Australian Taxation Office to Focus on Capital Gains From Crypto Assets

May 18, 2022 Bitcoin.com

Square Enix to Reinforce Blockchain Bet, According to Latest Earnings Report

May 17, 2022 Bitcoin.com

Life-changing money: The 10 most expensive NFTs sold to date

May 16, 2022 Coin Telegraph

Art

When nonfungible tokens are raking in incredible prices, have a look at the 10 most expensive NFTs sold to date.

Nonfungible tokens, or NFTs, are turning out to be a treasure store with prices striding into the millions of dollars. Instances of an NFT garnering more than $69 million or a tweet fetching $2.9 million are not a fantasy, but an incredible reality.

In 2021, an NFT by digital artist Beeple, or Mike Winkelmann, sold for a whopping $69 million, making NFTs a media hotshot and opening the floodgates for a string of other NFT sales, many of these in millions of dollars. Prompted by the plentiful talk about NFTs, stars like Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Eminem, Grimes and many more have hopped onto the NFT bandwagon.

In 2022, NFTs have been garnering attention from investors, artists and collectors alike. Let’s take a glance at the 10 most expensive NFTs sold to date:

Beeple’s Crossroads — $6.6 million

Sold via Nifty Gateway, Beeple’s NFT Crossroads came as a response to the 2020 United States presidential election. The piece shows a despondent figure, supposedly Trump, lying on the ground and symbolizing the former president after losing the election.

Crossroads also featured two videos, one with a triumphant Trump and the other a solemn one. What would eventually play depended on the outcome of the election.

Ocean Front — $6 Million

Aimed at the climate crisis, the Ocean Front depicts a tree atop trailers and shipping containers stationed on a platform. Captioned “together we can solve this,” the NFT was auctioned for charity and the beneficiary was the Open Earth Foundation, a nonprofit organization.

One of the most valuable NFTs of the time, the Ocean Front, started bidding at $2.77 million. The winner of the bid was Justin Sun, the founder of the Tron Foundation.

Right-click and Save As Guy — $7.08 million

Snoop Dogg bought XCOPY’s NFT Right-click and Save As Guy, created as a satire of people who don’t recognize the worth of crypto art.

Right-click and Save As Guy serves as a reminder that it is the receipts associated with the art that cannot be copied, thanks to blockchain technology and not the image itself.

CryptoPunk #7804 — $7.57 million

CryptoPunks are an assemblage of 10,000 unique characters hosted on the Ethereum blockchain, and no two CryptoPunks exactly resemble each other, making them highly valuable. CryptoPunk #7804 stands out for having some rare traits across the whole collection.

These traits include Alien skin, possessed only by 0.09% of the collection. A pipe is another feature, present with only 3% of the collection. The small shades are yet another feature that only 4% of the collection has. There is the “cap forward” trait as well, which is on just 3% of the NFTs. These attributes make CryptoPunk #7804 such a rarity, making it one of the highest-selling NFTs.

CryptoPunk #3100 — $7.58 million

As one of the nine Alien Punks, CryptoPunk #3100 features the Alien skin as well, which is a major factor pushing the token’s value up. The NFT with bluish-green skin also gets a unique look with a white-and-blue headband. The fact that only 406 out of 10,000 in the collection wear a headband underlines its rarity.

First released in 2017, CryptoPunk #3100 gained prominence with a $2 million bid in March 2021 and was eventually bought at $7.58 million in the same month.

CryptoPunk #7523 — $11.7 million

Like other expensive NFTs in the series, CryptoPunk #7523 has a gamut of rare features as well. It is a component of the Alien sub-collection. CryptoPunk #7523 stands out with three attributes possessed by 24% of the collection and an earring, which is only in 25% of the collection.

Other rare features include a knitted cap, while the medical mask is shared by only 2% of the collection. But, even with these rarities taken into account, the price of $11.7 million that it fetched is mind-boggling.

Human One — $28.9 million

Designed by Beeple, Human one is a digital and physical hybrid piece of artwork. A peculiar fact about Human One is that its artwork keeps changing over time. Beeple retains remote access to the artwork and updates it periodically.

The NFT showcases an astronaut ambling through the different backgrounds that change over time. Experiments fusing various TVs into different shapes and patterns influence the appearance of the NFT.

Clocks — $52.74 million

Clocks was meant to raise funds to defend Julian Assange after his controversial imprisonment in May 2019. He was facing charges of espionage due to his association with WikiLeaks, a website he founded. The clock showcases the number of days Assange had been behind bars.

Over 10,000 supporters own a share of the NFT that carries a price tag of $56 million. The beneficiary of the NFT was the Wau Holland Foundation, which has been supporting Assange’s cause.

Everydays: the First 5,000 Days — $69.3 million

Another creation of Beeple, the First 5,000 Days, is a colossal compilation of 5,000 pieces of artwork that differs in terms of content, medium and style that Beeple made every day starting in 2007. Often relying on dystopian or satirical settings, these art pieces have been highly appreciated by aficionados.

To date, it has been the most expensive collage of NFT art pieces ever sold to one sole owner.

The Merge — $91.8 million

Created by artist Pak, The Merge occupies the top position as the most expensive NFT ever sold. Though the artist has never revealed their actual identity, they have a huge presence in the digital art space.

The Merge isn’t a static art piece, but a mash-up of “masses” that anyone interested could buy. When starting, the NFT consisted of three large dots against a black background. The size of the dots increased as the number of buyers went up.

The way ahead

A few months into 2022, NFTs are still going strong. With no caps on how high NFT prices might go, this domain within crypto presents a lucrative opportunity for anyone, who could manage to mint into the right projects and exhibit some patience.

CBDC activity heats up, but few projects move beyond pilot stage

May 16, 2022 Coin Telegraph

CBDC

Does government-issued digital money pose an existential threat to cryptocurrencies? Probably not, but stablecoin usage could narrow.

Government-issued electronic currency seems to be an idea whose time has come.

“More than half of the world’s central banks are now developing digital currencies or running concrete experiments on them,” reported the Bank for International Settlements, or BIS, in early May — something that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

The BIS also found that nine out of ten central banks were exploring central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, in some form or other, according to its survey of 81 central banks conducted last autumn but just published.

Many were taken aback by the progress. “It is truly remarkable that some 90% of central banks are doing work on CBDCs,” Ross Buckley, KPMG-KWM professor of disruptive innovation at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Cointelegraph. “The year-on-year growth in this field is extraordinary.”

“What I found most surprising was the speed at which advanced economies were moving toward retail CBDCs,” Franklin Noll, president at Noll Historical Consulting, LLC, told Cointelegraph. “As recently as the middle of last year, central banks in advanced economies were taking a rather relaxed view of CBDCs, not seeing them as particularly necessary or worthy of much attention.”

Momentum accelerated last year, the report observed. After the Bahamas launched the world’s first live retail CBDC — the Sand Dollar — in 2020, Nigeria followed in 2021 with its own electronic money, the eNaira. Meanwhile, the Eastern Caribbean and China released pilot versions of their digital currencies, DCash and e-CNY, respectively. “And there is likely more to come: a record share of central banks in the survey — 90% — is engaged in some form of CBDC work,” said the BIS.

The Bahamas struggles, Sweden deliberates, Chile delays

Implementing a successful CBDC may be easier said than done, however. The Bahamas’ new digital money has struggled to gain traction, accounting for less than 0.1% of currency in circulation in that island nation, the International Monetary Fund said in March, and “there are limited avenues to use the Sand Dollar.” More education of the populace is needed, said the IMF, a challenge that other government-issued electronic currencies will probably face as well.

Sweden’s central bank, the Riksbank, has been researching, discussing and experimenting with digital currencies longer than most. Its e-krona project began in 2017, and a pilot program, launched in 2020, is now in its second phase. Carl-Andreas Claussen, a senior advisor in the Riksbank’s payments department, told Cointelegraph that there are lots of reasons why central banks might want to implement a CBDC, but “at the Riksbank, it is first of all the decline in Sweden’s use of cash.”

Sweden is racing toward becoming the Western world’s first cashless society. From 2010 to 2020, the proportion of Swedes using cash fell from 39% to 9%, according to the Riksbank. But, this also raises questions. As Claussen told Cointelegraph:

“If physical cash disappears, the public will not have access to central bank money anymore. That will be a serious change from how it has been over the last 400 years in Sweden. With an e-krona, the Riksbank will offer central bank money that the public can use.”

Still, nothing has been decided in Sweden. “It is not clear that we will need it,” Claussen said. “So first, we have to sort out if we need it at all and if it is worthwhile to do it. We are not there yet.”

Claussen has little doubt, however, that if a modern government decides to issue a digital currency it can succeed. It will need to be sure that it really needs a CBDC, however. “Neither the Riksbank nor the larger central banks around the world have decided whether or not to issue a CBDC,” he declared. Not even China? “I have not heard that they have made a final decision to issue,” he told Cointelegraph.

*Riksbankshuset, the headquarters of the Swedish National Bank in Stockholm. Source: Arild Vågen*

Elsewhere, Chile announced last week that it was delaying the rollout of its CBDC, explaining that a government-issued digital peso required more study. Chile is looking to develop a national payment system that is “inclusive, resilient, and protects people’s information,” according to a report. But, its central bank said that it still doesn’t have enough information to make a final decision on it.

According to CBDC Tracker, only the Bahamas and Nigeria have progressed to full CBDC “launch” in the real world, while 2022 thus far has seen more canceled projects like Singapore’s Project Orchid than full roll-outs. On the other hand, only five “pilot” programs were underway in January 2020, compared with 15 in May 2022, which suggests more launches could be imminent.

What is driving the trend?

The BIS sees different motivating factors behind this “growing momentum” toward CBDCs. Advanced economies tend to be interested in improving domestic payment efficiencies and safety, while maintaining financial stability. Poorer economies, emerging markets or developing economies, by comparison, may focus more on financial inclusivity, or look for ways to enable people who have never had a bank account to participate in the economy.

Andrey Kocevski, co-founder at WhisperCash.com — whose firm has developed a digital bearer instrument that could be used by CBDCs — agreed that developing countries usually “want to compensate for the lack of private sector fintech or payment companies and to increase financial inclusion for the unbanked,” further telling Cointelegraph:

“I am not surprised that the number of central banks exploring digital currencies is at 90% now, considering last year it was 80% and in 2018 it was around 30%.”

“For advanced economies, the catalyst was stablecoins,” said Noll, adding that 2021 was “the year of the stablecoin.” Central banks in the developed world began taking seriously the possibility that stablecoins could make headway against fiat currencies, threatening their monopoly on money and disrupting monetary policy potentially, he said.

As for BIS’ contention that the COVID-19 pandemic may have been a prod, “I do not see much evidence for the impact of COVID-19 and a flight from cash driving new interest in CBDCs,” added Noll. “Cash usage remains strong and may be rebounding to pre-pandemic levels.”

Peer pressure, too, could be a factor — yes, even among central bankers. As Buckley told Cointelegraph:

“If one’s major competitor countries do this, everyone feels the need to follow or risk being left behind — some form of sophisticated FOMO.”

Kocevski seemed to agree: “Central banks in developed countries feel the need to digitize in order to stay relevant.”

Could state-run digital currencies co-opt crypto?

Where do cryptocurrencies figure in all this? Just to be clear, government digital money is typically issued in the currency unit of the land such as pesos in Chile, and dollars in the United States, and is a “liability” of the central bank. Cryptocurrencies, by comparison, have their own currency “unit” — like Ether (ETH) — and are private digital assets with no claim on the central bank.

According to the BIS survey, most central banks see payment networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum posing little threat to their activities, and stablecoins even less: “Most central banks in the survey still perceive the use of cryptocurrencies for payments to be trivial or limited to niche groups.”

Still, couldn’t CBDCs pose an existential danger to cryptocurrencies at some point? “A year ago I thought they would — now I don’t,” Buckley told Cointelegraph. CBDCs are essentially payment instruments, while cryptocurrencies are more like speculative assets. “These new instruments will not represent an existential threat to Bitcoin and the like, but they will make it harder for Bitcoin to argue for itself as anything other than a speculative play,” he said.

Gourav Roy, a senior analyst at the Boston Consulting Group in India, who also contributes to CBDC Tracker, told Cointelegraph that many governments still view crypto as a “big threat to their country’s macroeconomics and main financial/payment landscape,” and for that reason, these countries regularly issue warnings about cryptocurrencies, introduce legislation to tax crypto transactions, and sometimes even ban crypto trading. Roy offered China as a case in point: It banned cryptocurrencies while at the same time “carrying out the world's biggest CBDC pilot testing with 261 million users.”

That said, Roy still sees stablecoin projects surviving and continuing to play an important part in the decentralized finance ecosystem — even with widespread CBDC adoption. Kocevski, for his part, didn’t think government-issued electronic money was an existential threat to crypto.

Noll not only believes that CBDCs and cryptocurrencies can co-exist, but CBDCs could potentially “work to popularize and mainstream crypto in general.” As public and private sectors become more informed and comfortable with cryptocurrencies, “this should advance the entire industry,” he told Cointelegraph, adding:

“The downside for crypto is that CBDCs will work to crowd out private cryptocurrencies, especially stablecoins focused on retail payment areas. Cryptocurrencies will stay in niches in the payment system where they serve unique functions and provide specialized services.”

Overall, much has happened on the CBDC front in recent years. While most advanced projects so far have been in non-Western economies like the Bahamas, Nigeria and China, interest in many Western economies like France and Canada seems to be picking up, all the more noteworthy because many already have advanced payment systems in place. As Noll said:

“Just look at President Biden’s recent executive order, which is all about advancing a U.S. CBDC and is a far step from 2020 and 2021 speeches by Fed officials that questioned the need for any such thing.”

Utility tokens vs. equity tokens: Key differences explained

May 16, 2022 Coin Telegraph

Bitcoin

With both types of tokens forming the bulk of crypto-asset purchases, both utility and equity tokens serve different purposes. Read here!

Utility tokens vs. equity tokens

Investors familiar with the concept of equity investing will find equity tokens to be an extension of the same thought process as initial public offerings while those with a riskier appetite can venture into plonking their capital on the utility tokens in which they believe.

One glaring difference between utility and equity tokens is the fact that the former is not regulated as they provide access to a service rather than a specific investment in an asset or company as do equity tokens.

However, for those asking the question of whether utility tokens can be traded, the answer is that they are similar to equity tokens in this aspect and are available for trading on various exchanges.

To answer whether utility tokens are good investments though, any money put into a utility token needs to be weighed against the prospects of the service being offered by the issuing company and the potential rise in its demand to generate returns for token holders.

On the other hand, equity tokens are regulated and issued by existing firms that are already in business and provide token holders with voting rights that allow them to participate in the working of the company.

For novice crypto investors, it seems more prudent to invest in equity tokens as they are an extension of equity shares on the traditional stock market and are an easier concept around which to wrap oneself.

However, if you believe in the prospects of a blockchain project like XRP and want to gain an early mover advantage, it may be more beneficial to put your money on a utility token ICO and ride the demand wave to generate handsome returns in the process.

Do remember that utility tokens are not treated as a security and therefore, will have a higher risk involved when investing. Either way, it is important to read all the terms and conditions before investing money and understand the applicable fees that are levied on redemption or while trading these tokens on the various exchanges available in the crypto market.

What is an equity token and what are some popular examples of equity tokens?

Considered to be a subset of security tokens, equity tokens offer a multitude of benefits to their token holders, making them apt for crypto investors who would like to participate in the decision-making process of the issuing company.

Equity tokens represent equity in an underlying asset, which is usually the stock of a company, with all the terms and conditions recorded on the blockchain. Moreover, they are regulated by the securities law of the country in which the issuing company is based and which guarantees legal protection for its investors.

Equity tokens issued through the equity token offering process also offer their holders the benefit of voting transparently on the issuing company’s matters through the blockchain, thereby facilitating the investor community’s acquisition of control in proportion to their holdings.

An application of Ethereum-based smart contracts conforming to ERC-20 standards, equity tokens allow holders to become shareholders in the token-issuing company, and all money invested is linked with the company’s performance.

Token holders maintain the right to get a share of the profits in the form of dividends and the value of the token is usually not linked to its demand on the crypto market but rather to the performance of the issuing company.

Some examples of equity tokens include Enegra (EGX) and BFToken, which have performed decently since listing.

How different are security tokens from utility tokens?

Security tokens represent the ownership of the principal company and differ from utility tokens in how their value is derived. Being regulated by governmental agencies that provide oversight in financial markets, they are considered much safer and offer returns in proportion to the issuing entity’s financial performance.

Security tokens have the potential to end up being one of the most encouraging cases for blockchain technology yet. In contrast to utility tokens, which were discussed above, security tokens represent the ownership of a digital or even physical asset such as real estate or anything else that is tangible.

Representing a unique method for companies to raise capital on the cryptocurrency market, security tokens allow companies to sell stock in a digital form or as a tokenized equity and provide ownership opportunities for a large swathe of investors at a low entry point.

These tokens represent the convergence of the traditional financial industry and the revolutionary crypto market where investors can invest in non-crypto businesses while enjoying the benefits offered by cryptographic tokens.

Unlike utility tokens, however, security tokens are regulated by bodies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since they represent real ownership of underlying assets.

Subsequently, security tokens are issued through the security token offering process and can represent a very small monetary value of the company or firm, making it possible for a more geographically dispersed population to own the underlying entity as compared to traditional equity market offerings.

Is Bitcoin a utility token?

Considered to be the most popular cryptocurrency and also the coin with the largest market capitalization, Bitcoin was designed to be a purely digital currency for peer-to-peer exchange.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) or Ethereum (ETH) are encoded into the software protocols of their respective blockchains and have digital assets native to their ecosystem. Therefore, BTC is considered to be a cryptocurrency in its truest sense and is used to transfer monetary value on Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network.

Crypto tokens, on the other hand, have a transaction behavior that is the result of being implemented by smart contracts instead of being built into the blockchain software, itself.

Similarly, many investors wonder if Ripple (XRP) is a utility token. XRP and Basic Attention Token (BAT) are basically ERC-20 tokens that run on the Ethereum network wherein XRP is used to facilitate Ripple’s enterprise-grade payment solutions, which are faster, transparent and more cost-effective than traditional financial services.

BAT is driving the Brave browser’s global private ad platform, which has 54 million monthly active users and 1.4 million verified creators, benefitting from arguably one of the most successful blockchain projects to date. Both are classic examples of utility tokens that have grown multiple folds in price terms since their ICOs due to the immense value they have created since their launch.

What is a utility token?

Commonly issued during an ICO, utility tokens provide token holders with privileged services and aren’t considered to be investments as they are speculative and act more like promotional tools for the issuing company.

Usually associated with initial coin offerings (ICOs), a utility token is a special type of cryptographic asset that is primarily aimed at garnering the funds necessary to develop a cryptocurrency project. Investors may purchase these utility tokens in different cryptocurrencies or even fiat currencies, and prices are generally static during the initial stages.

These utility tokens, once purchased, are stored in a crypto wallet associated with the buyer and can be used to access services provided by the blockchain project.

Moreover, utility tokens do not represent any ownership stake in the project being invested in and instead, allow the holder to buy or sell the underlying tokens on a preferential basis.

The value of utility tokens usually fluctuates, depending on the demand for the project and may generate profits for the token acquirer if the project ends up reaching its intended purpose with reasonable success.

Crypto tokens vs. crypto coins

Although crypto coins and tokens fall under the broader umbrella of cryptocurrencies, subtle technical differences between the two make each unique and warrant that investors understand these variances.

While crypto tokens and coins are largely the same from the end-user perspective, there are technical differences in how they are built on a blockchain that are important to understand.

Making matters more befuddling for new investors, crypto tokens can be classified into three types: utility tokens, security tokens or equity tokens. In the subsequent sections, we will focus on the differences between utility and equity tokens, and how these dissimilarities ought to drive decision-making when it comes to investment.

Seaside Resort in Slovenia Promotes Itself With NFTs

May 15, 2022 Bitcoin.com

DeFi attacks are on the rise — Will the industry be able to stem the tide?

May 14, 2022 Coin Telegraph

Coin Telegraph

Dozens of DeFi systems have been hacked over the past year, and the trend doesn’t seem to be abating.

The decentralized finance (DeFi) industry has lost over a billion dollars to hackers in the past couple of months, and the situation seems to be spiraling out of control.

According to the latest statistics, approximately $1.6 billion in cryptocurrencies was stolen from DeFi platforms in the first quarter of 2022. Furthermore, over 90% of all pilfered crypto is from hacked DeFi protocols.

These figures highlight a dire situation that is likely to persist over the long term if ignored.

Why hackers prefer DeFi platforms

In recent years, hackers have ramped up operations targeting DeFi systems. One primary reason as to why these groups are drawn to the sector is the sheer amount of funds that decentralized finance platforms hold. Top DeFi platforms process billions of dollars in transactions each month. As such, the rewards are high for hackers who are able to carry out successful attacks.

The fact that most DeFi protocol codes are open source also makes them even more prone to cybersecurity threats.

This is because open source programs are available for scrutiny by the public and can be audited by anyone with an internet connection. As such, they are easily scoured for exploits. This inherent property allows hackers to analyze DeFi applications for integrity issues and plan heists in advance.

Some DeFi developers have also contributed to the situation by deliberately disregarding platform security audit reports published by certified cybersecurity firms. Some development teams also launch DeFi projects without subjecting them to extensive security analysis. This increases the probability of coding defects.

Another dent in the armor when it comes to DeFi security is the interconnectivity of ecosystems. DeFi platforms are typically interconnected using cross-bridges, which bolster convenience and versatility.

While cross-bridges provide enhanced user experience, these crucial snippets of code connect huge networks of distributed ledgers with varying levels of security. This multiplex configuration allows DeFi hackers to harness the capabilities of multiple platforms to amplify attacks on certain platforms. It also allows them to quickly transfer ill-gotten funds across multiple decentralized networks seamlessly.

Besides the aforementioned risks, DeFi platforms are also prone to insider sabotage.

Security breaches

Hackers are using a wide range of techniques to infiltrate vulnerable DeFi perimeter systems.

Security breaches are a common occurrence in the DeFi sector. According to the 2022 Chainalysis report, approximately 35% of all stolen crypto in the past two years is attributed to security breaches.

Many of them occur due to faulty code. Hackers usually dedicate significant resources to finding systemic coding errors that allow them to carry out these types of attacks and typically utilize advanced bug tracker tools to aid them in this.

Another common tactic used by threat actors to seek out vulnerable platforms is tracking down networks with unpatched security issues that have already been exposed but yet to be implemented.

Hackers behind the recent Wormhole DeFi hack attack that led to the loss of about $325 million in digital tokens are reported to have used this strategy. An analysis of code commits revealed that a vulnerability patch uploaded to the platform’s GitHub repository was exploited before the patch was deployed.

The mistake enabled the intruders to forge a system signature that allowed the minting of 120,000 Wrapped Ether (wETH) coins valued at $325 million. The hackers then sold the wETH for about $250 million in Ether (ETH). The exchanged Ethereum coins were derived from the platform’s settlement reserves, thereby leading to losses.

The Wormhole service acts as a bridge between chains. It allows users to spend deposited cryptocurrencies in wrapped tokens across chains. This is accomplished by minting Wormhole-wrapped tokens, which alleviate the need to swap or convert the deposited coins directly.

Recent: How blockchain archives can change how we record history in wartime

Flash loan attacks

Flash loans are unsecured DeFi loans that require no credit checks. They enable investors and traders to borrow funds instantly.

Because of their convenience, flash loans are usually used to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities in connected DeFi ecosystems.

In flash loan attacks, lending protocols are targeted and compromised using price manipulation techniques that create artificial price discrepancies. This allows bad actors to buy assets at hugely discounted rates. Most flash loan attacks take minutes and sometimes seconds to execute and involve several interlinked DeFi protocols.

One way through which attackers manipulate asset prices is by targeting assailable price oracles. DeFi price oracles, for example, draw their rates from external sources such as reputable exchanges and trade sites. Hackers can, for example, manipulate the source sites to trick oracles into momentarily dropping the value of targeted asset rates so that they trade at lower prices compared to the wider market.

Attackers then buy the assets at deflated rates and quickly sell them at their floating exchange rate. Using leveraged tokens obtained through flash loans allows them to magnify the profits.

Besides manipulating prices, some attackers have been able to carry out flash loan attacks by hijacking DeFi voting processes. Most recently, Beanstalk DeFi incurred a $182 million loss after an attacker took advantage of a shortcoming in its governance system.

The Beanstalk development team had included a governance mechanism that allowed participants to vote for platform changes as a core functionality. This setup is popular in the DeFi industry because it upholds democracy. Voting rights on the platform were set to be proportional to the value of native tokens held.

An analysis of the breach revealed that the attackers obtained a flash loan from the Aave DeFi protocol to get almost $1 billion in assets. This enabled them to get a 67% majority in the voting governance system and allowed them to unilaterally approve the transfer of assets to their address. The perpetrators made off with about $80 million in digital currencies after repaying the flash loan and related surcharges.

Approximately $360 million worth of crypto coins was stolen from DeFi platforms in 2021 using flash loans, according to Chainalysis.

Where does stolen crypto go?

For a long time now, hackers have used centralized exchanges to launder stolen funds, but cybercriminals are beginning to ditch them for DeFi platforms. In 2021, cybercriminals sent about 17% of all illicit crypto to DeFi networks, which is a significant jump from 2% in 2020.

Market pundits theorize that the shift to DeFi protocols is because of the wider implementation of more stringent Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) processes. The procedures compromise the anonymity sought after by cybercriminals. Most DeFi platforms forego these crucial processes.

Cooperation with the authorities

Centralized exchanges are also, now more than ever before, working with authorities to counter cybercrime. In April, the Binance exchange played an instrumental role in the recovery of $5.8 million in stolen cryptocurrencies that was part of a $625 million stash stolen from Axie Infinity. The money had initially been sent to Tornado Cash.

Tornado Cash is a token anonymization service that obfuscates the origin of funds by fragmenting on-chain links that are used to trace transacting addresses.

A portion of the stolen funds was, however, tracked by blockchain analytic firms to Binance. The loot was held in 86 addresses on the exchange.

In the aftermath of the incident, a spokesperson for the United States Treasury Department underlined that crypto exchanges that handle money from blacklisted crypto address risk sanctions.

Tornado Cash also seems to be cooperating with the authorities to stop the transfer of stolen funds to its network. The company has said that it will be implementing a monitoring tool to help identify and block embargoed wallets.

There seems to be some progress in the seizure of nicked assets by the authorities. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the seizure of $3.6 billion in crypto and arrested two people who were involved in laundering the funds. The money was part of the $4.5 billion purloined from the Bitfinex crypto exchange in 2016.

The crypto seizure was among the biggest ever recorded.

DeFi CEOs speak about the current situation

Speaking exclusively to Cointelegraph earlier this week, Eric Chen, CEO and co-founder of Injective Labs — an interoperable smart contracts platform optimized for decentralized finance applications — said that there is hope that the problems will subside.

“We are seeing the tide continuing to subside, as more robust security standards are put into place. With proper testing and further security infrastructures put into place, DeFi projects will be able to prevent common exploit risks in the future,” he said.

On the measures that his network was taking to avert hack attacks, Chen provided an outline:

“Injective ensures a more tightly defined application-centric security model compared to traditional Ethereum Virtual Machine-based DeFi applications. The design of the blockchain and the logic of core modules protect Injective from common exploits such as re-entrancy, maximum extractable value and flash loans. Applications built on top of Injective are able to benefit from the security measures that are implemented in the blockchain on the consensus level.”

Recent: Rising global adoption positions crypto perfectly for use in retail

Cointelegraph also had the chance to speak with Konstantin Boyko-Romanovsky, CEO and founder of Allnodes — a non-custodial hosting and staking platform — about the increase in hack incidences. Regarding the main catalysts behind the trend, he said:

“No doubt it will take some time to lower the risk of DeFi hacks. It is unlikely, however, that it will happen overnight. There is a lingering sense of a race in DeFi. Everyone seems to be in a hurry, including the project founders. The market is evolving faster than the speed at which programmers write code. Good players who take every precaution are in the minority.”

He also provided some insight on procedures that would help counteract the problem:

“The code must get better and smart contracts must be thoroughly audited, that’s for sure. In addition, users should be constantly reminded of cautious etiquette online. Identifying any flaws can be attractively incentivized. This, in turn, might promote healthier conduct across a particular protocol.”

The DeFi industry is having a hard time thwarting hack attacks. There is, however, hope that increased monitoring from the authorities and greater cooperation among exchanges will help curb the scourge.

What happened? Terra debacle exposes flaws plaguing the crypto industry

May 13, 2022 Coin Telegraph

Coin Telegraph

The downfall of Terra calls into question the real-world utility as well as the long-term viability of algorithmic stablecoins.

The past week has been a dark period in the history of crypto, with the total market capitalization of this industry dipping as low as $1.2 trillion for the first time since July 2021. The turmoil, in large part, has been due to the real-time disintegration of Terra, a Cosmos-based protocol that powers a suite of algorithmic stablecoins.

Approximately a week ago, Terra (LUNA) ranked among the 10 most valuable cryptocurrencies in the market, with a single token trading at a price point of $85. By May 11, however, the price of the asset had dropped to $15. And, 48-hours on, the token has lost 99.98% of its value currently trading at a price point of $0.00003465.

Due to ongoing collapse, Terra’s other associated offering, TerraUSD (UST) — an algorithmic stablecoin pegged to the United States dollar in a 1:1 ratio — has lost its peg to the dollar and is presently trading at $0.079527.

The Terra ecosystem explained

As highlighted above, the Terra protocol is driven via the use of two core tokens, namely UST and LUNA. Network participants are afforded the ability to mint UST by burning LUNA at the Terra Station portal. Simply put, one can envision the Terra economy as being one that consists primarily of two pools: i.e. one for TerraUSD and one for LUNA.

In order to maintain UST’s value, the LUNA supply pool either adds to or subtracts from its coffers such that clients are required to burn LUNA in order to mint UST and vice versa. All of these actions are incentivized by the platform’s algorithmic market module making UST’s functional framework substantially different from that of its closest stablecoin rivals Tether (UDST) and USD Coin (USDC), both of whom are backed by fiat assets directly.

To better illustrate the working of UST (or algorithmic stablecoins in general), it would be best to make use of a simple illustration. Say, for example, the value of UST lies at $1.01, then users are incentivized to make use of Terra’s swap module to trade $1.00 worth of LUNA for 1 UST, thereby allowing them to pocket a net profit of $0.01.

Now, when the tables are turned and UST dips to $0.99, network users can do the exact opposite, causing the protocol to disallow some users from being able to redeem $1.00 worth of UST for $1.00 worth of LUNA. This once hypothetical scenario is now a living reality, resulting not only in the disintegration of the Terra protocol but also in maligning the reputation of the crypto industry in the eyes of investors all across the globe.

Damage control but to no avail

As soon as LUNA and UST went into freefall earlier this week, the protocol’s co-founder Do Kwon released a series of tweets announcing remedial measures to contain any further bleeding. As a preliminary step to counter UST’s decoupling with the dollar, Kwon reinforced the burning of UST, something which we now know in hindsight failed to work.

2/ I understand the last 72 hours have been extremely tough on all of you - know that I am resolved to work with every one of you to weather this crisis, and we will build our way out of this.

Together.
— Do Kwon (@stablekwon) May 11, 2022

Kwon claimed that by increasing the base pool from 50 million to 100 million special drawing rights (SDR) and decreasing PoolRecoveryBlock from 36 to 18, the protocol’s minting capacity could potentially be bumped up from $293 million to a whopping $1.2 trillion.

Simply put, by deploying the aforementioned changes, the Terra team was afforded the ability to mint four times more UST out of thin air, a process that is now being jokingly being referred to as Kwontative easing. Providing an expert take on the matter, Jack Tao, CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Phemex, told Cointelegraph that looking back now, the disaster signals surrounding UST and LUNA had been there for quite some time.

For starters, he believes that the general idea surrounding algorithmic stablecoins in itself is quite flimsy since these offerings lack any sort of actual backing asset. Secondly, the Luna Foundation had recently been making a lot of noise, as Do Kwon announced he was going to be purchasing a total of $10 billion in Bitcoin (BTC) to serve as UST’s reserves. In this regard, Tao added:

“These purchases resulted in an oversupply of UST, which started falling rapidly once sell pressure began to mount on LUNA and then subsequently on UST. Once this selling happened, the Luna Foundation Guard had to offload its Bitcoin to maintain the peg. But, the reflexive sell pressure continued and all of the involved assets began to drop hard.”

Recent: Go green or die? Bitcoin miners aim for carbon neutrality by mining near data centers

Tao went on to add that the Anchor Protocol — a savings, lending and borrowing platform built on the Terra Blockchain — which was promising an unrealistic 20% annual percentage yield (APY) on UST staking, also had a major role to play in the development. When sell pressure on UST rose, it lost its $1.00 peg and started to drop uncontrollably:

“Once the Binance liquidity dried up, Curve’s two UST pools started selling UST, and Anchor’s borrowing levels declined by over $1 billion. As a result of this, the broader ecosystem has now been plagued with confidence issues, especially when it comes to stablecoins.”

Terra officially goes offline post-collapse, albeit briefly

On May 12, validators serving the Terra network collectively decided to put a halt to any digital activity related to the ecosystem in an attempt to mitigate potential governance attacks, especially as the network’s LUNA token dipped to under a penny recently.

To this point, Terraform Labs’ official Twitter account revealed that all network activity had been stalled at block height 7,603,700. With LUNA’s value dropping by nearly 100%, the firm’s spokesperson suggested that developers are no longer confident in their abilities to prevent third-party governance hacks. However, the downtime was short-lived, with Terra’s core team revealing that it would restart operations as soon as validators were able to apply a patch that disabled all further delegations.

As a consequence of the LUNA/USDT trading pair dipping below the 0.005 USDT mark, it was delisted from Binance. The move followed the removal of LUNA tokens by cryptocurrency exchange Huobi just a day earlier. Before the unfolding of the above-stated events, UST was the third-largest stablecoin by total market capitalization, trailing only Tether and USD Coin.

A bad look for the industry as a whole

In Tao’s view, this entire episode is going to have a negative impact on the image of the crypto industry, especially in the eyes of investors. In particular, he believes that the crash could result in lawmakers becoming more strict around decentralized stablecoins and could even lead to many governments aggressively exploring the creation of their very own centralized stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), adding:

“The LUNA situation will, unfortunately, leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth as this has caused a lot of great altcoins to lose tremendous value. But, a bigger more important aspect of this development is its timing. All this has happened at a time when there is a war raging in Eastern Europe, supply chains are being constrained globally, inflation and interest rates are rising.”

Recent: Blockchains are forever: DLT makes diamond industry more transparent

That said, he did concede that there might be a small silver lining in all this: The event may result in the survival of only the best projects, with most sketchy platforms losing investor interest in a big way. “There will be much more scrutiny from now on and investors will feel comfortable choosing to invest in only the largest cryptos such as Bitcoin, Ether and Solana,” he said.

Thus, it will be interesting to see how this story continues to unfold and what sort of repercussions this incident has on the development/evolution of the cryptocurrency market at large, especially as the traditional finance system also continues to be ravaged by a growing amount of adverse financial pressure.

Aurora launches $90M fund to finance DeFi apps on Near Protocol

May 13, 2022 Coin Telegraph

Aurora launches M fund to finance DeFi apps on Near Protocol

Coin Telegraph

Aurora, an EVM scaling mechanism on the Near protocol, has launched a $90 million token fund in partnership with Proximity Labs to attract new developers.

Aurora, an Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) designed to scale decentralized applications (DApp) built on the Near protocol, has launched a token fund worth $90 million.

The fund was launched today in partnership with Proximity Labs and will be focused on financing decentralized finance (DeFi) applications on the Near protocol.

Near Protocol is a DApp platform that focuses on usability among developers and users. As an emerging layer-1 competitor to Ethereum, Near Protocol is also smart-contract capable and runs a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism.

Funding was provided by Aurora Labs, which allocated 25 million AURORA tokens — currently valued at roughly $90 million — from its DAO treasury to proximity labs.

As a result of the funding model, Proximity Labs will now be responsible for managing the funds and providing grants to developers aiming to build DeFi Dapps on Aurora.

The Aurora Labs team believes that the token-based funding structure will also increase activity across the network.

The founder of Aurora Labs, Dr. Alex Shevchenko stated that the launch of the new token fund will help make developing Ethereum applications on the Near protocol more attractive to developers.

“Aurora DAO continues its mission to extend the Ethereum economy outside Ethereum blockchain. This grant is a next big step in the development of the Aurora ecosystem and I’m happy that Proximity Labs accompanies us in this journey.”

The EVM is a blockchain-based computer engine at the core of Ethereum’s operating system, responsible for transaction execution, smart contract deployment and other operating functionalities, in addition to enabling developers to build DApps on its blockchain.

An increasing number of independent blockchains have adopted the EVM as the default smart contract engine, including BNB Chain, Avalanche Chain, Polygon and Fantom.

Rising global adoption positions crypto perfectly for use in retail

May 11, 2022 Coin Telegraph

Coin Telegraph

As more and more people continue to invest in digital currencies, experts believe the coming few years will see crypto making an even larger impact on the retail sector.

Even though the cryptocurrency market seems to be going through a bit of a lull at the moment, there’s no denying the fact that the industry has grown from strength to strength over the last few years, especially from an adoption perspective.

To this point, a recent study revealed that the number of adults in the United States using digital assets for everyday purchases will increase by 70% by the end of the year when compared to 2021, with the metric rising from 1.08 million to 3.6 million users.

The study’s chief author suggests that as the crypto market’s volatility continues to reduce — thanks to the growing use of stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) — more and more people will look at these offerings as a legitimate means of payment. In fact, by the end of 2022, the research suggests that the total population of U.S adults making use of crypto will scale up to a staggering 33.7 million.

By the end of 2023, this number could potentially climb to 37.2 million, a figure that is quite realistic, especially when considering the fact that investors entering the global crypto fray have nearly doubled across different countries like India, Brazil and Hong Kong within the last 12 months. On the subject, Narek Gevorgian, CEO and founder of CoinStats — a crypto portfolio manager and decentralized finance (DeFi) wallet — told Cointelegraph:

“Crypto is taking a front row seat within the financial mainstream in many cases, not in a zero-sum way versus the existing established market. Millions of unbanked people have access to cryptocurrency transactions from their mobile phones, and due to this being an untapped market, it is hard to observe and measure its growth from the economic lenses we have in place today.”

Crypto adoption in retail primed to grow

Max Krupyshev, CEO of crypto payments processor CoinsPaid, believes that while the aforementioned figure of 3.6 million is quite impressive, it still represents just around 1% of the American population. In his opinion, there is going to be exponential growth in cryptocurrency payments within the next 3-5 years, adding:

“I think we will be able to talk about tens of millions of users in the United States alone by 2025. The American market is a fertile ground for any innovative solutions. Another factor driving crypto’s adoption as a day-to-day transactional currency is that it is becoming increasingly easier to buy, spend these assets with global brands.”

He further stated that when it comes to crypto payments, Asia has the potential to overtake America in the long run since the region as a whole is quite flexible when it comes to accepting novel and upcoming technologies. “We should also pay attention to the growing popularity of cryptocurrencies in African countries. There is a great demand for crypto apps and alternative investment tools offering a low entry threshold,” Krupyshev added.

Brandon Dallman, chief marketing officer for DeFi ecosystem Unizen, told Cointelegraph that for the longest time the retail payments/cross border remittance ecosystem was ruled by a select few players like Western Union, PayPal and Stripe. However, with the rising popularity of crypto in recent years, digital assets have helped people circumvent issues related to middlemen and high fees, as well as the inherent inhibitive red tapism associated with the traditional finance economy. He highlighted:

“Fast blockchain networks are suitable rails for CBDCs like the digital dollar, euro etc. The blockchain that is able to cater to the demand put forward by financial institutions like stock exchanges and clearing houses will win the battle. We are seeing banks of all sizes dip their toes in the water to see how they can start to interact with the new digital world in front of them, driven by a growing fear of being left behind.”

Recent: Go green or die? Bitcoin miners aim for carbon neutrality by mining near data centers

Maybe not?

Not everyone is convinced about crypto’s growing clout within the retail segment. For example, Ben Caselin, head of research and strategy for cryptocurrency exchange AAX, told Cointelegraph that while we may see the adoption of custodied stablecoins in the near future, it’s highly doubtful that we are headed toward some kind of crypto payments utopia, adding:

“With increased integration, we can expect more vetting and regulation which will not bode well at all for crypto. There might be some venues where particular tokens may be the currency of choice, for example, a Bored Ape-themed restaurant is likely to accept payments in ApeCoin. But, other than that, I’m of the view that ultimately, real world payments and store of value utility will converge on Bitcoin, although this does not discount the continued growth of online and offline micro economies.”

Nonetheless, Caselin said it’s encouraging to see the mainstream move toward a better and more open understanding of what money really is. “If we can see merchants or corporations actually holding the crypto assets they’re paid with, then this could get very interesting,” he noted.

Which digital assets are suited for retail?

As things stand, Dallman sees Solana (SOL) as a frontrunner when it comes to facilitating everyday transactions because the network offers fast speeds and extremely cheap gas fee rates, making the network more accessible. Furthermore, with major cryptos like Bitcoin (BTC) beginning to find mainstream adoption as legal tender, he sees the flagship asset gaining more popularity as a digital payment medium.

*Crypto point-of-sale terminal. Source: Intellogate Fintech Solutions*

A similar opinion is shared by Krupyshev, who believes that Bitcoin, rather than any stablecoin, will become a more popular means of payment even though most products or services have their values denominated in U.S. dollars, adding:

“I consider Bitcoin the most likely candidate for the role of a global payment medium. It has already proven its vitality, having overcome more than one crisis and survived more than one crypto winter.”

That said, he conceded that it is highly unlikely that we will see the mass implementation of BTC-centric payments over the next couple of years. This is thanks, in large part, to the fact that production costs are still paid in fiat currencies and are usually tied to either the U.S. dollar, euro, British pound, yen or yuan.

For Gevorgian, Bitcoin and Ether (ETH) seem to be two of the most likely candidates for global retail adoption, thanks to their market dominance and popularity with investors. “Bitcoin seems to be working for larger transactions, and slowly but surely it will become a more viable option for smaller transactions with the advance of solutions built on top of the Lightning Network,” he added.

He further suggested that the most promising cryptocurrencies to gain ground in the payments arena will be those that are the most held and used. This will likely see the top-20 largest coins by market cap prevail as transactional currencies.

Contrary to the opinions listed above, Yair Testa, head of business development for blockchain-based payments ecosystem COTI, has no doubt in his mind that stablecoins will be the number one choice for retail remittances in the near future. He told Cointelegraph:

“Enterprises and merchants need to use a great portion of their revenue in order to cover their operational costs and can’t afford the risk. They need stability and assurance that their revenue will have the same value tomorrow as it does today. We see regulated stablecoins and CBDCs as the leading payment method in the long term.”

Mainstream entities accepting crypto

With crypto assets accruing a lot of mainstream support in recent years, the list of famous brands accepting digital currencies has been growing at a furious pace. For example, Microsoft currently allows its users to pay for its various in-house services — including Xbox Live, Microsoft apps, games, etc. — via Bitcoin.

Overstock, an American internet furniture retailer, seems to be leading the roost when it comes to crypto shopping. This is because the company currently accepts a number of digital tokens alongside Bitcoin such as Litecoin (LTC), ETH and Monero (XMR). Similarly, Home Depot, the largest hardware store chain in the United States, allows Bitcoin payments via Flexa’s checkout system — a crypto payments ecosystem backed by Gemini — thus making it possible for individuals to build an entire home using just crypto.

Recent: Can Solana become the dominant PoS chain despite persistent outages?

Starbucks has also partnered with futures exchange Bakkt, allowing users to pay for their morning cup of coffee (and much more) using digital assets. The same is also true for American multinational supermarket chain Whole Foods, which recently partnered with spending app SPEDN, allowing users to buy all of their groceries using BTC, LTC, or the Gemini dollar (GUSD). SPEDN is not just relegated to Whole Foods since it also allows users to spend their digital holdings at Regal Cinemas, GameStop, Jamba Juice and Baskin Robbins.

On the telecoms front, AT&T is the first American mobile phone provider to offer its clients crypto payments, albeit indirectly. Using BitPay, a third-party payment gateway, users who want to avail of the company’s various offerings/services can do so using Bitcoin as well as a few other assets.

Apart from the names listed above, some other prominent brands that currently take crypto payments include entertainment firm AMC, travel booking operator Travala, American department store franchisee JCPenney, the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and GameStop, among many others.

As we head into a future where digital currencies continue to increase in popularity at a rapid rate, it will be interesting to see how crypto fits into the global retail landscape, especially in terms of either competing or complementing the existing fiat payment system that is in place globally.

Tokens