular investment categories were Web3, infrastructure and nonfungible tokens (NFTs), drawing more than $1.16 billion, or 85.4%, of the total capital. Some of the biggest deals include the following: Web3 game developer Limit Break raised $200 million. Barca Studios, FC Barcelona’s Web3 arm, raised $100 million from Chiliz, the owner of blockchain-based fan rewards platform Socios. Ready Player Me, a platform that allows people to create metaverse avatars, raised $56 million in a Series B funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz. Inworld AI, a developer platform for creating AI-driven virtual characters, raised $50 million in a Series A round led by Section 32 and Intel Capital.

Sectors of investment interest in August 2022. Source: Cointelegraph Research VC Database

CoinFund is bullish despite the market conditions

Venture capital firms have been raising funds too. Web3 and crypto-focused venture capital firm CoinFund launched a new $300 million fund to back early-stage startups, emphasizing its bullish belief that Web3 will “continue to progress through all market cycles.” Orange DAO raised $80 million from the Algorand Foundation and Near and looks set to continue growing as an investment-focused decentralized autonomous organization backing crypto startups. Meanwhile, Shima Capital launched a $200 million debut capital fund to support emerging digital asset companies.

For a full analysis of the blockchain VC sector in August, check out the monthly “Investor Insights” report from Cointelegraph Research. The research team breaks down the past month’s top market-moving events and the most critical data across the various sectors of the industry, including venture capital.

Download and purchase this report on the Cointelegraph Research Terminal.

This article pulls data from the Cointelegraph Research Terminals’ expansive Venture Capital Database. This article is for information purposes only. It represents neither investment advice, investment analysis, nor an invitation to buy or sell financial instruments. Specifically, it does not serve as a substitute for individual investment or other advice.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

Building the blockchain industry despite market drops and regulation threats

Even if crypto regulation comes to America, top crypto investors are not worried as upward of 90% of cryptocurrencies are utilized outside the United States.

“The cryptocurrency market is the only truly free market that exists in the financial universe,” said Dan Tapiero, CEO of 10T Holdings, during a recent video discussion with Cointelegraph Research. 

A major concern of venture capital (VC) and investment firms as of late has been centered around regulation from different countries around the globe. While the theme of the discussion was on regulation, the conversation also touched upon how these different members of the crypto space see the future of the industry.

Investors undaunted by regulation

Each of the panel members brought their own perspective: Dan Tapiero’s 10T Holdings is a mid-stage private equity investment firm and has decades of experience. Smiyet Belrhiti is the managing partner for Keychain Ventures, which provides institutional investors exposure to the blockchain and Web3 ecosystems through funds and co-investment opportunities. The CEO of layer-1 protocol Devvio, Tom Anderson, brings the perspective of a crypto company that is getting ready for the potential regulations.

The panel also discussed the current state of the crypto market, VC activity in the crypto space, trends during the second quarter of 2022 and what may be on the horizon in the future. Even with all the FUD looming over different parts of the blockchain industry, the panelists in the interview remained positive that regulation would either help the space in general or would be impractical in its enforcement.

This article is for information purposes only and represents neither investment advice nor an investment analysis or an invitation to buy or sell financial instruments. Specifically, the document does not serve as a substitute for individual investment or other advice.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

June gloom takes on a new meaning in another 2022 down month

The addresses mainly run by active human traders have notched more than 147,000 addresses for the first time since November.

The market cap of Bitcoin (BTC) dropped another 33% in June, which is now beginning to numb the Twitter community. On the upside, many crypto traders who wanted out did so fairly aggressively from March to May. But, the less optimistic news is that the stagnancy in address activity may need to change for prices to get a running start on recovery.

Unlike April and May, the altcoin pack didn’t struggle tremendously more than Bitcoin. BTC’s 33% drop was pretty middle of the road in terms of corrections. In a vacuum, crypto bulls would prefer seeing altcoins continuing to lag, pushing more traders back toward Bitcoin as a relative “safe haven.”

Nevertheless, June was a tale of two halves. June 1-15 saw a massive 25% further downswing for Bitcoin. Comparatively, June 16-30 was looking up until the very end of the month, which now exhibits an additional 8% slide.

The $20,000 price level has shown to be both psychological support and resistance area. Therefore, a drop below (which could very well occur by the time this article is published) may quickly change traders’ outlook. Panic selling and overly eager buying should occur as soon as the $19,500 to $19,900 range is hit.

Social dominance has returned to Bitcoin and away from altcoins

So far, 2022 has served as a reality check for altcoins whose market caps have ballooned to astronomic levels in the past two years. As mentioned, Bitcoin was nothing special compared to alts in June, but it has held up better than most projects and even a few stablecoins. As a result, the spotlight shines bright on Bitcoin, as evidenced by a healthy community focus.

This phenomenon was reflected in the whole last week of June. Bitcoin was mentioned on Santiment’s social platforms at its highest rate in about four months, while the discussion around other popular assets like Ether (ETH) and Cardano (ADA) continues to diminish.

Trading returns still point to a major undervaluation of Bitcoin and most altcoins

The average 30-day trading returns on the BTC network are still very negative. And, as long they are in the yellow-green or green territory in the below chart, there is less risk in entering a Bitcoin position (or adding on to) than historical results.

Price freefalls tend to reverse if they go into the extreme low (green) territory, and that would be the ideal setup to watch for on Sanbase.

The number of whale addresses is growing rapidly

Another positive note for patient crypto hodlers, regardless of the asset, is that more and more Bitcoin shark and whale addresses are returning to the network. The addresses, mainly run by active human traders, sized 10 to 10,000 BTC, have over 147,000 addresses for the first time since November. Meanwhile, the very top-tier addresses owned primarily by exchanges (10,000 or more) showed over 100 addresses for the first time since December 2020.

And, speaking of supply moving on and off-exchange addresses, the overall trend shows BTC continuing to move away from exchanges after a brief worrisome rise in May. Now, well below 10% of coins sitting on exchanges, there is far less selloff risk (based on historical trends). And, to add to this, the amount of Tether (USDT) moving to exchanges has skyrocketed, implying more buying power at these suppressed prices.

Ethereum seeing far more negativity than any other large-cap asset

Not to be ignored, Ethereum has had a well-documented 76% retracement since its all-time high in November. When looking at the ratio of positive vs. negative commentary being scraped by our social data algorithm, there appears to be a stunning dropoff in positive comments in early June. The 37% price drop between June 9 and 13 was the culprit and the last straw for many traders. As counterintuitive as it may seem, these “last straws” is what the community at Santiment expects to see for the market to stage a comeback.

Cardano is also seeing the equivalent of slowly rolling tumbleweeds around its network. The number of unique addresses interacting on the Cardano network is down to its lowest in about a year. The sentiment is gradually sinking for Cardano as well, which is likely due to a simple absence of discussion more than anything.

Traders heading into the second half with extreme skepticism

It is hard for the trading community to find any excitement in the abysmal price performances that continue to persist month after month in 2022. Yet, price surges happen when the mainstream casts the most doubts. Still, nothing is for certain in a sentiment-driven and often self-perpetuating sector like cryptocurrency. But, the more the crypto community is leaning bearish and proclaiming its crypto winter time, the higher the chance of a recovery underway.

Cointelegraph’s Market Insights Newsletter shares our knowledge on the fundamentals that move the digital asset market. This analysis was prepared by leading analytics provider Santiment, a market intelligence platform that provides on-chain, social media and development information on 2,000+ cryptocurrencies.

Santiment develops hundreds of tools, strategies and indicators to help users better understand cryptocurrency market behavior and identify data-driven investment opportunities.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the post are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual or on any specific security or investment product.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

Must staking and liquidity pool lock-ups change to see crypto mass adoption?

Will the wave of lending protocols struggling in the bear market stimulate the development of alternative solutions to create more sustainable investment opportunities?

The recent downturn in the broader crypto landscape has highlighted several flaws inherent with proof-of-stake (PoS) networks and Web3 protocols. Mechanisms such as bonding/unbonding and lock-up periods were architecturally built into many PoS networks and liquidity pools with the intent of mitigating a total bank run and promoting decentralization. Yet, the inability to quickly withdraw funds has become a reason why many are losing money, including some of the most prominent crypto companies.

At their most fundamental level, PoS networks like Polkadot, Solana and the ill-fated Terra rely on validators that verify transactions while securing the blockchain by keeping it decentralized. Similarly, liquidity providers from various protocols offer liquidity across the network and improve each respective cryptocurrency’s velocity — i.e., the rate at which the tokens are exchanged across the crypto rail.

Download and purchase reports on the Cointelegraph Research Terminal.

In its soon-to-be-released report “Web3: The Next Form of the Internet,” Cointelegraph Research discusses the issues faced by decentralized finance (DeFi) in light of the current economic background and assesses how the market will develop.

The unstable stable

The Terra meltdown raised many questions about the sustainability of crypto lending protocols and, most importantly, the safety of the assets deposited by the platforms’ users. In particular, crypto lending protocol Anchor, the centerpiece of Terra’s ecosystem, struggled to handle the depeg of TerraUSD (UST), Terra’s algorithmic stablecoin. This resulted in users losing billions of dollars. Before the depeg, Anchor Protocol had more than $17 billion in total value locked. As of June 28, it stands at just under $1.8 million.

The assets deposited in Anchor have a three-week lock-up period. As a result, many users could not exit their LUNA — which has since been renamed Luna Classic (LUNC) — and UST positions at higher prices to mitigate their losses during the crash. As Anchor Protocol collapsed, its team decided to burn the locked-up deposits, raising the liquidity outflow from the Terra ecosystem to $30 billion, subsequently causing a 36% decrease in the total TVL on Ethereum.

While multiple factors led to Terra’s collapse — including UST withdrawals and volatile market conditions — it is clear that the inability to quickly remove funds from the platform represents a significant risk and entry barrier for some users.

Dropping the Celsius

The current bear market has already demonstrated that even curated investment decisions, carefully evaluated and made by the leading market players, are becoming akin to a gamble due to lock-up periods.

Unfortunately, even the most thought-out, calculated investments are not immune to shocks. The token stETH is minted by Lido when Ether (ETH) is staked on its platform and allows users access to a token backed 1:1 by Ether that they can continue using in DeFi while their ETH is staked. Lending protocol Celsius put up 409,000 stETH as collateral on Aave, another lending protocol, to borrow $303.84 million in stablecoins.

However, as stETH depegged from Ether and the price of ETH fell amid the market downturn, the value of the collateral started falling as well, which has raised suspicions that Celsius’ stETH has been liquidated and that the company is facing bankruptcy.

Given that there is 481,000 stETH available on Curve, the second-largest DeFi lending protocol, the liquidation of this position would subsequently cause extreme token price volatility and a further stETH depeg. Thus, lock-up periods for lending protocols act not only as an additional risk factor for an individual investor but can sometimes trigger an unpredictable chain of events that impact the broader DeFi market.

3AC in trouble

Three Arrows Capital is also at risk, with the ETH price decline reportedly leading to the liquidation of 212,000 ETH used as collateral for its $183 million debt in stablecoins and putting the venture fund on the brink of bankruptcy.

Moreover, the inability of lending protocols to negate the liquidations recently pushed Solend, the most prominent lending protocol on Solana, to intervene and propose taking over a whale’s wallet “so the liquidation can be executed OTC and avoid pushing Solana to its limits.” In particular, the liquidation of the $21-million position could cause cascading liquidations if the price of SOL were to drop too low. The initial vote was pushed through by another whale wallet, which contributed 95.1% of the total votes. Even though a second vote overturned this decision, the fact that the developers went against the core principles of decentralization, and revealed its lack thereof, alarmed many in the crypto community.

Ultimately, a lack of flexibility with bonding/unbonding and locked liquidity farming pools may deter future contributors from joining Web3 unless they have a strong understanding of DeFi design and commensurate risk. This is exacerbated by the collapse of “too big to fail” protocols like Terra and uncertainty around hybrid venture capital firms/hedge funds like Three Arrows Capital. It may be time to evaluate some alternative solutions to lock-up periods to allow for sustainable yields and true mass adoption.

This article is for information purposes only and represents neither investment advice nor an investment analysis or an invitation to buy or sell financial instruments. Specifically, the document does not serve as a substitute for individual investment or other advice.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

Blockchain investments are disrupting the real estate industry: Report

An in-depth research report delves deep into the market for tokenization of real estate properties worldwide as it surpasses $20 billion in size.

The Cointelegraph Research Terminal, the leading provider of premium databases and institutional-grade research on blockchain and digital assets, has added a new report to its expanding library from the industry leader in tokenization. 

This report from Security Token Market and sister company Security Token Advisors covers the rapidly emerging asset-backed real estate tokenization industry. This report has information on the developing shifts in the industry and is a must for any firm or business with a portfolio that encompasses real estate.

The tokenized real estate industry is growing rapidly amid the current market frenzy. With investors looking for a more secure investment that utilizes emerging technology, the demand for blockchain-based investment opportunities backed by real-world assets is increasing. Real estate assets account for upwards of 40% of the pipeline for certain technology providers in the industry, likely making it the largest and most “urgent” sector when it comes to future security token offerings.

Download the full report, complete with charts and infographics from the Cointelegraph Research Terminal

To understand what the 2022 landscape looks like, this report sheds light on notable developments and deals. This sector of tokenization offers investors access to high-performing fractionalized investments that can be purchased with cryptocurrency and traded via secondary markets.

Emerging technology, disrupting a traditional market

The existing tokenized real estate market can be broken into the following tranches: assets securitized on the blockchain, assets that are fully tokenized but not actively trading on secondary markets and assets that are fully tokenized and actively trading on secondary markets.

Historyically, real estate has been one of the most illiquid asset classes, perhaps next to hedge funds and private equity. This comes as no surprise, as real estate often involves extensive planning requirements, cost constraints, property management, safety requirements and legal prowess. These variables can cost an investor months and years in time, alongside expenses like unavoidable fees depending on the size and scale of the project. Since the last Cointelegraph Research report, real estate still makes up 89% of the pie in the total securities market; however, the overall pie has grown. The number of commercial real estate deals grew from 2% a few months ago to 3% of the total number of security tokens being invested in.

The tokenization of assets such as real estate allows for these historically illiquid investments to realize additional liquidity. By trading fractionalized portions of a property, investors can enjoy the yield generated by rent and operations without the legal and time-consuming hassles associated with paper-based real estate investing and management.

Market capitalization

Both residential and commercial real estate continue to increase in terms of capitalization over time. In June of 2021, there was a modest $65 million capitalization, but May of 2022 had $194 million in total monthly market capitalization. The aggregate market capitalization of all security tokens is over $16.4 billion, of which real estate is currently around 1.2%. This may seem small now, but it is the largest growing security token sector and should be something to watch closely.

Research report authors 

Security Token Market has conducted extensive research for over four years. This coverage can be used to inform issuers, investors and trading firms at multiple stages in the tokenization process.

Peter Gaffney is the head of research at Security Token Advisors, a full-suite consulting firm that facilitates the tokenization of assets on behalf of clients, where he develops the security token ecosystem that helps to connect organizations and services.

Aneesh Shinkre works on the data science team at Security Token Market, where he statistically analyzes, visualizes and narrates the market performance of tokenized assets while also ensuring consistency of data systems to deliver in-depth research.

Thor Wahlestedt also works on the data science team at Security Token Market. Thor manages Security Token Market’s data assets and infrastructure while covering the security token ecosystem via analyst reports and market summaries.

This article is for information purposes only and represents neither investment advice nor an investment analysis or an invitation to buy or sell financial instruments. Specifically, the document does not serve as a substitute for individual investment or other advice.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

Accepting Bitcoin for your business just like Tesla: Report

Merchants that accept crypto rather than credit cards for payments can expect to save as much as 3.5% — or more.

Tesla temporarily embracing Bitcoin (BTC) as a method of payment for its products was conceivably one of the catalysts that pushed asset prices to record highs last year and put the spotlight on crypto legitimacy — particularly in the realm of payments. Moreover, crypto enthusiasts had lauded the fact that Tesla even set up its own node to accept BTC and stated that it wouldn’t swap its holdings for fiat, implying high confidence in the crypto’s long-term prospects.

But despite having backtracked and ceased its Bitcoin acceptance a few months after due to climate concerns, Tesla was only a cog in the adoption machine of 2021. Starbucks, Whole Foods and AMC Entertainment were just some of the other juggernauts that made their foray into crypto last year. However, what’s apparent is that headlines play favorites to household names. For other businesses that want to hop on the trend, it’s a question of how to start.

Cointelegraph Research’s latest report provides answers. The 35-page paper goes over the booming trend in crypto acceptance and practical ways any business can integrate cryptocurrencies into their operations. Additionally, the report also looks at the future of crypto in payments, particularly concerning regulation, and a lot more.

Why should businesses accept crypto?

Cryptocurrencies are believed to be in a phase of hyper-adoption, and the 178% increase in the global crypto population is further evidence of that. For businesses, accommodating this growing demographic would mean an expansion of their potential client base. Receiving payments in crypto is also a lot cheaper when compared to TradFi methods, which may improve a company’s bottom line. Merchants could save up to 3.5% in fees — or more — if the payment method is in crypto rather than credit or debit cards.

Download the full report here, complete with charts and infographics

Chargebacks are also another drawback with TradFi payment methods, costing e-commerce merchants $125 billion in 2021. Chargebacks are a type of payment reversal where the merchant returns the sum of money to the customer due to a transaction dispute or if the customer returns the purchased product. However, chargebacks can also be outright fraud, as some customers may dispute a transaction to secure a refund despite having zero issues with the product or its delivery.

The process of accepting crypto

Whether a company sets up its own node like Tesla or opts for a payments processor to facilitate the transaction, the way to do it is more or less the same but differs under the hood. For instance, certain payments processors can allow a merchant to receive crypto but would also enable real-time settlement in fiat. This effectively removes price volatility while giving the merchant the flexibility to accept digital assets. Of course, the downside is that it subjects the company to the often drawn-out procedures in TradFi.

The other side to this is to accept the actual crypto-asset wholeheartedly, and there are various reasons for doing so. Long-term price appreciation is the most common argument, but companies can also hold on to crypto assets for rainy-day situations. Merchants can also earn additional revenue by utilizing the avenues available within the crypto space, such as locking cryptos in DeFi protocols to earn yield from staking or lending.

Ultimately, the deciding factor on the channel to receive crypto assets will depend on the merchant. The factor that needs to be considered is whether the objective is to hold cryptocurrencies or tap into the growing crypto customer base — or maybe even both.

Download the full report with more detailed information, complete with charts and infographics on the Cointelegraph Research Terminal.

This article is for information purposes only and represents neither investment advice nor an investment analysis or an invitation to buy or sell financial instruments. Specifically, the document does not serve as a substitute for individual investment or other advice.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

Bitcoin trading: Momentum strategies with different moving averages

The 20-Day moving average strategy provided good returns in 2018 and 2019, while the 50-Day MA strategy did better in 2021 and 2022.

One of the simplest strategies for trading cryptocurrencies involves the application of moving averages (MA). The basic premise is that if the price of an asset is above its moving average for a certain number of days, this is considered a buy signal. Once it falls below its moving average, the asset is sold, and a cash position is maintained until the price crosses the moving average again in the upper direction.

Cointelegraph Consulting’s latest bi-weekly newsletter issue looks at the many ways moving averages can be tweaked to catch Bitcoin price swings. Using Coin Metrics’ price data, this analysis is broken down into four parts. The first part uses trading strategies for different simple moving averages (SMA) — i.e., equal weighting of all past prices within the specified time window. The second part of this analysis looks at a specific form of moving average, the exponential moving average (EMA), where the weight of the more recent periods increases exponentially.

The third part looks at strategies that only trade once significant momentum signals appear, namely the golden cross and the death cross. Finally, rolling returns of different moving average strategies will be considered to evaluate which strategy was most successful.

Simple moving averages vs. exponential moving averages

For the sample period chosen in the charts below, the 50- and 100-day SMA strategies outperform their EMA counterparts. However, choosing a 20- or 200-day EMA strategy yields better results compared to the simple moving average strategies. It comes with the added benefit that maximum drawdowns are significantly lower.

In general, it is not clear which type and length of moving average will yield the best results. As EMAs put higher weight on more recent market moves, they are more likely to provide a trading signal earlier, albeit at the cost of some signals being wrong.

Comparison based on different entry points

Some of the strategies described above appear to be successful. However, beating the market is more difficult than following simple timing strategies. Especially in a bull market, many strategies yield results simply because the general trend is positive. In more difficult times, many strategies cannot shield from incurring losses.

If one invested based on these strategies in January 2022, all strategies would have beaten the market. The 200-day MA strategy would have signaled not to invest at all, which would have yielded the best outcome. All other strategies generated losses. The 50-day MA strategy illustrates how false signals can lead to value destruction that can at times exceed losses from a simple buy-and-hold strategy.

“Two crosses” strategy

In the field of technical analysis, traders often talk about the golden cross and the death cross. Both terms refer to the behavior of moving averages to each other. The most common version of the golden and death cross is related to the 50-day and 200-day MA. Once the 50-day MA moves above the 200-day MA, this golden cross signals an upcoming bull market, while the death cross — i.e., the 50-day MA moving below the 200-day MA — often marks the start of a bearish period.

The strategy that only considers a golden cross and death cross gets the general market trend right. It enters ahead of significant uptrends and exits once a serious downturn occurs. However, as this strategy reacts to larger market trends, it does take some time to exit the market and enter it again. This can shield from heavy losses but may also lead to some missed opportunities when the market changes direction.

Rolling analyses

The above results show that strategies based on moving averages are no panacea for bear markets or market fluctuations. Since the entry point matters for the performance of such strategies, one should look at different starting points.

The chart below shows what returns could have been made by applying a given strategy for one year — i.e. the return displayed for Jan. 1, 2017, is the result of a strategy that started on Jan. 1, 2016.

The same analysis can be done by executing each strategy for two years instead of one. While differences between strategies are at times wider compared to the analysis with one-year returns above, a similar picture emerges as the 20-day MA strategy yielded promising returns in 2018 and 2019, while the 50-day MA strategy performed better in 2021 and 2022. Yet in both analyses, a simple buy-and-hold strategy can outperform for some periods of time.

Rolling returns of executing a strategy for three years are qualitatively not too different from the two-year rolling analysis but come with higher returns in market run-ups, except for the one in 2021. However, when comparing all three time windows, it becomes clear that the ordering of strategy success can change over time. While the 20-day MA strategy has been dominant for some years (depending on the time frame of the rolling analysis), it has significantly underperformed in other years. The same can be said about the other strategies. Therefore, past returns are not a reliable predictor of the future success of a particular strategy. 

Averaging out

Momentum strategies based on moving averages can provide some guidance for traders and may at times provide relevant information about the general market trends. Nonetheless, they should be treated with caution as length, type of moving average, and starting point of an analysis can yield different results. Investors should carefully evaluate the data used and make sure that they are able to react to any signal in a timely manner.

Cointelegraph’s Market Insights Newsletter shares our knowledge on the fundamentals that move the digital asset market. The newsletter dives into the latest data on social media sentiment, on-chain metrics and derivatives.

We also review the industry’s most important news, including mergers and acquisitions, changes in the regulatory landscape, and enterprise blockchain integrations. Sign up now to be the first to receive these insights. All past editions of Market Insights are also available on Cointelegraph.com.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the post are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual or on any specific security or investment product.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

Algorithmic, fiat-backed or crypto-backed: What’s the best stablecoin type?

DAI has been around since 2017, which no algo stablecoins has ever matched, and it’s unlikely to share the fate of UST.

TerraUSD (UST) flipping BinanceUSD (BUSD) for the third spot in the market capitalization list didn’t last long. The once-mighty stablecoin that powers the entire Terra ecosystem finds itself reduced to “Terra is more than UST” tweets. While no one knows for sure if LUNA can stage a comeback, UST will certainly go down as one of the algorithmic stablecoins that went kaput in the same fashion as Basis Cash — which Terra creator Do Kwon was allegedly a part of — and Mark Cuban-backed Iron Finance.

UST’s failure begs the question if algorithmic stablecoins are truly just doomed to fail? And, is fiat-backed or crypto-backed stablecoin the only way investors can find the most “stable” way to shield themselves from the crypto market’s volatility?

Pros and cons of different stablecoins

By now, most are aware of the types of stablecoins such as fiat-backed stablecoins, crypto-collateralized stablecoins and algorithmic stablecoins. There are also other types of stablecoins like commodity-backed and seigniorage, but the three mentioned above are the most popular.

Users have their reasons for preferring one kind of stablecoin over another. For instance, some prefer to use algo stablecoins because of their decentralized narrative. Others would go for fiat-backed cryptocurrencies like Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC), even though they are centralized due to the private firms that maintain the equivalent fiat reserves of each issued token. Still, an advantage of fiat-backed coins is there is an actual asset backing the coin.

The stability of its peg will remain as long as there are verifiable holdings of such fiat reserves. Still, the most obvious risk here is a bank run scenario, which for Tether might be troublesome considering how it is largely exposed to commercial paper. Commercial papers are issued by large corporations and are a type of unsecured debt that can have a maturity of more than 270 days. A large number of redemption can render Tether insolvent, which is why it has slashed its commercial paper holdings over the last six months.

Crypto-collateralized stablecoins like Dai (DAI), on the other hand, are backed by an excess supply of another cryptocurrency, in this case, Ether (ETH). DAI requires a minimum 150% collateralization ratio, meaning that the dollar value of ETH deposited in a smart contract must at least be worth 1.5 more than the DAI being borrowed. For example, for a user to borrow $1,000 worth of DAI, they have to lock in $1,500 of Ether. If the market price of Ether drops to the point where the minimum collateralization ratio is no longer met, the collateral is automatically paid back into the smart contract to liquidate the position.

The case of UST

Stablecoins are, of course, meant to retain their value to their peg. However, what happened to UST was remarkably unprecedented and even threatened the collapse of the entire market. UST is a hybrid between an algo stablecoin and a crypto-collateralized stablecoin. When the price of UST moves above its dollar peg, users are incentivized to burn $1 worth of LUNA for UST to sell at a profit. When UST falls below the peg, users can burn UST in exchange for a discounted LUNA. It became crypto-backed since the Luna Foundation Guard acquired great amounts of Bitcoin (BTC) collateral as a contingency plan. This, as it turned out, was ineffective, and the last few holdings of BTC and other assets were allocated to smallholders as compensation.

Terra’s collapse started with the large withdrawals on Anchor Protocol on May 8. Millions of UST were pulled out from the protocol and quickly sold, causing a downward spiral. What ensued was more panic. The algorithm eventually couldn’t respond quickly enough — by burning LUNA — to the rapid decline of UST’s value.

In hindsight, the evidence was apparent since the primary demand for UST was only derived from the demand in Terra’s Anchor Protocol. The low trading volume of UST suggests that users are more interested in keeping it in the protocol than actually utilizing it for trading.

DAI holding steady

Amid the panic, with Tether even briefly losing its peg to the United States dollar, DAI had actually remained relatively stable. At one point, USDT dropped to about $0.994 on May 9, while DAI rose to $1.001. DAI has even been hailed recently as “the” true decentralized stablecoin.

Having existed since 2017, DAI has survived many extreme conditions in the market, which no algo stablecoin has ever managed to do. Yet, there can never be a shortage of risk, especially in the crypto market.

Cointelegraph’s Market Insights Newsletter shares our knowledge on the fundamentals that move the digital asset market. The newsletter dives into the latest data on social media sentiment, on-chain metrics and derivatives.

We also review the industry’s most important news, including mergers and acquisitions, changes in the regulatory landscape, and enterprise blockchain integrations. Sign up now to be the first to receive these insights. All past editions of Market Insights are also available on Cointelegraph.com.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale

Is Bitcoin price optimism fading after the crypto market’s rocky April?

Approximately $3.8 million has been created or returned to the BTC network by whale addresses since the Russian-Ukrainian war began.

Bitcoin (BTC) topped out at around $46,000 on April 4 before freefalling back to $38,000, causing much frustration among crypto traders who have been so used to the market’s unreal returns in the past two years after the March 2020 crash. 

February and March showed signs of recovery, especially after the steep declines in December and January. But, the question is, why has the bullish momentum suddenly come to a halt?

Continued S&P 500 correlation

The correlation between crypto and equities, particularly Bitcoin and the S&P 500, continues to exist and is expected to last until mid-May when Jerome Powell and the United States Federal Reserve announce a likely 0.5% rate hike to combat inflation.

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Bitcoin will exhibit further declines. Suppose cryptocurrencies continue to mimic equity price movement and not the other way around. In that case, many speculate that although the S&P 500 has been dropping lately, rate hike fears would likely have been baked in ahead of the Fed’s scheduled meeting.

Bitcoin whales purge, Tether whales surge

There are two go-to whale tiers crypto data platform Santiment consistently looks at to analyze full-market future price movement: Supply held by addresses with 100 to 10,000 BTC and supply held by addresses with 100,000 to 10,000,000 Tether (USDT).

Over the past two months, BTC whales from this key group have dropped 0.6% of their holdings. Meanwhile, the key USDT group has actually added 1.8% of the top stablecoin’s supply.

Although large whale addresses have dumped their BTC supply, evidence shows that prices generally rise when more addresses exist that hold 10 to 100,000 BTC. Addresses holding approximately $3.8 million in total have been created or returned to the BTC network since the Russian-Ukrainian war broke out in late February.

Traders fooled on dip buy opportunity

Santiment has found a reliable trend of the mainstream crowd being incorrect the vast majority of the time when they believe in a price event happening too uniformly. Even with the “buy the dip” narrative in full tilt, the chart below shows that prices didn’t bounce as traders hoped. Ironically, it is often when the crowd abandons any inclination to spot the bottom that prices do begin to recover.

Ether whales beginning to show interest

Santiment’s Ether (ETH) whale transaction count metric indicates that levels had begun to rise to the same rate of over 1,400 per day that was seen last week when the dip was quickly scooped up. High-value transactions of over $100,000 would likely indicate that top key stakeholders are beginning to circulate their coins at bullish levels.

Traders are short heading into May

Exchange funding rates are another price direction indicator. When there are excessive longs (bets in favor of prices rising) like what was seen just after the November all-time high, prices tend to correct. However, the opposite trend appears to be taking place right now.

Significant short funding rates are evident across multiple exchanges, indicating FUD surrounding the crypto markets is apparent. Generally, when BTC and altcoins are shorted in tandem to this degree, there is a notably higher likelihood of prices rising to force liquidations against those betting against crypto prices rising.

It is important to look for capitulation signs as an indicator that a price bottom may finally be in. Currently, there’s no overwhelming evidence of trader fear, but negative funding rates and a few other signals are certainly useful signs.

To an extent, a fundamental event like a Fed rate hike may muddle data for a little while longer. But, signs at least appear to be pointing toward the most bullish divergences not seen since a month ago.

Cointelegraph’s Market Insights Newsletter shares our knowledge on the fundamentals that move the digital asset market. This analysis was prepared by leading analytics provider Santiment, a market intelligence platform that provides on-chain, social media and development information on 2,000+ cryptocurrencies.

Santiment develops hundreds of tools, strategies and indicators to help users better understand cryptocurrency market behavior and identify data-driven investment opportunities.

Openseason Is a Thrilling Web3 Battle Royale