A crypto company working with the central bank of Norway has published the source code for the sandbox created to trial the digital version of the Nordic nation’s fiat currency. The prototype digital krone is being built on the Ethereum network and the regulator wants to test various technologies and evaluate the potential impact on […]
- Home
- Tokens
Tokens
Crypto miner Poolin offers IOU tokens after suspending withdrawals
"Our priority, for the time being, is to resume withdrawals of as many coins/tokens as possible," said Poolin.
Poolin, one of the largest Bitcoin mining pools by hash rate, has announced it will be issuing IOU tokens in an effort to “minimize the impact of withdrawal suspension” for users.
In a Tuesday blog post, Poolin said its wallet service will be releasing IOU ERC-20 tokens for users unable to withdraw their Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Tether (USDT), Litecoin (LTC), Zcash (ZEC) and Dogecoin (DOGE) holdings. On Sept. 15, the mining pool will issue IOUBTC, IOUETH, IOUUSDT, IOULTC, IOUZEC and IOUDoge, respectively, at a 1:1 ratio based on users’ holdings following the suspension of withdrawals due to reported “liquidity problems.”
"Our priority, for the time being, is to resume withdrawals of as many coins/tokens as possible," said Poolin. “The company now is striving for multiple solutions to solve the short-term shortage of liquidity, including seeking new investments, debt-equity swaps and assets liquidating.”
According to Poolin, users will have the number of original tokens in their assets and mining accounts “set to zero” following the issuance of IOUs, which the mining pool claimed could be withdrawn at any time automatically. In addition, the platform said it planned to eventually burn all the IOUs after users were given the opportunity to trade them back for their original tokens on chain or with third parties, buy mining rigs or purchase shares in Poolin’s U.S. company.
Related: Bitcoin mining revenue jumps 68.6% from the lowest-earning day of 2022
Other platforms have taken a similar approach — releasing IOU tokens — when faced with liquidity problems. In 2021, DeFi transaction combination tool Furucombo suffered an exploit that cost the protocol $15 million, later issuing 5 million iouCOMBO tokens as part of a compensation plan for victims.
Launched in 2017, Poolin is a China-based mining pool that operates under Blockin. According to data from BTC.com, the firm was responsible for roughly 10.6% of the BTC blocks mined over the previous 12 months, coming in as the fifth-largest mining pool behind Foundry USA, AntPool, F2Pool and Binance Pool.
Collapse of Terra blockchain ecosystem forces talent migration
Projects migrating from Terra to other ecosystems have made an example of how to adapt and regenerate after a catastrophic blockchain collapse.
At the height of the 2022 bull market, the Terra ecosystem was booming with talent and innovation. The native token of the Terra blockchain had made its way to the top-10 cryptocurrencies by total market capitalization. Protocols were building the next iteration of a super cycle that seemed like it would never end.
Terraform Labs created Terra amid the crypto market crash of 2018 and built it all through the bear market. The Terra ecosystem’s main appeal and claim for glory came from their offer of the best yields in decentralized finance (DeFi), with up to 20% yield on its stablecoin through the Anchor protocol.
As of March 2022, Terra had a total of 73 projects built in the ecosystem. The ambition of the team was to onboard at least 87 more projects by the end of the year. Terra was becoming a serious competitor to BNB Chain, Solana, Cardano, Avalanche and other layer-1 blockchain infrastructure in their quest to gain market share from the current leader, Ethereum.
Being a blockchain built on the Cosmos network meant Terra could scale and interoperate with other blockchains through the Interblockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). The hype from the bull market was attracting liquidity and Terra was benefiting from users’ appetite for new opportunities in the market.
Terra reached over 90% of the total value locked (TVL) of all the Cosmos blockchains with more than $21 billion worth of assets in May 2022.
That same month of May will be remembered as Terra’s collapse. The Terra token was supposed to maintain the peg of Terra’s algorithmic stablecoin — until it didn’t. Billions of dollars were wiped out from the market in just a couple of days and the flourishing ecosystem Terra had built was left for dead.
Related: What happened? Terra debacle exposes flaws plaguing the crypto industry
The community was fast to act. Although there was no attempt to revive the Terra token and its failed pegging mechanism to the stablecoin, a new network was created in an attempt to compensate those affected by the crash, not in full but more as a symbolic gesture of how resilient a community can be in Web3.
There are now three different trading tokens to take into account in the market: Terra (LUNA) the new networks’ token, Luna Classic (LUNC), which is how the token was rebranded after the new network was created, and TerraUSD Classic (USTC) the failed algorithmic stablecoin previously known as UST.
Currently, LUNC has a market capitalization of $2.8 billion, while LUNA has just over $303 million. The new Terra blockchain has a lower market capitalization than the failed USTC with $415 million.
Where did talent go after Terra collapsed?
Suddenly and with no time to prepare, those projects that had chosen to build on Terra faced a tough decision that to this date hasn’t happened before, at this scale or severity.
An attempt was made through Terra 2.0 to compensate projects by providing much-needed liquidity to those affected. The grants were distributed on June 17, with half of the tokens available on that date, and the rest remained locked for a period of three to six months of linear vesting.
For the projects that stayed, the Terra 2.0 Emergency Builder Allocation program will unlock a new round of tokens for 35 projects. On Sept. 17, Neptune finance will receive the biggest amount of LUNA of almost $185,000 in value.
The last group of 15 projects for this program will receive the tokens on Dec. 17, Astroport will unlock the most with $1.25 million worth of LUNA and Leap Wallet receiving the smallest amount of this group with $235,000 worth of LUNA at current market price.
As Terra was built from within the Cosmos network, this was a natural migration choice for some of the protocols. The IBC architecture enabled projects to stay within this ecosystem and easily relocate to a new blockchain.
Not every project found the idea of remaining within Cosmos appealing as other blockchains started using developer grants to lure talent and new projects to their network.
With the Ethereum Merge right around the corner, Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatible blockchains have been outperforming the rest.
Polygon, an Ethereum sidechain, managed to onboard more than 48 projects from the Terra ecosystem through Polygon’s multimillion-dollar Terra Developer Fund. An effective strategy in attracting the talent that was unexpectedly available when Terra collapsed in May.
UPDATE: Terra projects have begun migration. Over 48 projects and counting… including @OnePlanet_NFT, an exclusive @0xPolygon marketplace, and @DerbyStars_HQ!
— Ryan Wyatt (@Fwiz) July 8, 2022
It was so awesome to help and welcome all these wonderful developers to our thriving ecosystem!
Welcome! $MATIC https://t.co/5ypu1QdMBA pic.twitter.com/JcskdWGnZJ
BNB Chain, the EVM-compatible blockchain created by Binance, is also committed to providing investment and support to projects that are considered migrating from the Terra ecosystem from the BNB Chain Fund, which has $1 billion in investment and grants to distribute among those projects deploying within the BNB Chain ecosystem.
Other networks like VeChain and Kadena unsuccessfully tried to take advantage of the talent migration.
Building a new chapter for projects that survived
Many great projects and talented people within the ecosystem were pushing for progress and had good intentions in what they were building on Terra. From the ashes of the debacle, these talented individuals will keep on building and creating tools for the betterment of the space as a whole.
There are six projects currently developing the new Terra ecosystem with just over $23 million TVL at the time of writing.
Chauncey St. John, founder of the Angel Protocol, told Cointelegraph, “We lost a huge chunk of our treasury but live to fight another day and will be relaunching in the next couple of weeks,” adding:
“Angel Protocol has learned the importance of diversification and leaned into the fact that we can do more good as a multi-chain entity. As such, we’re launching both IBC and EVM compatible hubs.”
Lido, the leading liquid staking derivatives protocol, known for its market dominance of Ethereum liquid staking, also offered its services for those LUNA token holders that wanted to stake with them and remain liquid. After the collapse of Terra, the protocol decided to wind down its operations around LUNA and put in motion a shutdown process for this liquid staking token. There is no known interest from Lido to support Terra 2.0 liquid staking tokens for the time being.
China to Crack Down on Copyright Infringement Through NFTs
Authorities in China are going after creators of digital collectibles based on other people’s works of art, the use of which was not authorized. The government offensive is part of a campaign to combat online copyright infringement and piracy with the participation of several departments. Regulators in China Move to Strengthen Copyright Supervision of Online […]
Russia’s Sberbank to Allow Users to Issue NFTs on Its Blockchain Platform
Recognizing existing demand for non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, one of the largest banks in Russia, Sberbank, now intends to allow users to issue them on its blockchain platform. The financial institution also plans to cooperate with art sites and galleries across the country. Sberbank to Give Clients Opportunity to Mint NFTs An option providing users […]
Quentin Tarantino settles Miramax lawsuit over Pulp Fiction NFTs
Miramax sued the Hollywood director in November last year after the blockchain provider Secret Network announced the auction of his "uncut screenplay scenes."
Miramax sued the director in November last year after the base-layer blockchain provider Secret Network announced the auction of "uncut screenplay scenes" from the 1994 film as NFTs. The film studio claimed to own all rights to "Pulp Fiction," except for those reserved for Tarantino, which excluded nonfungible tokens.
The company was developing its own NFT strategy at the time. In a statement, the studio's attorney Bart Williams wrote: “This one-off effort devalues the NFT rights to "Pulp Fiction," which Miramax intends to maximize through a strategic, comprehensive approach.”
On the auction's original press release, Secret Network claimed that Tarantino owned "exclusive rights to publish his Pulp Fiction screenplay and the original, handwritten copy has remained a personal creative treasure he has kept private for decades." The auction raised $1.1 million in January, but was followed by the cancellation of additional NFT sales due to the dispute.
Tarantino and Miramax have partnered in other successful productions, including "Kill Bill: Volumes 1 and 2". "Pulp Fiction" ended up grossing $107.93 million in the United States and $213 million worldwide in the years since its release in 1994.
Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino and producer Miramax appear to have settled their lawsuit over nonfungible tokens (NFTs) related to the blockbuster film Pulp Fiction following a months-long legal battle. The movie studio reportedly plans to withdraw its lawsuit within two weeks and collaborate with the filmmaker in the future, including on NFTs projects.
Why quantum computing isn’t a threat to crypto… yet
Quantum computing still has a long way to go before posing a threat to blockchain technology.
Quantum computing has raised concerns about the future of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology in recent years. For example, it is commonly assumed that very sophisticated quantum computers will one day be able to crack present-day encryption, making security a serious concern for users in the blockchain space.
The SHA-256 cryptographic protocol used for Bitcoin network security is currently unbreakable by today’s computers. However, experts anticipate that within a decade, quantum computing will be able to break existing encryption protocols.
In regard to whether holders should be worried about quantum computers being a threat to cryptocurrency, Johann Polecsak, chief technology officer of QAN Platform, a layer-1 blockchain platform, told Cointelegraph:
“Definitely. Elliptic curve signatures — which are powering all major blockchains today and which are proven to be vulnerable against QC attacks — will break, which is the ONLY authentication mechanism in the system. Once it breaks, it will be literally impossible to differentiate a legitimate wallet owner and a hacker who forged a signature of one.”
If the current cryptographic hash algorithms ever get cracked, that leaves hundreds of billions worth of digital assets vulnerable to theft from malicious actors. However, despite these concerns, quantum computing still has a long way to go before becoming a viable threat to blockchain technology.
What is quantum computing?
Contemporary computers process information and carry out computations using “bits.” Unfortunately, these bits cannot exist simultaneously in two locations and two distinct states.
Instead, traditional computer bits may either have the value 0 or 1. A good analogy is of a light switch being turned on or off. Therefore, if there are a pair of bits, for example, those bits can only hold one of the four potential combinations at any moment: 0-0, 0-1, 1-0 or 1-1.
From a more pragmatic point of view, the implication of this is that it is likely to take an average computer quite some time to complete complicated computations, namely those that need to take into account each and every potential configuration.
Quantum computers do not operate under the same constraints as traditional computers. Instead, they employ something that is termed quantum bits or “qubits” rather than traditional bits. These qubits can coexist in the states of 0 and 1 at the same time.
As mentioned earlier, two bits may only simultaneously hold one of four possible combinations. However, a single pair of qubits is capable of storing all four at the same time. And the number of possible options grows exponentially with each additional qubit.
Recent: What the Ethereum Merge means for the blockchain’s layer-2 solutions
As a consequence, quantum computers can carry out many computations while simultaneously considering several different configurations. For example, consider the 54-qubit Sycamore processor that Google developed. It was able to complete a computation in 200 seconds that would have taken the most powerful supercomputer in the world 10,000 years to complete.
In simple terms, quantum computers are much faster than traditional computers since they use qubits to perform multiple calculations simultaneously. In addition, since qubits can have a value of 0, 1 or both, they are much more efficient than the binary bits system used by current computers.
Different types of quantum computing attacks
So-called storage attacks involve a malicious party attempting to steal cash by focusing on susceptible blockchain addresses, such as those where the wallet’s public key is visible on a public ledger.
Four million Bitcoin (BTC), or 25% of all BTC, are vulnerable to an attack by a quantum computer due to owners using un-hashed public keys or re-using BTC addresses. The quantum computer would have to be powerful enough to decipher the private key from the un-hashed public address. If the private key is successfully deciphered, the malicious actor can steal a user’s funds straight from their wallets.
However, experts anticipate that the computing power required to carry out these attacks would be millions of times more than the current quantum computers, which have less than 100 qubits. Nevertheless, researchers in the field of quantum computing have hypothesized that the number of qubits in use might reach 10 million during the next ten years.
In order to protect themselves against these attacks, crypto users need to avoid re-using addresses or moving their funds into addresses where the public key has not been published. This sounds good in theory, but it can prove to be too tedious for everyday users.
Someone with access to a powerful quantum computer might attempt to steal money from a blockchain transaction in transit by launching a transit attack. Because it applies to all transactions, the scope of this attack is far broader. However, carrying it out is more challenging because the attacker must complete it before the miners can execute the transaction.
Under most circumstances, an attacker has no more than a few minutes due to the confirmation time on networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Hackers also need billions of qubits to carry out such an attack, making the risk of a transit attack much lower than a storage attack. Nonetheless, it is still something that users should take into mind.
Protecting against assaults while in transit is not an easy task. To do this, it is necessary to switch the underlying cryptographic signature algorithm of the blockchain to one that is resistant to a quantum attack.
Measures to protect against quantum computing
There is still a significant amount of work to be done with quantum computing before it can be considered a credible threat to blockchain technology.
In addition, blockchain technology will most likely evolve to tackle the issue of quantum security by the time quantum computers are widely available. There are already cryptocurrencies like IOTA that use directed acyclic graph (DAG) technology that is considered quantum resistant. In contrast to the blocks that make up a blockchain, directed acyclic graphs are made up of nodes and connections between them. Thus, the records of crypto transactions take the form of nodes. Then, the records of these exchanges are stacked one on top of the other.
Block lattice is another DAG-based technology that is quantum resistant. Blockchain networks like QAN Platform use the technology to enable developers to build quantum-resistant smart contracts, decentralized applications and digital assets. Lattice cryptography is resistant to quantum computers because it is based on a problem that a quantum computer might not be able to solve easily. The name given to this problem is the Shortest Vector Problem (SVP). Mathematically, the SVP is a question about finding the shortest vector in a high-dimensional lattice.
Recent: ETH Merge will change the way enterprises view Ethereum for business
It is thought that the SVP is difficult for quantum computers to solve due to the nature of quantum computing. Only when the states of the qubits are fully aligned can the superposition principle be used by a quantum computer. The quantum computer can use the superposition principle when the states of the qubits are perfectly aligned. Still, it must resort to more conventional methods of computation when the states are not. As a result, a quantum computer is very unlikely to succeed in solving the SVP. That’s why lattice-based encryption is secure against quantum computers.
Even traditional organizations have taken steps toward quantum security. JPMorgan and Toshiba have teamed up to develop quantum key distribution (QKD), a solution they claim to be quantum-resistant. With the use of quantum physics and cryptography, QKD makes it possible for two parties to trade confidential data while simultaneously being able to identify and foil any effort by a third party to eavesdrop on the transaction. The concept is being looked at as a potentially useful security mechanism against hypothetical blockchain attacks that quantum computers might carry out in the future.
Mt. Gox creditors fail to set repayment date, but markets to remain unaffected
While a Bitcoin price dip may not be on the cards anytime soon, intriguing new details regarding the Mt. Gox saga have continued to emerge over the past week.
Eight years ago, in 2014, the crypto world was rocked by the crippling hack of Mt. Gox, a popular Bitcoin (BTC) exchange, which was forced to shut down after miscreants were able to make away with approximately 850,000 BTC, worth more than $16 billion at today’s exchange rates.
At the time of the incident, the Tokyo-based exchange was the world’s largest cryptocurrency trading ecosystem, processing over 70% of the crypto market’s daily Bitcoin trading volume. However, due to its lack of quality security protocols, hackers were able to make their way with the crypto assets of over 24,000 customers, which is still one of the largest such incidents in the history of the digital asset industry.
Now nearly a decade removed, Mt. Gox customers affected by the hack have been issued a notice that they have until Sept. 15 to make or transfer a claim. However, the payouts have been engulfed in a long-standing legal battle, with the rehabilitation plan being delayed numerous times. Recently, there have been rumors that the payout could happen soon, potentially in a major Bitcoin dump.
The rumors gained so much traction that Mt. Gox creditors recently had to take to social media to say that they were completely false, with one highlighting that the defunct exchange’s repayment system is still quite far from going live.
Creditors set the record straight
As part of a recent Twitter thread, Eric Wall, a creditor for Mt. Gox, noted that contrary to the news floating on the internet that 137,000 BTC would be dumped into the market soon, the exchange had not yet devised the infrastructure needed to facilitate such a move and, therefore, there would be no repayments anytime soon.
Furthermore, as things stand, Wall highlighted that customers affected by the Mt. Gox hack have not even been able to register the address where their due Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) payments need to be transferred, signaling that there is no immediate reason to worry about an impending market crash.
The creditor also believes that the payments will most likely take place in many installments, thereby calming fears that thousands of BTC will be sold all at once and subsequently dump the price of the flagship crypto. Lastly, Wall noted that the crypto exchange has yet to issue an exact timeline regarding the repayment process, further arguing that even if the BTC were released, it would make sense to “buy rather than sell” the asset due to the prevailing market conditions. At press time, BTC is trading at $18,893.
Similarly, Marshall Hayner, another Mt. Gox creditor, took to Twitter to confirm that Mt. Gox was nowhere close to issuing its due payments. He assured market participants that a vast majority of the individuals due to receive Bitcoin had “vowed” not to sell their holdings in the near term.
The proposed redistribution plan and its possible implications
Earlier this year, in July, Nobuaki Kobayashi, the appointed rehabilitation trustee for the Mt. Gox rehabilitation plan, announced to the public that the exchange is preparing a repayment plan. In an official document, he and his team noted that eligible individuals have the option of receiving their payments in the form of either BTC or BCH.
Recent: Ripples of Bitcoin adoption at Biarritz’s Surfin Bitcoin Conference in France
The rehabilitation plan first came into existence two years ago and was approved last year. However, out of the 850,000 BTC owed, the exchange only has approximately 150,000 BTC to pay its creditors. Providing his insights on the matter, Konstantin Shirokov, a representative for decentralized money market Fringe Finance, told Cointelegraph:
“The distribution of the said coins is just a matter of time, and this accounts for what has fueled the rumors about the exchange finalizing plans to release this money. The agitation of the potential beneficiaries is very valid, and so are the concerns of the investors in the broader digital currency ecosystem about what the release and probable sell-off of that massive amount of coins can have on the price of Bitcoin.”
He added that while the proposed coins are worth just about $2.9 billion at today’s prices, which should not weigh the market down so much, the general sentiment in the market is rather negative. “As such, the release of the coins and the likely offload can depress the price of Bitcoin in the days following the release,” Shirokov stated.
Lastly, creditors are due to receive an initial base payment, after which they can choose to take the remainder of their funds via a lump sum payment or smaller reimbursements at a later stage. The repayments are being made via cash reserves acquired via the liquidation of Mt. Gox’s BTC coffers.
Mt. Gox’s stolen BTC stash moves after nine years
Late last week, it came to light that two old Bitcoin addresses created back in 2013 sent approximately 10,000 BTC to several different crypto accounts. Using heuristics and clustering techniques, it became apparent that the BTC was associated with Mt. Gox. In this regard, a data engineer working for OXT Research, a platform providing analysis of ongoing events in the Bitcoin ecosystem, noted:
“Despite a Kraken deposit, these coins are not sourced from Kraken. They are however sourced from Mt. Gox and possibly controlled by Jeb McCaleb. [...] The user annotation to this [BTC] cluster links to a blog post by @wizsecurity blog. Wizsec is the Mt Gox saga expert.”
Following this, another 5,000 BTC related to the defunct exchange was transferred to various third-party accounts. The movement was caught by BTCparser and occurred exactly 120 hours after the above-stated development. According to a researcher for OXT Research, this latest Bitcoin, too, is connected with Mt. Gox and could possibly even belong to Jed McCaleb.
What lies ahead for those affected by the Mt. Gox saga?
For this massive BTC stash — that had been lying idle for nearly a decade — to suddenly start moving around when the digital currency is trading for approximately $20,000 is striking, to say the least, since these tokens have absolutely nothing to do with Mt. Gox’s repayments other than the fact that the timing of this move is serendipitously aligned with the trustee’s latest update.
As per a rehabilitation plan released by Kobayashi recently, after Sept. 15, there will be a phase of “assignment, transfer or succession, provision as collateral or disposition by other means of rehabilitation claims are prohibited.” That said, the document is still quite gray in its wording when it comes to setting a deadline for the “restriction period” but does acknowledge that it will be followed by the first entire repayment to creditors, as outlined in the rehabilitation plan that was approved by 99% of all eligible users affected by the case.
Lastly, the document notes that claimants who file a notice of transfer after Sept. 15 may potentially see the trust being unable to determine who to send the due amount to, adding:
Recent: DeFi Regulations: Where US regulators should draw the line
“This may result in rehabilitation creditors being unable to receive their preferred Repayments, the Repayment date being delayed significantly compared to other rehabilitation creditors, or at worst, the Repayment amount may be deposited with the Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau in accordance with laws and regulations.”
Therefore, while the Mt. Gox saga continues to pique the interest of people all over the globe, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out eventually, especially with so many new developments — such as the resurfacing of the above said dormant Bitcoin — coming to the forefront recently.
What is veTokenomics and how does it work?
Users lock up their tokens and turn them into veTokens, which control the protocol's governance, according to the veTokenomics model.
All facets of a token's production and management, including its allocation to various stakeholders, supply, token burn schedules and distribution, are managed through tokenomics analysis. Tokenomics help to determine the potential value of decentralized finance (DeFi) projects. Since the law of supply and demand cannot be changed, tokenomics dramatically impacts the worth of each nonfungible token (NFT) or cryptocurrency.
Related: What is Tokenomics? A beginner’s guide on supply and demand of cryptocurrencies
However, there are various loopholes in the tokenomics design, such as a substantial initial supply allocation to insiders, which may be a pump and dump warning sign. Also, there is no manual on how founders, treasury, investors, community and protocol designers should split the tokens optimally.
As a result, DeFi protocols, such as Curve, MakerDAO and Uniswap, lack a carefully planned initial token distribution, which results in sub-optimal token distribution because higher contributors might not always get the best allocation or vice-versa. To solve these issues, the Curve protocol introduced vote-escrowed tokenomics or veTokenomics. In this article, you will learn the basic concept of veTokenomics; how veTokenomics works and its benefits, and drawbacks.
What is veTokenomics?
Under the veTokenomics concept, tokens must be frozen for a set period, which encourages long-term participation and lowers the tokens' market supply. In return, users receive veTokens that cannot be sold and are non-transferable. That said, to participate in the governance mechanism, one needs to lock their tokens over a fixed time period, which will cause an organic token price increase over time.
One can already lock up your tokens in some DeFi initiatives to receive a portion of the protocol revenue. However, the veToken architecture differs in that owners of these locked tokens can control the emission flow, increasing the liquidity of a particular pool.
The rate at which cryptocurrencies are created and released is called emission. The cryptocurrency's economic model, specifically whether it is inflationary or deflationary, affects the emission rate.This leads to better alignment between the protocol's success and the incentives earned by the tokenholders because whales cannot use their votes to manipulate the token prices.
How does veTokenomics work?
To understand the working of vote deposit tokenomics, let's see how Curve implements veTokenomics. Similar to other DeFi protocols, liquidity providers (LPs) earn LP tokens for offering liquidity to Curve's pools. These LP tokens can be deposited into the Curve gauge to get the Curve DAO token (CRV), which liquidity providers can enhance by locking CRV. The liquidity gauge calculates how much liquidity each user is contributing. For example, one can stake their liquidity provider tokens in each Curve pool's unique liquidity gauge.
Additionally, veCRV holders and LPs share the fees generated by Curve Finance. One must lock their CRV governance tokens for a fixed time period (one week to four years) and give up their liquidity to obtain veCRV. This means that long-term stakers want the project to succeed and are not in it merely to earn short-term gains.
veCRV holders can increase stake rewards by locking tokens for a long time, decide which liquidity pools receive token emissions and get rewarded for staking by securing liquidity through swaps on Curve. However, the length of time tokenholders have locked their veTokens affects how much influence they have in the voting process.
Consider Bob and Alex, who each have the same amount of CRV. Bob locked his tokens for two years, while Alex only had them for one year. The veCRV, voting power and associated yields are doubled for Bob because he locked his tokens for a longer period than Alex. Such a dynamic promotes long-term engagement in decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) projects and assures that the token issuance is conducted democratically.
Other examples of veTokenomics include Balancer, which introduced veBAL tokens in March 2022 with a maximum locking time of up to one year. Frax Finance also suggested using veFXS tokens, letting owners choose gauges that would distribute FXS emissions among various pools on different decentralized exchanges (DEXs).
What are the benefits and drawbacks of veTokenomics?
From understanding the basics of veTokenomics, it is evident that tokenholders get rewarded for blocking the supply of veTokens, which reduces the supply of LP tokens and thereby selling pressure. This means tokenholders holding a substantial amount of tokens cannot manipulate their price. Furthermore, this popular tokenomics model promotes the addition of more liquidity to pools, strengthening a stablecoin's ability to keep its peg.
Since there was no market for tokens of liquidity providers other than exercising governance rights and speculating, the initial DeFi governance tokens had little to no impact on the price. However, locked veTokens positively impact the supply dynamics because the community expects enhanced yields, valuable governance rights and aligning the priorities of all stakeholders.
Despite the above pros of the vetoken model, there are various drawbacks of veTokenomics that stakeholders must be aware of. Since not everyone invests for the long-term, the protocol following the veTokenomics model may not attract short-term investors.
In addition, if tokens are locked for longer, the opportunity costs can be too high as one can't unlock them till the maturity date if they change their mind. Moreover, this model diminishes long-term oriented incentives and weakens the decentralization of governance if the protocol offering such tokens has the majority of veTokens.
The future of the veTokenomics model
In the traditional tokenomics model, governance tokens that only grant the power to vote are considered invaluable by Curve Finance (the pioneer of the veTokenomics model). Moreover, it believes there is little reason for anyone to become fully committed to a project when "governance" is the only factor driving demand.
The new tokenomic system called veTokenomics is a significant advancement. Although it lowers the supply, compensates long-term investors and harmonizes investor incentives with the protocol, the veTokenomics model is still immature.
In the future, we may experience additional protocols incorporating veTokenomics into their design architecture in addition to developing novel ways to build distinctive economic systems that use veTokens as a middleware base. Nonetheless, as the future is unpredictable, it is not possible to guess how tokenomics models will evolve in the upcoming years.
Purchase a licence for this article. Powered by SharpShark.
DeFi Regulations: Where US regulators should draw the line
The U.S Federal agency’s approach to the DeFi market has raised several concerns over the future of the industry: Experts weigh in on what’s the right approach.
Decentralized finance (DeFi), one of the fastest growing ecosystems in the cryptocurrency market, has long been a dilemma for regulators, given the decentralized nature of the space.
In 2022, United States regulators paid special focus to the nascent area with significant attention to ending the anonymous nature of the ecosystem.
DeFi protocols allow users to trade, borrow and lend digital assets without having to go through an intermediary. DeFi ecosystems by nature are decentralized with the majority of projects being run by automated smart contracts and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Most DeFi protocols don’t require heavy Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, making way for traders to trade anonymously.
A leaked copy of a U.S. draft bill in June showed some of the key areas of concern for regulators including DeFi stablecoins, DAOs and crypto exchanges. The draft bill paid a special focus on user protection with the intention to eliminate any anonymous projects. The bill requires any crypto platform or service provider to legally register in the United States, be it a DAO or DeFi protocol.
Sebastien Davies, principal at institutional infrastructure and liquidity provider Aquanow, blamed regulators’ lack of technological understanding as the reason behind the regressive approach. He told Cointelegraph that events like the sanctioning of Tornado Cash users after the application was added to the Specially Designated Nationals list produced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control demonstrate a lack of technological understanding. He explained:
“I think the point that policymakers were trying to get across is that they’ll make it very difficult for developers/users of protocols that completely obfuscate transaction history and that they’re willing to act swiftly. Officials may eventually walk their stance back, but the precedent will be severe. Participants in the digital economy should continue to engage with regulators as often as possible to maintain a voice at the table to avoid these types of shocks and/or partake in the balancing dialogue after the fact.”
Another discussion paper by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board released in August claimed that even though DeFi products represent a minimal share of the global financial system, they may still pose risks to financial stability. The report noted that DeFi’s resistance to censorship is overstated, and transparency could be a competitive disadvantage for institutional investors and an invitation for wrongdoing.
Forced legislation will drive out budding projects
The concerns of regulators around user protection are understandable, but experts believe that shouldn’t come at the cost of innovation and progress. If the focus is only on collecting data and putting barricades that hinder innovation, then the U.S. would be left behind in the innovation race.
Hugo Volz Oliveira, secretary at the New Economy Institute — a nonprofit organization focused on developing digital economy policy recommendations — explained to Cointelegraph why regulators’ current approach and focus on eliminating anonymous projects won’t be fruitful. He said:
“Take the fact that policymakers and regulators continue to insist on eliminating anonymous crypto projects and teams, de facto trying to choke this industry by targeting its builders. But this won’t be feasible in the more sophisticated projects that are being developed according to the ethos of the community.”
He added further that there’s a real danger that the legislators will be successful in driving most of the crypto industry away from North America. He said, “This is also problematic as the rest of the world still needs large nation-states to stand up to the bullying from FATF and other undemocratic institutions that seem more keen on preserving their monopoly on power than on fostering a risk-based approach to innovation.”
On Aug. 30, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation released a fresh warning for investors in DeFi platforms, which have been targeted with $1.6 billion in exploits in 2022. The law enforcement agency warned that cybercriminals are taking advantage of “investors’ increased interest in cryptocurrencies,” and “the complexity of cross-chain functionality and open source nature of Defi platforms.”
The #FBI warns that cyber criminals are increasingly exploiting vulnerabilities in decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms to steal investors cryptocurrency. If you think you are the victim of this, contact your local FBI field office or IC3. Learn more: https://t.co/fboL1N17JN pic.twitter.com/VKdbpbmEU1
— FBI (@FBI) August 29, 2022
While decentralization is a key aspect of the DeFi ecosystem, criminals can take advantage of it to process their illicit transactions. However, it is important to note that laundering via crypto has historically proven to be riskier as they can be traced and blocked. Criminals laundering their funds even after several years of the theft have been caught.
DeFi regulation requires a mindset shift
Crypto regulations themselves are a significant discussion point in the mainstream industry, given that, apart from a few states with niche crypto-centered laws, there’s no universal rule book in the United States for crypto operators. Thus, in absence of fair clarity around the overall crypto market, regulating a niche ecosystem could be a complex task.
Jackson Mueller, director of policy and government relations at blockchain-based financial and regulatory technology developer Securrency, told Cointelegraph that there’s a growing interest among policymakers regarding the DeFi space.
However, they are currently caught up between whether to apply existing long-standing yet arguably unsuitable regulatory regimes or consider stepping outside the regulatory box to develop appropriate and responsible frameworks. He explained:
“Policymakers are never going to be comfortable with a system based on complete anonymity, hence the push for the application of Anti-Money Laundering and KYC regulations. While this obviously triggers privacy and level-playing field concerns, advanced technologies capable of being deployed today can greatly preserve an individual’s right to privacy, without significantly restricting the potential of DeFi services or propelling opaque markets. Regulated DeFi is not an oxymoron. The two can, and must, coexist.”
A new proposal released by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in February earlier this year highlighted the lack of understanding of the space by the SEC. The proposal aims to amend the definition of “exchange” by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amendment would require all platforms with a certain threshold transaction volume to register as exchanges.
The proposal threatens many DeFi projects as most of them are not operated centrally, and having to register as an exchange could very well spell doom for the industry. Hester Peirce, the SEC commissioner who is a well-known crypto advocate, was among the first to call out the flawed proposal and said it could reach more types of “trading mechanisms, including potentially DeFi protocols.”
The multiple proposals and warnings by U.S. federal agencies suggest a hard-handed approach, which many experts believe wouldn’t necessarily work. Gabriella Kusz, CEO of a self-regulatory group called the Global Digital Asset and Cryptocurrency Association (Global DCA), told Cointelegraph:
“DeFi regulation requires a mindset shift — away from the concept of a ‘cop on the beat’ and toward the concept of ‘community management.’ In a DeFi world where the nature of interactions and entities is decentralized, the entire nature of the relationship between the regulator and the regulated must change. As opposed to being reactionary, regulation must be reimagined to shift towards preventative measures, supporting the constructive development of the industry.”
She added that Global DCA is working specifically on this subject to design and create a self-regulatory organization that forms a broad dialogue with a diverse group of stakeholders in the digital asset ecosystem. These insights and perspectives will be “reflected back in a framework for self-regulation which may help to advance market integrity and consumer protection.”
Eric Chen, CEO and co-founder of DeFi research and development firm Injective Labs, told Cointelegraph that ecosystem stakeholders should have an input in regulatory discussions:
“I personally believe that regulators should have more open conversations with Web3 companies and founders. I think this dialogue would help both sides of the spectrum to reach definitive regulatory clarity more rapidly. Many may not recall but the early Web2 space was also beholden to an opaque regulatory structure. This of course was rectified over time as regulators and founders began to work together to craft proper guidelines.”
Any new technology that gains mass traction becomes a point of concern for regulators. However, their approach is key to determining if that technology can be utilized for good or simply prohibited because of a few bad actors. Industry experts believe that the current approach to regulating the DeFi market under existing financial laws could be devastating for the nascent industry and that dialogue is the right way to move forward at this point.