1. Home
  2. Tokens

Tokens

Swiss Seba Bank launches NFT custody despite market decline

Seba Bank’s retail and institutional clients can now store tokens of Ethereum-based NFT collections like Bored Apes and CryptoPunks in the bank's new custodial service.

The decline of the nonfungible tokens (NFT) market doesn’t seem to be a problem for the Swiss cryptocurrency-focused bank Seba as the firm now allows its customers to store NFTs.

Seba Bank has launched a regulated custody platform allowing its clients to store NFTs, the firm officially announced on Oct. 26. The NFT custody solution enables Seba Bank’s retail and institutional clients to store any Ethereum-based NFTs, including tokens from world-famous NFT collections like Bored Apes and CryptoPunks, the firm said.

"There is no marketplace integration with Seba Bank at this time," a spokesperson for the firm told Cointelegraph. The company will also perform due diligence by client's request before deciding whether to provide custody for a certain NFT or not. "The custody service offered is by no means restricted to top collections," the firm's representative stated. 

Seba’s new NFT custody platform is designed to provide its customers with secure storage of their NFTs without managing the private keys themselves. The feature is integrated into customers’ bank accounts, allowing clients to include their NFTs in the total wealth picture and manage them like any other digital asset.

A representative at the firm pointed out that Seba Bank is the "first regulated bank to offer NFT custody," expressing confidence in a bright future of NFTs, stating:

"We believe that in the coming years, digital assets, including NFTs, will gain adoption and will be increasingly accepted even by traditional finance operators."

Urs Bernegger, co-head of markets and investment solutions at Seba Bank, stressed that Seba is regulated by Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) and has “core competence” in cryptocurrencies.

Headquartered in Zug, Seba Bank is a major crypto-focused financial institution in Switzerland, known for its close cooperation with local regulators. In 2019, Seba Crypto AG received a Swiss banking and securities dealer license from FINMA. In 2021, the regulator also granted Seba Bank AG with a Certified Information Systems Auditor license, allowing the firm to facilitate an institutional-grade custodian service.

Seba Bank’s NFT custody launch comes amid tough times for the NFT market. The weekly NFT trading volumes plummeted as much as 98% from the beginning of the year as of late September 2022. The median price of an NFT has also fallen sharply, while the overall NFT market continued to worsen further as the average NFT weekly trading volume fell by about 30% In September versus its August.

Source: Dune Analytics

On the other hand, the number of NFT wallets has been growing this year, with the amount of such wallets almost doubling from 3.4 million in January to 6.1 million in September.

Related: Institutional crypto custody: How banks are housing digital assets

Despite the NFT market downturn, many platforms and companies have been rolling out NFT-related solutions recently. Last month, MetaMask Institutional — the institution-compliant version of the MetaMask crypto wallet — announced the NFT addition to its custodial services offerings.

"A lot of investors who held NFTs have continued to stay in the market showing conviction despite the market downturn," a spokesperson for Seba noted. According to the firm, the NFT space has continued to mature, with institutional investors launching NFT funds and financing new projects. "SEBA Bank is addressing the need for a regulated custodian that can guarantee the security and integrity of NFTs for professional and institutional investors," the person added.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

After Mango Markets exploit, Compound pauses 4 tokens to protect against price manipulation

Compound users can no longer use YFI, ZRX, BAT and MKR tokens as collateral for loans.

Decentralized lending protocol Compound has paused the supply of four tokens as lending collateral on its platform, aiming to protect users against potential attacks involving price manipulation, similar to the recent $117 million exploit of Mango Markets, according to a proposal on Compound’s governance forum that was recently passed.

With the pause, users will not be able to deposit Yearn.finance’s YFI (YFI), 0x’s ZRX, Basic Attention Token (BAT) and Maker’s MKR (MKR) as collateral to take loans.

The proposal passed on Oct. 25 with 99% of all voters in favor. It stated:

“An oracle manipulation-based attack analogous to the one that cost Mango Markets $117m is much less likely to occur on Compound due to collateral assets having much deeper liquidity than MNGO and Compound requiring loans to be over-collateralized. However, out of an abundance of caution, we propose pausing supply for the above assets, given their relative liquidity profiles.”

In a security review of Compound v2 performed in September, the Volt Protocol team identified potential market manipulation risks related to low-liquidity tokens. The report explained: 

"The attack is possible when the amount of a token borrowable on markets like Aave and Compound is large compared to the liquid market. The most notable example is ZRX, which has borrowable liquidity on each of these markets comparable to or greater than the usual daily volume across all centralized and decentralized exchanges."

On Twitter, Robert Leshner, founder of Compound, explained that the conservative approach wouldn’t impact existing users. 

On Oct. 11, Avraham Eisenberg, the hacker behind the Mango Markets exploit, manipulated the value of a posted collateral — the platforms’ native token, MNGO — to higher prices, then took out significant loans against the inflated collateral, which drained Mango’s treasury.

The exploiter, self-described as a digital art dealer on Twitter, claimed that he and a team of hackers undertook a “highly profitable trading strategy” and that it was “legal open market actions, using the protocol as designed.”

After a proposal in the Mango’s governance forum was approved, Eisenberg was allowed to keep $47 million as a “bug bounty” while $67 million was sent back to the treasury.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

Ethereum at the center of centralization debate as SEC lays claim

Ethereum’s transition to PoS was celebrated as a key upgrade. However, a month after the move, centralization concerns are mounting high.

Ethereum went through a key network upgrade on Sept. 15, shifting from its proof-of-work (PoW) mining consensus to a proof-of-stake (PoS) one. The key upgrade is dubbed the Merge. 

The Merge was slated as a critical change for the Ethereum network that would make it more energy efficient, with later improvements to scalability and decentralization to come.

A little over a month later, however, some industry observers fear the PoS transition has pushed Ethereum toward more centralization and higher regulatory scrutiny.

The Merge replaced the way transactions were verified on the Ethereum network. Instead of miners putting in their computational power to verify a transition, validators now pledge Ether (ETH) tokens to verify those transactions. The issue with this system is that validators with a higher number of Ether have a larger say, given they have a larger percentage of validator nodes or staked ETH.

To become a validator on the Ethereum network, one must stake a minimum of 32 ETH. Thus, whales and big crypto exchanges have staked millions of ETH to have a larger portion of the validator nodes.

Current staking activities look very centralized, with the leading liquid staking protocol Lido and leading centralized exchanges such as Coinbase, Kraken and Binance accounting for over 60% of the staked ETH.

RA Wilson, chief technology officer of crypto and carbon credits exchange 1GCX, told Cointelegraph that the Merge has enabled large holders of Ether to gain mass control of the network, making it significantly more centralized and certainly less secure and explained:

“Many ETH holders stake their crypto on centralized exchanges such as Coinbase, which allows these platforms to become dominant holders on the network, contributing to stakeholder centralization.”

The centralization aspect was quite evident right after the Merge, as 46.15% of the nodes for storing data, processing transactions and adding new blockchain blocks could be attributed to just two addresses.

Arcane Crypto analyst Vetle Lunde told Cointelegraph that while the PoS transition was important for Ethereum’s long-term goals of energy efficiency and scalability, one should be aware of the trade-offs:

“The largest validators being exchanges represent a potential long-term risk. Exchanges already find themselves in a difficult regulatory landscape, and precautionary rejections of transactions may conflict with one important core principle in the crypto ethos, censorship resistance.”

While Ethereum proponents claim that anyone with 32 ETH can become a validator, it is important to note that 32 ETH, or around $41,416, is not a small amount for a newbie or common trader, added to the fact that the lock-in period is quite long. 

Slava Demchuk, CEO of Web3 complaint platform PureFi, told Cointelegraph that the centralization and complexities involved in staking would make centralized entities like Coinbase more powerful:

“Most people will be staking with custodians (such as Coinbase) due to the simplicity and the fact that they don’t have 32ETH. This way, large companies will have a majority share of the network, making it more centralized. It means that entities with more ETH will have more control.”

The fear of regulatory scrutiny

Earlier in 2018, the SEC claimed that Ether is not a security, owing to its decentralized development and expansion over time. However, that may change with the move to PoS, which has complicated the relationship between the Ethereum blockchain and regulators.

Gary Gensler, Chair of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), testified before the Senate Banking Committee on the day of the Merge, stating that revenue from “expectation of profit to be derived from the efforts of others” would include proof-of-stake digital assets.

Gensler also mentioned that staking from large centralized exchanges looks “very similar” to lending, calling out high-yield products that caused the recent crypto market meltdown and lumping these products into the financial instruments under the scrutiny of the SEC.

Furthermore, in an SEC lawsuit filed just a week after the Merge, the SEC claimed jurisdiction over the Ethereum network as the majority of nodes are concentrated in the United States.

While the SEC’s claims raised some eyebrows and with many criticizing the regulator for its approach, some believe Ethereum has had it coming, as Gensler has already stated that moving to PoS could trigger securities laws. Ruadhan, the lead developer of PoW-based mining token developer Seasonal Tokens, told Cointelegraph:

“The argument that many of the validators are located in the U.S. is weak because it’s not even a majority. However, this move does show an intent to regulate, and it would cause a major disruption to the economy if Ethereum were to be classified as a security. Centralized exchanges would need to de-list Ethereum. The world economy is currently very vulnerable, and Ethereum’s market cap is so large that an event like this could have spillover effects and even cause an economic crisis.”

Ruadhan predicted that if Ethereum was classified as a security, then it would be much more heavily regulated regardless of how centralized it is: “If there are very few block proposers, all concentrated in the United States, then they can be forced to censor transactions that violate U.S. sanctions, which would mean that Ethereum’s censorship resistance is lost.”

Kenneth Goodwin, director of regulatory and institutional affairs at Blockchain Intelligence Group, told Cointelegraph that the move to PoS has certainly provided the SEC with leverage to oversee validators and even the nodes themselves as long as they are connected with a U.S. person, entity or jurisdiction. However, there is an irony to the situation. Goodwin explained:

“The irony here is that this could be one of the networks in consideration for the U.S. central bank digital currency given its central nature of it. On the flip side, there would be more regulatory oversight that may include creating a system of registration for validators and Ether protocol-based projects. Nevertheless, it seems as though the SEC is seeking to classify Ethereum as a security.”

Jae Yang, CEO and co-founder of noncustodial crypto exchange Tacen, told Cointelegraph that centralization could become a concern for Ethereum if regulators move to impose Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations on staking. 

“Centralization will be a concern if the FinCEN or other regulators impose Know Your Customer, AML or other AML compliance requirements on users simply staking ether. Though a long shot at this point, there is a risk that centralized validators omit certain transactions, establishing themselves as the third-party intermediary on decision-making that goes against the very guiding principles of the decentralized financial system,” he explained.

Long-term impact of PoS transition

Despite concerns of over-centralization and regulatory scrutiny, industry observers are confident that the Ethereum blockchain will overcome these short-term issues and continue to play a key role in developing the ecosystem in the long term.

Okcoin chief operating officer Jason Lau advocated for an expanded view of the transition. He told Cointelegraph:

“When we think about the centralization vs decentralization debate, we need to look at the long-term. Open blockchains require a high level of decentralization to ensure censorship resistance, openness and security, so any shift towards more centralization would be worth keeping an eye on. The community is well aware of the importance of encouraging and ensuring a diverse set of participants, and we will see how this plays out over time.”

Wilson noted that the network may become slightly more decentralized over the course of the next 6–8 months, as lock-up periods on Ethereum begin to expire and holders will be able to withdraw their staked tokens.

And while node and validator centralization is a valid concern, Chen Zhuling, co-founder and CEO of noncustodial staking service provider RockX, noted PoW mining on Ethereum was as centralized as validators of the current PoS-based network.

Chen told Cointelegraph that in the PoW era, “Three mining pools dominated the Ethereum network’s hashrate. You could hardly compete with other miners to verify blocks if you didn’t possess an immense amount of computing power, requiring expensive, energy-guzzling mining rigs.”

Chen also advocated for a long-term view of the PoS transition as currently, tokens are mostly controlled by large foundations for the sake of security and on the goodwill assumption that they wouldn’t do anything to corrupt the network.

Demchuk was quick to point out that centralization in staking does not mean it will be easy for a large malicious group of stakers to potentially take control of the Ethereum network, as “there is an additional protective measure. ‘Bad’ validators will get slashed, meaning that their ‘stake’ can get confiscated.”

Ethereum might have transitioned to a PoS network, but a majority of scalability and other features will only arrive after the completion of the final phase, expected by the end of 2024.

Going ahead, it will be interesting to see how Ethereum overcomes the centralization of validators and addresses the growing regulatory concerns facing the network.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

Santander bank trials blockchain platform for used cars in Brazil

Santander Brasil is also reportedly planning to launch crypto trading services to its customers, CEO Mario Leao announced in July.

Major global bank Santander continues exploring the benefits of blockchain technology, with a local branch implementing blockchain for vehicle trading and car registration.

Santander Brasil has launched testing of a blockchain-based tokenization platform for transferring ownership of used cars in Brazil, Cointelegraph Brasil reported on Oct. 19.

The platform is designed to automate the process of transferring property registration by deploying smart contracts based on a delivery versus payment (DVP), a settlement method guaranteeing the ownership transfer after successful payment.

Santander’s latest vehicle registration solution is developed in partnership with Parfin, major digital custody and Web3 infrastructure provider in Latin America.

According to Parfin co-founder and chief technology officer Alex Buelau, the platform will be based on a proprietary blockchain network developed from the Ethereum blockchain. But in contrast to Ethereum, the system’s blockchain will be permissioned or private, meaning that it will not be publicly accessible.

Santander's project is part of initiatives selected by Brazil's central bank’s Financial Innovations Laboratory (Lift). The Lift acts as a project incubator, with one of the goals to apply the digital real, or Brazil’s central bank digital currency, which is reportedly scheduled for launch in 2024. In the meantime, Santander has already presented its demo platform to the central bank, aiming to test real transactions involving in the near future.

Jayme Chataque, open finance superintendent at Santander, suggested that the same technology could be used for selling and registering properties. “It has both convenience and security benefits for both the buyer and the seller. You turn two transactions into one,” he noted.

Related: $50B asset custody platform GK8 enters Brazil with license agreement

Buelau reportedly pointed out that regulation is one of the few major challenges on the path to mass adoption of blockchain technology, stating:

“Technology is moving faster than regulation. [...] The challenge is in regulation. But Brazil is ahead in that sense, the authorities are bold, so we may have this sooner than we thought.”

Santander Brasil is the Brazilian unit of Spain’s largest commercial bank, Banco Santander. The local bank is known for its crypto-friendly stance, with CEO Mario Leao reportedly announcing Santander Brasil’s plans to launch crypto trading earlier this year.

The global Santander bank has also been actively experimenting with blockchain technology, jointly working on tokenization infrastructure for agro commodities and issuing blockchain-based bonds. The bank is also known for its close collaboration with major crypto firm Ripple.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

What directional liquidity pooling brings to DeFi

Directional liquidity pooling is a new way for liquidity providers to add liquidity to exchanges while avoiding impermanent loss.

Modern decentralized exchanges (DEXs) mainly rely on liquidity providers (LP) to provide the tokens that are being traded. These liquidity providers are rewarded by receiving a portion of the trading fees generated on the DEX. Unfortunately, while liquidity providers earn an income via fees, they’re exposed to impermanent loss if the price of their deposited assets changes.

Directional liquidity pooling is a new method that is different from the traditional system used by DEXs and aims to reduce the risk of impermanent loss for liquidity providers.

What is directional liquidity pooling?

Directional liquidity pooling is a system developed by Maverick automated market maker (AMM). The system lets liquidity providers control how their capital is used based on predicted price changes.

In the traditional liquidity pool model, liquidity providers are betting that the price of their asset pairs will move sideways. As long as the price of the asset pair doesn’t increase or decrease, the liquidity provider can collect fees without changing the ratio of their deposited tokens. However, if the price of any of the paired assets were to move up or down, the liquidity provider would lose money due to what is called impermanent loss. In some cases, these losses can be greater than the fees earned from the liquidity pool.

This is a major drawback of the traditional liquidity pool model since the liquidity provider cannot change their strategy to profit based on bullish or bearish price movements. So, for example, if a user expects Ether’s (ETH) price to increase, there is no method to earn profits via the liquidity pool system.

Directional liquidity pooling changes this system by allowing liquidity providers to choose a price direction and earn additional returns if they choose correctly. So, for example, if a user is bullish on ETH and the price increases, they’ll earn additional fees. Bob Baxley, chief technology officer of Maverick Protocol, told Cointelegraph:

“With directional LPing, LPs are no longer locked into the sideways market bet. Now they can make a bet with their LP position that the market will move in a certain direction. By bringing a new degree of freedom to liquidity providing, directional LPing AMMs like Maverick AMM open the liquidity pool market to a new class of LPs.”

How does this benefit users in DeFi?

The AMM industry and related technologies have grown quickly in the past few years. A very early innovation was UniSwap’s constant product (x * y = k) AMM. But, constant product AMMs are not capital efficient because each LP’s capital is spread over all values from zero to infinity, leaving only a small amount of liquidity at the current price.

Recent: Institutional crypto adoption requires robust analytics for money laundering

This means that even a small trade can have a big effect on the market price, causing the trader to lose money and the LP to pay less.

In order to solve this problem, several plans have been made to “concentrate liquidity” around a certain price. Curve made the Stableswap AMM, and all of the liquidity in the pool is centered around a single price, which is often equal to one. In the meantime, Uniswap v3 made the Range AMM more popular. This gives limited partners more control over where their liquidity goes by letting them stake a range of prices.

Range AMMs have given LPs a lot more freedom when it comes to allocating their cash. If the current price is included in the chosen range, capital efficiency may be much better than constant product AMMs. Of course, how much the stakes can go up depends on how much the LP can bet.

Because of the concentration of liquidity, LP capital is better at generating fees and swappers are getting much better pricing.

One big problem with range positions is their efficiency drops to zero if the price moves outside the range. So, to sum up, it’s possible that a “set it and forget it” liquidity pooling in Range AMM like Uniswap v3 could be even less efficient in the long run than a constant product LP position.

So, liquidity providers need to keep changing their range as the price moves to make a Range AMM work better. This takes work and technical knowledge to write contract integrations and gas fees.

Directional liquidity pooling lets liquidity providers stake a range and choose how the liquidity should move as the price moves. In addition, the AMM smart contract automatically changes liquidity with each swap, so liquidity providers can keep their money working no matter the price.

Liquidity providers can choose to have the automated market maker move their liquidity based on the price changes of their pooled assets. There are four different modes in total:

  • Static: Like traditional liquidity pools, the liquidity does not move.
  • Right: Liquidity moves right as the price increases and does not move as the price decreases (bullish expectation on price movement).
  • Left: Liquidity moves left as the price decreases and does not move as the price increases (bearish expectation on price movement).
  • Both: Liquidity moves in both price directions.

The liquidity provider can put up a single asset and have it move with the price. If the chosen direction matches the price performance of the asset, the liquidity provider can earn revenue from trading fees while avoiding impermanent loss.

When the price changes, impermanent loss happens because the AMM sells the more valuable asset in exchange for the less valuable asset, leaving the liquidity provider with a net loss.

Recent: Crypto adoption: How FDIC insurance could bring Bitcoin to the masses

For example, if there is ETH and Token B (ERC-20 token) in the pool and ETH increases in price, the AMM will sell some ETH to buy more Token B. Baxley expanded on this:

“Directional liquidity represents a significant expansion of the options available to prospective LPs in decentralized finance. Current AMM positions are essentially a bet that the market will go sideways; if it doesn’t, an LP is likely to lose more in impermanent loss than they make in fees. This simple reality arguably keeps a lot of potential LPs from ever entering the market.”

When it comes to traditional AMMs, impermanent loss is difficult to hedge against since it can be caused by prices moving in any direction. On the other hand, directional liquidity providers can limit their exposure to impermanent loss with single-sided pooling. Single-sided pooling is where the liquidity provider only deposits one asset, so if impermanent loss happens, it can only occur on that single asset.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

UNI tokens delegation was a ‘misunderstood situation,’ according to Binance’s CZ

CZ replied to users on Twitter about Binance's becoming the second-largest voting entity in the Uniswap DAO.

The millions of UNI (UNI) tokens delegated by Binance were a "misunderstood situation," said Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao in a Twitter post, in response to questions about 13.2 million UNI tokens delegated on Oct. 18 that made Binance the second-largest entity by voting power in the Uniswap DAO.

According to CZ, a UNI transfer between internal wallets caused the automatic delegation. He denie allegations about the crypto exchange using users' tokens to vote.

In a statement to Cointelegraph, Binance stated:

“Binance doesn’t vote with user’s tokens. In this case, there has been a misunderstanding of what has happened during the transfer of a large balance of UNI (around 4.6M) between wallets. We’re currently in discussions to improve the process to prevent any further misunderstandings happening again.”

On Oct. 19, Hayden Adams, Uniswap’s CEO, stated that it was unclear how Binance intended to engage with Uniswap decisions and demanded explanations about the case, which he classified as a "very unique situation, as the UNI technically belongs to its users."

Tokens delegated in the transaction represented 5.9% of the voting power in the governance forum, positioning Binance's voting power behind the venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, according to the on-chain list of delegates. 

The amount delegated represented 1.3% of the total supply of UNI — a percentage that allows Binance to propose governance votes, as the threshold is settled at 0.25%. The exchange won't be able to pass votes on its own, however, due to a 4% quorum requirement.

Earlier this month, Uniswap disclosed a $165 million Series B funding round led by Polychain Capital with additional existing investors to expand its existing product offerings and improve user experience. The company also intends to launch nonfungible tokens (NFTs) projects in the future.

The decentralized exchange became prominent during the DeFi hype in 2020. The cumulative trade volume of Uniswap surpassed $100 billion for the first time in February 2021.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

Crypto adoption: How FDIC insurance could bring Bitcoin to the masses

FDIC insurance is highly sought-after by crypto exchanges, lenders, and other service providers. Is it the key to mass adoption?

Over the years, several cryptocurrency companies have claimed that deposits with them were insured by the United States Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as if they were regular savings accounts. While so far, no crypto firm has been able to offer depositors this type of insurance, some speculate it could be the key to mass adoption.

The most notable case is that of bankrupt lender Voyager Digital, which saw regulators instruct it to remove “false and misleading statements” regarding FDIC insurance. Crypto exchange FTX has been a beacon of hope looking to backstop contagion in the cryptocurrency industry, but it received a cease-and-desist letter from the FDIC to stop suggesting user funds on the platform were insured.

As it stands, even major players in the cryptocurrency space aren’t FDIC-insured. Coinbase, for example, details on its pages that it carries insurance against losses from theft but is not an FDIC-insured bank and that cryptocurrency is “not insured or guaranteed by or subject to the protections” of the FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).

The exchange, however, points out that “to the extent U.S. customer funds are held as cash, they are maintained in pooled custodial accounts at one or more banks insured by the FDIC.” Speaking to Cointelegraph on the subject, a Coinbase spokesperson only said she can confirm “that Coinbase is aligned with the latest FDIC guidance.”

So what is FDIC insurance, why is it so sought-after in the cryptocurrency industry and why does it remain so elusive?

What is FDIC insurance?

The FDIC itself was created amid the Great Depression in 1933 to boost the financial system’s stability following a wave of bank failures during the 1920s and has managed to protect depositors ever since.

FDIC insurance refers to the insurance provided by this agency that safeguards customer deposits in the event of bank failures. Cal Evans, managing associate at blockchain legal services firm Gresham International, told Cointelegraph:

“FDIC insurance is basically a layer of protection that covers one individual for up to $250,000 and its a backing that’s given by the United States government. It says ‘look, if this company goes bankrupt, we will guarantee your account to the value of $250,000 per person, per company.’”

So, if an FDIC-insured financial institution fails to meet its obligations to customers, the FDIC pays these amounts to depositors up to the assured amount while assuming the bank and selling its assets to pay off owed debt. It is worth noting that FDIC insurance does not cover investments like mutual funds.

Other countries have similar schemes, with deposits in the European Union being guaranteed up to $98,000 (100,000 euros) to protect against bank failures, for example. These schemes improve confidence in the financial system.

Speaking to Cointelegraph, Noah Buxton, a partner and practice leader for blockchain and digital assets at consulting firm Armanino, said, “No customer’s crypto holdings are FDIC-insured today,” but added that crypto platforms often hold customers’ dollar balances in financial institutions that are FDIC-insured.

There is a distinct difference between users having their funds insured, and the impact of a cryptocurrency firm having FDIC insurance — even for only United States dollar deposits — is hard to estimate.

The potential impact on crypto

If the FDIC were to insure deposits at a cryptocurrency platform, it would likely gain an advantage over other U.S.-based cryptocurrency platforms, as the perceived security of that platform would gain a huge boost, especially as it would be seen as a green flag from regulators as well.

Recent: Tech’s good intentions and why Satoshi’s new ‘social order’ foundered

Evans said that the FDIC would give the retail market “a lot more confidence because if FDIC insurance does happen and does apply to these companies, that means it’s going to massively, massively encourage people who are in the United States to put their money in crypto because it’s as secure as putting dollars at a bank,” adding:

“It’s going to massively help adoption, because it’s going to encourage the retail market to see companies like this at a parallel, in term of safety, with banks that people know.”

Mila Wild, marketing manager at cryptocurrency exchange ChangeHero, told Cointelegraph that one of the biggest problems the cryptocurrency sector faces is a lack of regulation and supervision, especially after the collapse of the Terra ecosystem “undermined the confidence of many investors.”

Per Wild, the FDIC doesn’t just insure customer deposits, as it also “conducts constant monitoring of financial institutions for security and compliance with consumer protection requirements.”

Dion Guillaume, global head of PR and communication at crypto exchange Gate.io, told Cointelegraph that a “friendly crypto regulatory environment would be critical for adoption,” as “blind regulatory sanctions” do not help. Guillaume added that insuring digital assets can be very different and several factors need to be carefully considered.

How hard is it to get FDIC insured?

As the FDIC could significantly boost confidence in the industry and several large exchanges have shown interest in getting it, it’s important to look at how hard it is for a cryptocurrency-native firm to actually become FDIC-insured.

Evans told Cointelegraph that it’s “actually relatively straightforward to get” as long as specific criteria are met by the organization looking to get it. The organization needs to make necessary applications and prove requisite liquidity and could potentially have to detail its management structure.

To Evans, FDIC insurance would “massively give companies operating in the United States a huge, huge benefit over foreign firms,” as U.S. residents who open accounts with insured firms would have a major incentive not to use decentralized exchanges or other peer-to-peer platforms.

Wild had a more negative stance, saying it’s “not possible to get FDIC insurance,” as it only covers “deposits held in insured banks and savings associations and protects against losses caused by the bankruptcy of these insured deposit institutions.” Wild added:

“Even if we imagine that crypto projects will be able to have FDIC insurance someday, it means sacrificing decentralization as one of the core crypto values.”

She further claimed that the FDIC’s statements on dealings with crypto firms are “trying to infringe on crypto companies and emphasize their perceived negative impact on society.” Wild concluded that the FDIC telling crypto projects not to suggest they’re insured “could further lower” trust in cryptocurrencies.

To Wild, cryptocurrencies will remain a riskier asset for the time being, as users won’t have any type of government protection. As a result, crypto users should “stay vigilant about their assets.” This does not mean fiat savings are safer, she said, as increasing inflation is eating those away.

Noah Buxton, a partner at consulting firm Armanino, went into more detail on the process, telling Cointelegraph that platforms attaining FDIC insurance would “require a modified underwriting regime, the creation of which has many significant hurdles.”

He said the FDIC would need to figure out how to take possession of crypto assets, how to value them and how to distribute them to the customers of failed crypto platforms, adding:

“While this is possible and may happen, we are more likely to see private insurance and reinsurance vehicles fill the void for the foreseeable future. This is a necessary component of any market and the broader coverage availability and competitive set of insurance options will benefit crypto holders.”

Is the insurance worth chasing?

If users are, in the future, able to get insurance through other sources — such as private company solutions or decentralized protocols — it’s worth questioning whether FDIC insurance is worth it in the long run. Insurance from the FDIC could be a significant centralizing factor, as most would likely move to a platform that has its backing.

Evans said he believes FDIC insurance “is not necessarily wanted or needed,” as wherever there’s more protection, “there happens to be more oversight and regulation,” which would mean insured companies would be “very secure and very regulated.”

These regulations could further restrict those who are able to create accounts with these companies, which would add to the question of centralization that the crypto insurance industry already faces.

Bitcoin Foundation chairman Brock Pierce told Cointelegraph that the crypto industry will nevertheless “see more companies try to get it” after the recent wave of crypto lenders going under, which will make it “even harder for them now.”

Pierce did not expect FDIC insurance to “be a big deal or matter much with regards to overall crypto adoption.” Whether it impacts cryptocurrency adoption at all may only be clear once/if the FDIC does insure cryptocurrency deposits.

Recent: ‘The social benefits are huge’: Web3 gaming to shift digital ownership

It’s worth noting that FDIC insurance may bring in a false sense of security. While no bank depositor has lost their funds since the FDIC was launched, its reserve fund isn’t fully funded. The FDIC, according to Investopedia, is “normally short of its total insurance exposure by more than 99%.”

The FDIC has, at times, borrowed money from the U.S. Treasury in the form of short-term loans. Self-custody may, for the experienced cryptocurrency investor, continue being a viable option, even if a crypto firm is one day FDIC insured.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

Institutional crypto adoption requires robust analytics for money laundering

Large financial institutions are getting involved in digital assets by investing capital, time and effort into on-chain analytics solutions.

Institutions have begun to take crypto seriously and have entered the space in numerous ways. As noted in a previous analysis, this has resulted in banks and fintechs looking at custody products and services for their clients. 

However, as custodians of clients’ assets, banks must also ensure they are clean assets and stay compliant.

This is where on-chain analytics solutions have a huge role to play in understanding patterns in transactions to identify money laundering and other spurious activities within the cryptocurrency and digital assets space. According to a report by Chainalysis, over $14 billion of illicit transactions took place in 2021.

Therefore, it is critical to build the foundational infrastructure around Anti-Money Laundering (AML) to support the growing institutional appetite for digital assets. Before getting into various types of money laundering patterns that exist in crypto, let us understand what an on-chain analytics solution is.

What are on-chain analytics?

All transactions on public blockchains are visible to anyone. Analytics tools query these blockchains to help us understand trends in transactions. Platforms like Glassnode, Nansen and Dune analytics offer ways for retail audiences to see the flow of money in the ecosystem.

Using on-chain analytics, it is possible to see the net flow of Bitcoin (BTC) into crypto exchanges from private wallets. This typically happens when someone chooses to sell their Bitcoin on an exchange. The net outflow of BTC from exchanges, on the other hand, represents someone wanting to hold on to their Bitcoin. Both actions have implications on the price of the asset.

However, at an institutional level, on-chain analytics can help with identifying spurious transactions. Firms like Chainalysis, Elliptic and Coinmetric are critical for banks to build digital assets capabilities that are foundational as this asset class grows in significance.

Recent: ‘The social benefits are huge’: Web3 gaming to shift digital ownership

Banks already have mechanisms in place to check for money laundering and terrorist financing activities. Therefore, any digital assets-related AML solution must ensure alignment with a bank’s existing AML controls.

What are money laundering patterns?

There are patterns that banks must keep an eye on to spot money laundering and other illicit activities. Referred to as “typologies” in traditional AML frameworks, not all of them are unique to the digital assets industry. However, on-chain analytics solutions can proactively track them.

Layering

Layering involves converting one crypto into another or moving assets from one chain to another. It makes AML efforts incredibly harder if there are multiple small-sized transactions that are generally beyond the monitoring radars.

Layering can also involve blending crypto assets across different exchanges and sources, making it harder to trace back to the original source of the assets.

Money mules

A money mule is someone who receives crypto assets from a third party and sends it over to another party. Alternatively, they could withdraw assets as fiat cash and hand it over to someone else and receive a commission for this.

Money mules are typically used when criminal syndicates want to be anonymous yet keep their money flowing through the system.

Dusting

Dusting involves creating many small transactions across several wallets that trigger AML monitoring systems. These small transactions would clog the pipeline of AML support teams whose workload increases and make them overlook the illicit transaction that really needed their attention.

Wallet laundering

Wallets used by crypto users make it hard to trace owners. As a result, a money launderer could just hand over the custody (private keys) of their wallet with assets in it to another party. In turn, they would receive payment in crypto on another wallet, thereby making the two transactions seem completely unrelated.

Darknet transactions and mixers

The darknet is an overlay network on the internet that is accessible through special software and configurations. It has earned a reputation for hosting anonymous illicit activities like drugs and arms sales.

Many platforms have flagged crypto addresses from darknet users and marketplaces and do accept assets that are sent therefrom.

However, some illicit actors have taken to crypto mixing services like Tornado Cash to hide the providence of their crypto.

Tornado Cash scrambles crypto transactions in an attempt to anonymize assets that have entered the platform, hiding their point of origin. It has become so associated with perceived criminality that the United States Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned the platform in August, and many trading platforms will not touch coins that came from a mixing service.

How are banks addressing this issue?

The money laundering methods described above are not exhaustive. A recent report from Elliptic covers over 41 typologies (patterns) observed within the digital assets space.

So, given the myriad ways that illicit actors attempt to use digital assets for money laundering, how can banks react?

Robust Know Your Customer (KYC) standards are a good starting point when onboarding digital assets customers. However, proactive screening and transaction monitoring should be in place through on-chain analytics solutions.

These solutions can automate AML and sanction checks, identify address clusters associated with illicit activities, map the flow of digital assets across addresses to perform forensic analysis and monitor how assets are moved through activities related to dark-web markets, smart contract frauds, oracle hacks, cross-chain bridge hacks and more.

Furthermore, banks and fintech firms have ramped up their digital assets AML capabilities through partnerships with on-chain analytics firms, as the below graphic shows. 

Even though Barclays began its journey with Chainalysis in 2015, this space really has taken off only in the last 18 months. Be it investments or partnerships, it is highly critical that before offering custody services, banks must put AML controls in place to ensure they are handling clean assets. 

Recent: Apples and oranges? How the Ethereum Merge could affect Bitcoin

More institutional capital has flown into the digital assets space in the last two years. At the same time, more innovative models have emerged in cross-chain bridges, decentralized finance, nonfungible tokens and transaction mixers.

In order to protect assets while innovating at breakneck speed, AML and transaction monitoring controls must be in place. That is essential to keep attracting more institutional capital into digital assets.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

Aptos Foundation airdrops 20M tokens to its early testnet users

The company said that 20 million APT tokens were airdropped to about 110,235 eligible participants.

Layer 1 blockchain company, Aptos Foundation, announced on Oct 18 that it had rewarded its early network participants with free APT tokens. 

The foundation shared that it had allocated an estimated 20 million APT tokens, representing 2% of its initial total supply of 1 billion APT, to about 110,235 eligible participants. The airdropped tokens had an estimated value of about $200-$260 million USD based on the token's market price at the time the drop took place.

According to the blockchain company, eligibility for the airdropped tokens was based on two categories: “Users who completed an application for an Aptos Incentivized Testnet” and users who minted “an APTOS: ZERO testnet NFT”. Only the original minters of these NFTs were eligible, not the current or secondary owners of the NFTs.

The company shared that Aptos tokens could only be claimed via the official Aptos Community page with additional information provided in the eligibility email sent out by the company. They cautioned users to exercise extreme caution and only trust official sources and channels to avoid being defrauded.

Aptos Foundation’s first airdrop to its community members comes at a time when the project has been under much scrutiny by members of the crypto community on Twitter.

Related: Court partially denies Aptos Labs’ motion to dismiss Glazer’s $1 billion lawsuit

Solana Blockchain developer Paul Fidika, who had allegedly worked on Aptos staking, claimed in a series of tweets that the project had “Dodgey tokenomics” and “Fake POS."

Aptos was created by former Meta employees Mo Shaikh and Avery Ching, who were involved in Mark Zuckerberg's failed Diem blockchain project. Diem wound down ​​in February of this year, with Meta selling its intellectual property and other assets.

In July, Aptos closed a $150 million funding round co-led by venture studios FTX Ventures and Jump Crypto, with additional participation from Andreessen Horowitz, Apollo, Franklin Templeton, and Circle Ventures. According to Bloomberg, the funding round more than doubled the startup’s valuation, which was over $1 billion as of March.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’

Nubank to launch loyalty tokens on the Polygon blockchain

Dubbed Nucoin, the token creation process will receive collaboration from 2,000 clients in the following months.

Nubank, a fintech bank in Brazil, announced  the creation of the Nucoin token on the Polygon blockchain on Oct. 19, paving the way for a rewards program for its 70 million clients across Latin America. 

The company said that the token will be available in the first half of 2023, and will recognize customer loyalty and engagement with the bank products without cost or fees for its users. The tokens can be redeemed for perks, discounts in selected products. Fernando Czapski, General Manager for Nucoin at Nubank, stated:

"This project is another step ahead in our belief in the transformative potential of blockchain technology and to democratize it, even more, going beyond the purchase, sale and maintenance of cryptocurrencies in the Nu app.”

As of this month, approximately 2,000 clients will be invited to participate in a discussion of the project details, including the decentralized process of product creation and its Web3 features. "We decided to bring a group of customers into this co-creation process precisely to refine our product ahead of the public launch, to ensure we get to a program that truly resonates with our customers' expectations and needs," noted Czapski. 

 “One of the largest digital banking institutions in the world, offering its own cryptocurrency is a strong testament to the utility blockchain and crypto have to offer," said Sandeep Nailwal, co-founder of Polygon in a statement. 

In May, the bank announced a partnership with Paxos to allow its clients to buy, sell and store cryptocurrencies through its app, a moved the aimed to expand and improve access to crypto assets, eliminating complexity and friction for customers to buy, hold and sell digital currencies through the bank's app, requiring no new account opening or transfer of funds.

Earlier this year, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway dumped a portion of its Visa and Mastercard holdings and increased exposure in Nubank, purchasing $1 billion worth of stocks, after selling $3.1 billion worth of Visa and Mastercard stock's combined.

Pastor indicted for fraud over crypto scheme that came ‘in a dream’