Overnight News Heading into Thursday August 27th 2020 (News Yet to be Traded 8:00 PM - 4:00 AM EST)
ADXN ($14.40) Addex and the SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics Receive Innosuisse Grant to Repurpose Potent Dopamine Antagonist Using Computational Modelling
ALGT Allegiant Announces Seven New Routes With Fares As Low As $29* Each Way
TLSA ($3.97) Tiziana Life Sciences CEO Updates Shareholders on its Patent Portfolio, Clinical Pipeline, and Strategy in an Exclusive Interview
LBTYA Liberty Global Publishes Offer Prospectus for Sunrise Communications Group Tender Offer
NSP DEADLINE ALERT: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Reminds Shareholders Of Insperity Of Upcoming Deadline
CGG ($1.88) Adds Second Azimuth to Northern Viking Graben Multi-Client Survey
UAA ($9.88) Under Armour Sued By UCLA Over $280M Sponsorship Contract Breach
PHG Philips to expand its image-guided therapy devices portfolio through acquisition of Intact Vascular
CCC Clarivate Announces Appointment of Stefano Maestri as Chief Technology Officer
RDY Dr. Reddy's Laboratories announces the launch of Penicillamine Capsules USP, 250 mg in the U.S. Market
End of Day and After Hours News Heading into Thursday August 27th 2020 (News Traded 4:00 PM - 8:00 PM EST)
ABT ($103.19) Abbott's Fast, $5, 15-Minute, Easy-to-Use COVID-19 Antigen Test Receives FDA Emergency Use Authorization; Mobile App Displays Test Results to Help Our Return to Daily Life; Ramping Production to 50 Million Tests a MonthNSP DEADLINE ALERT: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Reminds Shareholders Of Insperity, Inc. Of Upcoming Deadline
CLVS ($4.96) FDA Approves FoundationOne® Liquid CDx to Serve as Rubraca® Companion Diagnostic to Identify Eligible Patients with BRCA1/2-Mutant, Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
DSS ($6,27) Interview to Air on Bloomberg International on the RedChip Money Report
AMC ($5.60) AMC ready to open another 170 theaters for weekend
NTAP NetApp Stock Spikes After Earnings Crush Estimates
RIOT ($3.41) Riot buys more bitcoin miners, sees hashing capacity over 2 EH/s next year
FE FirstEnergy Utility Crews Mobilize to Assist Hurricane Laura Power Restoration Efforts in Texas
MESO Mesoblast Reports Substantial Operational Progress and Financial Results for the Year Ended June 30, 2020
GME GameStop Announces Second Quarter Fiscal 2020 Earnings Release Date
SPLK Splunk Slides as Revenues Miss Amid Business Model Shift
MSFT Microsoft Brings Back Halo Veteran to Get Delayed Game Back on Track
ET ($6.46) Army Corps seeks reversal of Dakota Access pipeline ruling
Russia Proposes Harsh Penalties for Unreported Cryptocurrency Holdings
Russia’s Ministry of Finance has drafted a bill with harsh penalties for anyone who does not report their cryptocurrency holdings above a certain level. Penalties include jail terms and fines. The Russian Ministry of Finance has sent out a new draft bill addressing the circulation of cryptocurrency in Russia to interested government departments, local news outlet Kommersant reported this week. The bill contains amendments to the Russian Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Administrative Code, the Tax Code, and the law on combating money laundering, the publication conveyed, claiming to be familiar with the bill. The main changes from the previous bill concern the obligation of citizens to declare their cryptocurrency operations as well as the content of their cryptocurrency wallets. The ministry proposes requiring exchanges and users to inform the tax authority about cryptocurrency transactions. Noting that the market views the previous draft law as posing significant restriction to the circulation of cryptocurrency in Russia, Kommersant reported that the new draft law is even more strict. “In particular, any person (natural or legal) who has received digital currency or digital rights of more than 100,000 rubles [$1,280] in a calendar year is obliged to inform the tax authority and submit an annual report on transactions with such assets and the balances of these assets.” Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Russia) LLP’s senior tax lawyer Dmitry Kirillov explained that if the amendments are adopted, the first report will have to be submitted by April 30, 2021, for the 2020 tax filing year. He added: " For failure to report to the tax authority, you can get a fine of 30% of crypto assets, but not less than 50,000 rubles." Roman Yankovsky, a member of the commission on legal support of the digital economy of the Moscow branch of the Russian Lawyers’ Association, noted that foreign cryptocurrency businesses, including crypto exchanges and depositories, must send the tax authority quarterly information about their Russian cryptocurrency operations. While believing that “hardly anyone will take this rule seriously,” he elaborated:
"The liability is not limited to fines. Non-declaration of a crypto wallet if more than 1 million rubles [$12,796] have passed through it per year becomes a criminal offense of up to three years in prison. Also, forced labor can be used as a punishment."
Experts criticize the amendments are too harsh. Malta-based broker Exante co-founder Anatoly Knyazev, for example, believes that the penalties are disproportionate to the violations. The Ministry of Finance also emphasized that recommendations by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) are being considered, but noted that no final decision has been made on the regulation of cryptocurrencies in Russia. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that the proposed bill is under consideration for adoption in connection with the law on digital financial assets and digital currencies which will enter into force on Jan. 1, 2021. Originally published by Kevin Helms | September 26, 2020 Bitcoin.com
It is no doubt Grayscale’s booming popularity as a mainstream investment has caused a lot of community hullabaloo lately. As such, I felt it was worth making a FAQ regarding the topic. I’m looking to update this as needed and of course am open to suggestions / adding any questions. The goal is simply to have a thread we can link to anyone with questions on Grayscaleand its products. Instead of explaining the same thing 3 times a day, shoot those posters over to this thread.My hope is that these questions are answered in a fairly simple and easy to understand manner. I think as the sub grows it will be a nice reference point for newcomers. Disclaimer: I do NOT work for Grayscale and as such am basing all these answers on information that can be found on their website / reports. (Grayscale’s official FAQ can be found here). I also do NOT have a finance degree, I do NOT have a Series 6 / 7 / 140-whatever, and I do NOT work with investment products for my day job. I have an accounting background and work within the finance world so I have the general ‘business’ knowledge to put it all together, but this is all info determined in my best faith effort as a layman. The point being is this --- it is possible I may explain something wrong or missed the technical terms, and if that occurs I am more than happy to update anything that can be proven incorrect Everything below will be in reference to ETHE but will apply to GBTC as well.If those two segregate in any way, I will note that accordingly.
ETHE is essentially a stock that intends to loosely track the price of ETH. It does so by having each ETHE be backed by a specific amount of ETH that is held on chain. Initially, the newly minted ETHE can only be purchased by institutions and accredited investors directly from Grayscale. Once a year has passed (6 months for GBTC) it can then be listed on the OTCQX Best Market exchange for secondary trading. Once listed on OTCQX, anyone investor can purchase at this point. Additional information on ETHE can be found here.
So ETHE is an ETF?
No. For technical reasons beyond my personal understandings it is not labeled an ETF. I know it all flows back to the “Securities Act Rule 144”, but due to my limited knowledge on SEC regulations I don’t want to misspeak past that. If anyone is more knowledgeable on the subject I am happy to input their answer here.
How long has ETHE existed?
ETHE was formed 12/14/2017. GBTC was formed 9/25/2013.
How is ETHE created?
The trust will issue shares to “Authorized Participants” in groups of 100 shares (called baskets). Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create these baskets and they do it on behalf of the investor. Source: Creation and Redemption of Shares section on page 39 of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here Note – The way their reports word this makes it sound like there is an army of authorizers doing the dirty work, but in reality there is only one Authorized Participant. At this moment the “Genesis” company is the sole Authorized Participant. Genesis is owned by the “Digital Currency Group, Inc.” which is the parent company of Grayscale as well. (And to really go down the rabbit hole it looks like DCG is the parent company of CoinDesk and is “backing 150+ companies across 30 countries, including Coinbase, Ripple, and Chainalysis.”) Source: Digital Currency Group, Inc. informational section on page 77 of the “Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) Form 10-K (2019)” – Located Here Source: Barry E. Silbert informational section on page 75 of the “Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) Form 10-K (2019)” – Located Here
How does Grayscale acquire the ETH to collateralize the ETHE product?
An Investor may acquire ETHE by paying in cash or exchanging ETH already owned.
Cash: The investor pays the subscription amount in cash and the Authorized Participant will use that cash to purchase ETH.
ETH: The investor transfers the ETH to the Authorized Participant, which will contribute the ETH in-kind to the Trust.
Source: Creation and Redemption of Shares section on page 40 of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here
Where does Grayscale store their ETH? Does it have a specific wallet address we can follow?
ETH is stored with Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC. I am unaware of any specific address or set of addresses that can be used to verify the ETH is actually there. As an aside - I would actually love to see if anyone knows more about this as it’s something that’s sort of peaked my interest after being asked about it… I find it doubtful we can find that however. Source: Part C. Business Information, Item 8, subsection A. on page 16 of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here
Can ETHE be redeemed for ETH?
No, currently there is no way to give your shares of ETHE back to Grayscale to receive ETH back. The only method of getting back into ETH would be to sell your ETHE to someone else and then use those proceeds to buy ETH yourself. Source: Redemption Procedures on page 41 of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here
Why are they not redeeming shares?
I think the report summarizes it best:
Redemptions of Shares are currently not permitted and the Trust is unable to redeem Shares. Subject to receipt of regulatory approval from the SEC and approval by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, the Trust may in the future operate a redemption program. Because the Trust does not believe that the SEC would, at this time, entertain an application for the waiver of rules needed in order to operate an ongoing redemption program, the Trust currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval from the SEC to operate an ongoing redemption program.
Source: Redemption Procedures on page 41 of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here
What is the fee structure?
ETHE has an annual fee of 2.5%. GBTC has an annual fee of 2.0%. Fees are paid by selling the underlying ETH / BTC collateralizing the asset. Source: ETHE’s informational page on Grayscale’s website - Located Here Source: Description of Trust on page 31 & 32 of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here
What is the ratio of ETH to ETHE?
At the time of posting (6/19/2020) each ETHE share is backed by .09391605 ETH. Each share of GBTC is backed by .00096038 BTC. ETHE & GBTC’s specific information page on Grayscale’s website updates the ratio daily – Located Here For a full historical look at this ratio, it can be found on the Grayscale home page on the upper right side if you go to Tax Documents > 2019 Tax Documents > Grayscale Ethereum Trust 2019 Tax Letter.
Why is the ratio not 1:1? Why is it always decreasing?
While I cannot say for certain why the initial distribution was not a 1:1 backing, it is more than likely to keep the price down and allow more investors a chance to purchase ETHE / GBTC. As noted above, fees are paid by selling off the ETH collateralizing ETHE. So this number will always be trending downward as time goes on. Source: Description of Trust on page 32 of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here
I keep hearing about how this is locked supply… explain?
As noted above, there is currently no redemption program for converting your ETHE back into ETH. This means that once an ETHE is issued, it will remain in circulation until a redemption program is formed --- something that doesn’t seem to be too urgent for the SEC or Grayscale at the moment. Tiny amounts will naturally be removed due to fees, but the bulk of the asset is in there for good. Knowing that ETHE cannot be taken back and destroyed at this time, the ETH collateralizing it will not be removed from the wallet for the foreseeable future. While it is not fully locked in the sense of say a totally lost key, it is not coming out any time soon. Per their annual statement:
The Trust’s ETH will be transferred out of the ETH Account only in the following circumstances: (i) transferred to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expenses, (ii) distributed in connection with the redemption of Baskets (subject to the Trust’s obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC to operate an ongoing redemption program and the consent of the Sponsor), (iii) sold on an as-needed basis to pay Additional Trust Expenses or (iv) sold on behalf of the Trust in the event the Trust terminates and liquidates its assets or as otherwise required by law or regulation.
Source: Description of Trust on page 31 of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here
Grayscale now owns a huge chunk of both ETH and BTC’s supply… should we be worried about manipulation, a sell off to crash the market crash, a staking cartel?
First, it’s important to remember Grayscale is a lot more akin to an exchange then say an investment firm. Grayscale is working on behalf of its investors to create this product for investor control. Grayscale doesn’t ‘control’ the ETH it holds any more then Coinbase ‘controls’ the ETH in its hot wallet. (Note: There are likely some varying levels of control, but specific to this topic Grayscale cannot simply sell [legally, at least] the ETH by their own decision in the same manner Coinbase wouldn't be able to either.) That said, there shouldn’t be any worry in the short to medium time-frame. As noted above, Grayscale can’t really remove ETH other than for fees or termination of the product. At 2.5% a year, fees are noise in terms of volume. Grayscale seems to be the fastest growing product in the crypto space at the moment and termination of the product seems unlikely. IF redemptions were to happen tomorrow, it’s extremely unlikely we would see a mass exodus out of the product to redeem for ETH. And even if there was incentive to get back to ETH, the premium makes it so that it would be much more cost effective to just sell your ETHE on the secondary market and buy ETH yourself. Remember, any redemption is up to the investors and NOT something Grayscale has direct control over.
Yes, but what about [insert criminal act here]…
Alright, yes. Technically nothing is stopping Grayscale from selling all the ETH / BTC and running off to the Bahamas (Hawaii?). BUT there is no real reason for them to do so. Barry is an extremely public figure and it won’t be easy for him to get away with that. Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust creates SEC reports weekly / bi-weekly and I’m sure given the sentiment towards crypto is being watched carefully. Plus, Grayscale is making tons of consistent revenue and thus has little to no incentive to give that up for a quick buck.
That’s a lot of ‘happy little feels’ Bob, is there even an independent audit or is this Tether 2.0?
Actually yes, an independent auditor report can be found in their annual reports. It is clearly aimed more towards the financial side and I doubt the auditors are crypto savants, but it is at least one extra set of eyes. Auditors are Friedman LLP – Auditor since 2015. Source: Independent Auditor Report starting on page 116 (of the PDF itself) of the “Grayscale Ethereum Trust Annual Report (2019)” – Located Here As mentioned by user TheCrpytosAndBloods (In Comments Below), a fun fact:
The company’s auditors Friedman LLP were also coincidentally TetheBitfinex’s auditors until They controversially parted ways in 2018 when the Tether controversy was at its height. I am not suggesting for one moment that there is anything shady about DCG - I just find it interesting it’s the same auditor.
“Grayscale sounds kind of lame” / “Not your keys not your crypto!” / “Why is anyone buying this, it sounds like a scam?”
Welp, for starters this honestly is not really a product aimed at the people likely to be reading this post. To each their own, but do remember just because something provides no value to you doesn’t mean it can’t provide value to someone else. That said some of the advertised benefits are as follows:
Access to trading within a tax advantaged retirement account
Institutions can easily and safely get exposure to crypto in a more legal-friendly manner
Ease of use for those who are not very technologically savvy
Ease of access for someone who doesn’t want to set up a Coinbase account
Perceived trust in institutional platforms over something like Coinbase or Kraken
Degen traders who just want access to the volatility ETHE provides that have no interest in crypto beyond that
So for example, I can set up an IRA at a brokerage account that has $0 trading fees. Then I can trade GBTC and ETHE all day without having to worry about tracking my taxes. All with the relative safety something like E-Trade provides over Binance. As for how it benefits the everyday ETH holder? I think the supply lock is a positive. I also think this product exposes the Ethereum ecosystem to people who otherwise wouldn’t know about it.
Why is there a premium? Why is ETHE’s premium so insanely high compared to GBTC’s premium?
There are a handful of theories of why a premium exists at all, some even mentioned in the annual report. The short list is as follows:
ETHE is NOT redeeming shares and as such doesn’t have an effective arbitrage mechanism
ETHE has a 1 year wait to be sold on the secondary market, again negating the ability to effectively arbitrage the premium
People may simply be willing to pay a premium for the benefits stated above.
Why is ETHE’s so much higher the GBTC’s? Again, a few thoughts:
ETHE hasn’t been around as long, so there is less secondary market supply to go around
ETHE was listed at an insanely high premium to begin with
ETHE might simply be more popular at the moment
Could just be sheer stupidity (investors think ETHE is a 1:1 ratio not 1:11)
Are there any other differences between ETHE and GBTC?
I touched on a few of the smaller differences, but one of the more interesting changes is GBTC is now a “SEC reporting company” as of January 2020. Which again goes beyond my scope of knowledge so I won’t comment on it too much… but the net result is GBTC is now putting out weekly / bi-weekly 8-K’s and annual 10-K’s. This means you can track GBTC that much easier at the moment as well as there is an extra layer of validity to the product IMO.
I’m looking for some statistics on ETHE… such as who is buying, how much is bought, etc?
There is a great Q1 2020 report I recommend you give a read that has a lot of cool graphs and data on the product. It’s a little GBTC centric, but there is some ETHE data as well. It can be found here hidden within the 8-K filings.Q1 2020 is the 4/16/2020 8-K filing. For those more into a GAAP style report see the 2019 annual 10-K of the same location.
Is Grayscale only just for BTC and ETH?
No, there are other products as well. In terms of a secondary market product, ETCG is the Ethereum Classic version of ETHE. Fun Fact – ETCG was actually put out to the secondary market first. It also has a 3% fee tied to it where 1% of it goes to some type of ETC development fund. In terms of institutional and accredited investors, there are a few ‘fan favorites’ such as Bitcoin Cash, Litcoin, Stellar, XRP, and Zcash. Something called Horizion (Backed by ZEN I guess? Idk to be honest what that is…). And a diversified Mutual Fund type fund that has a little bit of all of those. None of these products are available on the secondary market.
Are there alternatives to Grayscale?
I know they exist, but I don’t follow them. I’ll leave this as a “to be edited” section and will add as others comment on what they know. Per user Over-analyser (in comments below):
As asked by pegcity - Okay so I was under the impression you can just give them your own ETH and get ETHE, but do you get 11 ETHE per ETH or do you get the market value of ETH in USD worth of ETHE?
I have always understood that the ETHE issued directly through Grayscale is issued without the premium. As in, if I were to trade 1 ETH for ETHE I would get 11, not say only 2 or 3 because the secondary market premium is so high. And if I were paying cash only I would be paying the price to buy 1 ETH to get my 11 ETHE. Per page 39 of their annual statement, it reads as follows:
The Trust will issue Shares to Authorized Participants from time to time, but only in one or more Baskets (with a Basket being a block of 100 Shares). The Trust will not issue fractions of a Basket. The creation (and, should the Trust commence a redemption program, redemption) of Baskets will be made only in exchange for the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the number of whole and fractional ETH represented by each Basket being created (or, should the Trust commence a redemption program, redeemed), which is determined by dividing (x) the number of ETH owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date of a creation or redemption order, after deducting the number of ETH representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the ETH Index Price at such time, and carried to the eighth decimal place), by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one ETH (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100 (the “Basket ETH Amount”). All questions as to the calculation of the Basket ETH Amount will be conclusively determined by the Sponsor and will be final and binding on all persons interested in the Trust. The Basket ETH Amount multiplied by the number of Baskets being created or redeemed is the “Total Basket ETH Amount.” The number of ETH represented by a Share will gradually decrease over time as the Trust’s ETH are used to pay the Trust’s expenses. Each Share represented approximately 0.0950 ETH and 0.0974 ETH as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.
XRP Isn’t A Security, Declares Former CFTC Chairman
https://preview.redd.it/8yehv8lzsce51.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69f0a6eb4973a5a9974e42d15709434719a26a81 When Chris Giancarlo was the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission he became a rock-star of sorts in certain corners of the cryptocurrency community, helping establish criteria that eventually led to bitcoin and ethereum being declared commodities, more like coffee or sugar than stock in a company. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission largely followed suit, eventually also declaring that bitcoin and ether, the cryptocurrency powering the ethereum blockchain weren’t securities. Now chairman emeritus Giancarlo, who was deemed “Crypto Dad” following an impassioned speech he gave to Congress where he credited bitcoin for finally getting his kids interested in finance, is at it again, having co-written a detailed argument published this morning in the International Financial Law Review for why XRP, the cryptocurrency formally known as “ripples,” was also not a security. The only problem is he’s no longer a regulator. In fact, his employer is on the payroll of Ripple, the largest single owner of XRP, whose co-founders actually created the cryptocurrency. The bombshell paper, titled, “Cryptocurrencies and U.S. Securities Laws: Beyond Bitcoin and Ether,” co-authored by commodities lawyer Conrad Bahlke of New York law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, methodically reviews the criteria of the Howey Test, established by the SEC in 1946 to determine whether something is a security, and point-by-point argues that XRP does not qualify. Rather, the paper argues, like its name would indicate, cryptocurrency is a currency of perhaps more interest to the Federal Reserve and central banks than securities regulators. What’s at stake here to the cryptocurrency world cannot be overestimated. XRP is now the fourth largest cryptocurrency by market cap, with $5.9 billion worth of the asset in circulation according to cryptocurrency data site Messari. While Ripple was valued at $10 billion according to its most recent round of funding, the company continues to fund itself in part by selling its deep war chest of 55.6 billion XRP, coincidentally valued at the same amount as the company itself. Not only could an eventual decision by the SEC to classify—or not classify—XRP as a security impact the untold individual owners of the cryptocurrency, but other clients using Ripple services that don’t rely on the cryptocurrency, including American Express, Santander, and SBI Holdings could stand to be impacted positively or negatively depending on the decision. After all if XRP were to be rescinded it would be a huge cost to their software provider. If Giancarlo is right though, Ripple could end up being one of the most valuable startups in fintech. “Ultimately, under a fair application of the Howey test and the SEC’s presently expanding analysis, XRP should not be regulated as a security, but instead considered a currency or a medium of exchange,” Giancarlo and Bahlke argue in the paper. “The increased adoption of XRP as a medium of exchange and a form of payment in recent years, both by consumers and in the business-to-business setting, further underscores the utility of XRP as a bona fide fiat substitute.” Giancarlo was nominated to be a commissioner of the CFTC by then-President Barack Obama in 2013. In 2015, he helped lead the thinking behind the CFTC’s decision that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were commodities, paving the way for the SEC’s related comments that neither bitcoin nor ethereum are securities. Then, at the height of the 2017 cryptocurrency bubble President Trump nominated him to be Chairman of the CFTC, where he oversaw the creation of a number of bitcoin futures projects, including at CME Group and the short-lived effort at Cboe. While many blame the creation of bitcoin futures for popping the 2017 price bubble, which almost hit $20,000 before halving today, others have seen the works as a fundamental process of maturity, helping pave the way for more sophisticated crypto-enabled financial offerings. Giancarlo’s last day in office at the CFTC was in 2019, after which he promptly got involved helping envision the future of assets issued on a blockchain. In November he joined as an advisor to American Financial Exchange, using ethereum to create a Libor alternative. The following January he co-founded the Digital Dollar Project leading the push to use blockchain at the Federal Reserve and now it would seem he’s hoping to influence the classification of XRP as he did for bitcoin and ethereum, but from the other side of regulation. Importantly however, a footnote in the report discloses that not only is Giancarlo and Bahlke’s firm, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP counsel to Ripple Labs, but they “relied on certain factual information provided by Ripple in the preparation of this article.” While it’s impossible to parse what information came from the co-authors and what came from Ripple, the resulting legal argument is fascinating, even if it does leave room for doubt. The Howey test Giancarlo uses to bolster his arguments is a three-pronged definition used by the SEC, none of which he says apply to XRP. The first prong, is that an investment contract should be implied or explicitly stated between the issuer of the asset, in this case XRP and the owner, in which money exchanges hands. “The mere fact that an individual holds XRP does not create any relationship, rights or privileges with respect to Ripple any more than owning Ether would create a contract with the Ethereum Foundation, the organization that oversees the Ethereum architecture,” he writes. This does however overlook the fact that OpenCoin, credited on Ripple’s own site in 2013 for creating XRP (then tellingly described as “ripples”), was run by many of the same people that founded Ripple. The original creators of XRP then donated the vast majority of the assets to Ripple, which they also ran, creating a sense of distance, tacit though it may be. The actual data around the creation of XRP was also muddled by a glitch in the code that means unlike bitcoin and ethereum the crucial genesis data is no longer attached to the rest of the ledger. The rebranding of “ripples” as XRP further extended the sense of distance between XRP and Ripple, followed by an aggressive campaign to get media to stop describing the cryptocurrency as “Ripple’s XRP.” With so much distance between the company that actually created XRP and the company that now owns more than half of it, one would be forgiven for wondering, if there was an implied contract between OpenCoin and XRP owners, does the donation from one group of people at one company to a very similar group of people at another company sever that responsibility? In spite of the sense of distance created by Ripple between itself and the cryptocurrency its co-founders created, a number of active lawsuits alleging securities violations have been filed. In all fairness though, Giancarlo appears to recognize this prong may not be Ripple’s strongest defense and concludes the section, hedging: “Even if XRP were to satisfy one or two of the “prongs” of the Howey test, it does not satisfy all three factors such that XRP is an investment contract subject to regulation as a security.” The second prong of the Howey test stipulates that there can be no “common enterprise” between shareholders or a shareholder and the company. While refuting both relationships, Giancarlo curiously goes onto to write that “given the juxtaposition between XRP’s intended use as a liquidity tool, its more general use to transfer value and its potential as a speculative asset, XRP holders who utilize the coins for different purposes have divergent interests with respect to XRP.” Ironically, there has always been a widely held belief that owning a cryptocurrency would unify interests around a single goal: to co-create the infrastructure that lets the cryptocurrency exist and ensure it was vibrant and diverse. Meanwhile, XRP, in spite of its aggressive supporters on social media, is one of the least diverse ecosystems, with the vast majority of serious development being done within Ripple. If XRP owners aren’t expecting an increase in value from the work being done by Ripple, they certainly aren’t nearly as involved in helping build that future as are owners of bitcoin and ethereum. In a related issue, the third prong of the Howey test stipulates that “no reasonable expectation of profit should be derived from the efforts of Ripple,” according to the paper. Supporting this position, Giancarlo writes: “Though Ripple maintains a sizable stake of the XRP supply and certainly has a pecuniary interest in the value of its holdings, it is not enough to suggest that a mutual interest in the value of an asset gives rise to an expectation of profits as contemplated by Howey.” Again, this strains credulity. According to its own site, Ripple currently has access to 6.4% of all the XRP ever created. But that doesn’t count the 49.2% of the total XRP Ripple owns, but is locked in a series of escrow accounts that become periodically available to Ripple and Ripple alone. Adding those two percentages together leaves a float of only about 44% of XRP that has been distributed for public ownership. For some comparison, Facebook went public the same year XRP was created and has a 99% float, according to FactSet data, meaning almost all of its stock is in the hands of traders.While Ripple does also have more traditional stock, this distribution shows that Ripple might not be as distributed as it claims. While it’s perhaps no surprise that Giancarlo would come out on the side of his own client, there’s also plenty of other reasons to believe his argument may in fact hold water. In February 2018, the notoriously compliant exchange Coinbase added support for XRP, something it would unlikely do if it were concerned it might accidentally be selling an unlicensed security. Perhaps most tellingly though, Ripple has also been granted a difficult-to-obtain BitLicense from the New York Department of Financial Services, giving it the blessing of a respected regulator. However, while the license was granted after then-superintendent Benjamin Lawsky stepped down from the regulator, it's perhaps no coincidence that a year later he joined Ripple on its board of directors and is now active in the cryptocurrency space. Perhaps a similar fate is in store for Giancarlo. Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify that Ripple Labs is a client of Giancarlo’s law firm.
Hi All, I just got email from EY with attachment that i have to fill and submit no later than 31st Aug. Anyone else get the letter IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF 0984750 B.C. LTD. DBA QUADRIGA CX AND QUADRIGA COIN EXCHANGE ______________________________________________________________________________ AFFECTED USER PROOF OF CLAIM AS AT APRIL 15, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________ Instructions In order to have a valid Claim as an Affected User of 0984750 B.C. Ltd. dba Quadriga CX and Quadriga Coin Exchange (“Quadriga”), this Affected User Proof of Claim form must be properly completed and delivered to Ernst & Young Inc. in its capacity as the trustee in bankruptcy of Quadriga (the “Trustee”) prior to 5:00 p.m. (Halifax time) on August 31, 2019 (the “Claims Submission Date”). These instructions are provided to assist you in preparing the Affected User Proof of Claim form in a complete and accurate manner. DO NOT LEAVE ANY SECTIONS OF THE FORM BLANK. General You must ensure that you include your complete name, address, telephone number and Quadriga account number on the Affected User Proof of Claim form. The Affected User Proof of Claim form must be dated, signed personally by the individual completing it, and witnessed. The Affected User Proof of Claim form is incomplete UNLESS it has been signed and witnessed. If the individual completing the Affected User Proof of Claim form is not the Affected User himself/herself, but is completing on behalf of a corporation, he/she must state his/her position or title. 2 109874662 v4 Particulars of Affected User Full Legal Name:____________________________________________________ Full Mailing Address / Address Registered with Quadriga: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Quadriga Account Number: Telephone Number Registered with Quadriga: ____________________________ E-mail Address Registered with Quadriga: _______________________________ Attention (Contact Person): ___________________________________ Note: You may be asked to provide additional information to verify your identity. A. Proof of Claim I, ___________________________________________ [name of Affected User or Representative of Affected User], of ___________________________________ (City, Province) do hereby certify: (a) that I [check one] □ am the Affected User of Quadriga; OR □ am ___________________________________________ (state position or title) of _______________________________________ (name of Affected User) (b) that I have knowledge of all of the circumstances connected with the Claim referred to below; (c) the Claimant asserts its claim against Quadriga as at April 15, 2019: (insert crypto currency quantities in all applicable boxes or fiat in source currency) Bitcoin - units 3 109874662 v4 Bitcoin Cash SV - units Bitcoin Cash - units Bitcoin Gold - units Litecoin - units Ethereum - units CDN$ US$ Note: Affected Users can review their Quadriga account balance as recorded in Quadriga’s books and records as at April 15, 2019 through the following web site https://userbalance.quadrigacxtrustee.com/ which may assist the Affected Users in filling out this proof of claim. If you disagree with the balance recorded within Quadriga’s books and records, you may fill in different amounts and submit supporting documentation setting out the particulars of the discrepancies. In respect of the said claim, the Claimant asserts as follows: (check appropriate description) ( ) I claim a right to a priority (Set out on an attached schedule details to support the priority claim). ( ) I do not claim a right to a priority. B. Particulars of Claim: The Particulars of the undersigned’s total Claim are set out in the attached Schedule “A”. Please note that Schedule “A” support materials are not required if your claim submission matches the Quadriga books and records amounts reported at https://userbalance.quadrigacxtrustee.com/. However, Affected Users must file a proof of claim with the Trustee to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Estate. C. Filing of Affected User Proof of Claim This Affected User Proof of Claim should be received by the Trustee no later than 5:00 p.m. (Halifax time) on the Claims Submission Date by hand delivery, courier, fax OR email as follows: 4 109874662 v4 (a) to the Trustee: Ernst & Young Inc. Court-appointed Trustee of Quadriga Ernst & Young Tower 100 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 0B3 Attn: Quadriga Trustee Email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) Fax: 416-864-1174 If you file your Affected User Proof of Claim as directed by the Claims Submission Date, the Trustee will review your claim and ensure you participate in any distributions made out of the estate of Quadriga to the extent of your valid accepted claim, if any. If you do not file your Affected User Proof of Claim by the Claim Submission Date, you may not be eligible to participate in the initial distribution to creditors. I, ________________, acknowledge that filing a false claim may be an offence under section 201 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment of up to one year. Dated at ____________________ this _________ day of _____________________, 2019. Name and address of Witness: Witness Signature Name of Affected User Per: ____________________________ 109874662 v4 2019 Province of Nova Scotia Division No. 01-Halifax Court No. 43212 Estate No. 51-2499072 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF 0984750 B.C. LTD. DBA QUADRIGA CX. ______________________________________________________________________________ INSTRUCTION LETTER ______________________________________________________________________________ PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY AS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND CLAIMS AGAINST 0984750 B.C. LTD. DBA QUADRIGA CX (“QUADRIGA”) MAY BE IMPACTED By Order of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (the “Court”) dated February 5, 2019, Quadriga was granted protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (“CCAA”). On April 15, 2019, pursuant to the Order of the Court dated April 11, 2019, Quadriga made an assignment in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA”). Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy of Quadriga (in such capacity, the “Trustee”). A global proof of claim has been filed by Representative Counsel on behalf of Affected Users, other than those who have opted out, in accordance with the Termination and Bankruptcy Administration Order dated April 11, 2019. However, the Trustee now requires individual claim information. As such, it is necessary for each Affected User seeking to recover a distribution from the Quadriga estate to file an Affected User Proof of Claim as outlined herein. You are receiving this Instruction Letter and enclosed Affected User Proof of Claim because according to the books and records of Quadriga, you were a user of the Quadriga platform and may be holding a balance in your personal account representing obligations payable by Quadriga to you in the form of: (i) cash obligations ($CDN or $USD); and/or (ii) obligations of various crypto currency. If you wish to participate in any distributions that may be made out of the estate of Quadriga, the enclosed Affected User Proof of Claim form must be properly completed and delivered to the Trustee. The Trustee has requested that claims be submitted prior to 5:00 p.m. (Halifax time) on 2 109874662 v4 August 31, 2019 (the “Claims Submission Date”) by hand delivery, courier, fax OR email as follows: (a) to the Trustee: Ernst & Young Inc. Court-appointed Trustee of Quadriga Ernst & Young Tower 100 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 0B3 Attn: Quadriga Trustee Email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) Fax: 416-864-1174 If you file your Affected User Proof of Claim as directed by the Claims Submission Date, the Trustee will review your claim and ensure you participate in any distributions made out of the estate of Quadriga to the extent of your valid accepted claim, if any. If you do not file your Affected User Proof of Claim by the Claim Submission Date, you may not be eligible to participate in the initial distribution to creditors. In completing the Affected User Proof of Claim, you must: ensure that you include your complete name, address, telephone number, Quadriga account number and email. You may be asked to provide additional information to verify your identity; and date and sign personally in front of a witness the Affected User Proof of Claim form. Affected Users can review their Quadriga account balances as recorded in Quadriga’s books and records (the “Recorded Balances”) as at April 15, 2019 through the following web site https://userbalance.quadrigacxtrustee.com/. The Trustee recommends that Affected Users review the Recorded Balances prior to completing this proof of claim. If you agree with the Recorded Balances, you can fill in those amounts and types of currency and crypto currency in the Affected User Proof of Claim and no supporting information will be required. If you disagree with the Recorded Balances for your account, you may fill in different amounts and you must submit supporting documentation setting out the particulars of the discrepancies. Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, a detailed listing of transactions making up the balances claimed, bank confirmations, receipts or bank statements supporting fiat deposits, bank statements or credit card statements supporting receipt of requested withdrawals, blockchain transaction details with respect to cryptocurrency deposits or withdrawals and/or email correspondence with Quadriga with respect to pending transactions or transactions not processed. The Trustee may request additional information and supporting documentation to support your claim. 3 109874662 v4 If you claim any priority with respect to any amounts owing to you by Quadriga, you must note it on the Affected User Proof of Claim and set out the details to support your priority claim. Section 136 of the BIA sets out specific categories of claims that may benefit from a priority status such as: Crown priority claims; Employee priority claims; Pension priority claims; Secured claims; Preferred claims (such as spousal and child support and claims of landlords). If claiming priority under Section 136 of the BIA, please set out under which subsection you are claiming priority. You can find the text of Section 136 of the BIA at https://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/b-3/page-37.html#h-27334. If you require additional information with respect to priorities of claims or completing your Affected User Proof of Claim, you may wish to consult with the Representative Counsel appointed in this matter (Miller Thomson LLP and Cox Palmer – see www.millerthomson.com/en/quadrigacx). The Trustee is not aware of any preferred creditor claims owed to Affected Users based upon information currently available. The Trustee may contact you to request additional information about your claim. The Trustee is entitled to disallow your Affected User Proof of Claim in whole or in part. If your claim is disputed in whole or in part, the Trustee will send you a Notice of Disallowance along with particulars as to how you may dispute the Notice of Disallowance. If you believe you have claims against Quadriga Fintech Solutions Corp. and/or Whiteside Capital Corporation separate from any claims against Quadriga, you may obtain a creditor Proof of Claim from the Trustee’s Website at www.ey.com/ca/quadriga and follow the instructions therein to complete and file any such Proof of Claim. NOTE: Filing a false claim may be an offence under the BIA punishable by fine and/or
Happy Halloween! Audit Statuses of Canadian Cryptocurrency Exchanges
Halloween is a wonderful time of year! Businesses and consumers alike dress up, children go door to door naively asking strangers for candy, and everyone parties celebrating things like death and evil. In the spirit of Halloween storytelling, let me tell you a scary story. There once was a Canadian cryptocurrency exchange. It had one of the simplest user interfaces, the CEO was well known in person and trusted throughout the country for over half a decade, and it had several deposit and withdrawal methods. It was the first to register as a money services business and for much of its history, it was one of the most legally compliant exchanges. It even looked to be headed for public listing on the TSX. The exchange operated for 6 years, assuring users that all funds “are stored in cold storage, using some of the most secure cryptographic procedures possible.” Unfortunately, while we celebrate Halloween by dressing up and wearing masks once a year, the wonderful people who brought us this exchange played “dress up” for over half a decade and time will only tell if there are any more “masks” to come off in this story. There’s no better or more fitting time to explore one of the darkest realities of the Canadian cryptocurrency space - exactly what is backing any of the cryptocurrency on Canadian exchanges. It’s easy to lose sight that there are real people behind these funds. Most people spend most waking hours working for their money. It literally is their lives. Impacts to victims are not just financial, but psychological and social as well. Victims of exchange fraud go through depression, anxiety, and trauma. They lose their trust and faith in humanity. They withdraw from friends and family in shame and humility. In the spirit of exploring dark and evil things, let’s examine exactly what evidence there is that any of your crypto is backed on any Canadian exchange. This is a continuation of research I’ve been working on since May/June. I hope it will be enlightening and help you better protect your funds that you worked hard for. I’ve done a detailed analysis of all Canadian exchanges I could find that handle any sort of custody of funds, and grouped them into 3 categories:
Not Audited. The only assurance I was able to find that any crypto on the exchange is backed are their words. I was unable to locate any public audit or report of an audit.
Audited. This means that at some point in the past, the exchange invited someone with a reasonable level of credibility, who they showed the wallets to. This person/group, at that point, was sufficiently convinced that funds were actually held by the exchange.
Proof of Reserves. An advanced real time public audit algorithm. It shows that funds exist right on the blockchain, validates access to those funds, and uses a hash tree to enable any customer to verify that their balance is included in the total.
Non-Audited Exchanges (“trust us, we haven't spent your money, we promise")
Bitvo - The service “utilizes a proprietary cold storage solution”. Proprietary, as in, definitely better than established non-proprietary solutions. If you can’t withdraw, they “will credit your account for [their] withdrawal fee”. They’re not an MSB that I could find, nor are they audited. Coinfield - MSB. No audit. Luckily it’s the "most secure trading platform in Canada" - though apparently not the other 150+ countries, including Estonia where they’re based. No matter which country you pick, the “Security” page still says "most secure trading platform in Canada". Coinsmart - MSB. Not sure what "[i]ndustry leading cold storage" is, but luckily they’re so "accountable to [their] clients, community and to each other" and "committed to being open and honest" that they don’t need any audit. Coinut - MSB. Also "the most secure cryptocurrency exchange platform". In addition to not using multi-sig and "not us[ing] USB drives, as the online computer may be infected with virus", they also don’t use audits. Einstein - You can get “your money deposited and withdrawn faster than any other exchange”. As one customer said "With so many hacks and exit scams, it gives me confidence knowing Einstein is backed by hard-working people just like me." Just check the user experience on their subreddit from their "220,000+ satisfied customers". EZ-BTC - As they said, “All your coins are kept in cold storage. They’re safe.” They have “strong security”. The supposed presence of physical ATMs was one of the strategies to build customer confidence and they promised 9% annual return on stored funds. NDAX - MSB. Luckily also “Canada’s most secure trading platform” with "fast withdrawals". I couldn’t find any audit but at least there’s a full page risk disclosure and disclaimer. You can sleep peacefully knowing that they’re legally protected. Netcoins - MSB. The best assurance I could find of solvency is that they “can process large transactions”. Although they don’t waste time with audits or links at the bottom of their website, apparently “[a]ll transactions happen quickly and securely” “within the same day”. Newton - MSB. “No-fees”! Your funds are stored in the "professional custody" of Balance, which doesn’t appear to be a registered MSB. I couldn't find any audit of the funds but they "audit [their] policies and controls". They "publish the reports", but I couldn't find any reports. Simply storing funds somewhere else doesn’t give any assurance they cover customer balances. QuadrigaCX - Operated since 2013, with “vast cryptocurrency reserves” right up to the end. "Bitcoins that are funded in QuadrigaCX are stored in cold storage, using some of the most secure cryptographic procedures possible." Their "cryptographic" procedures are so secure that nobody can access any funds, even now! Shakepay - MSB. Many will trust the raccoon mascot promising “commission-free” trading. No audit found but the “majority of all digital assets on Shakepay are stored securely offline”. Whatever this means, it’s good to know that up to half might not be.
Audited Exchanges ("so and so swears we didn't spend your money, you can trust them, we showed them once before")
Overall assessment: Bitbuy has a long history of buying/selling bitcoin without custody, and is likely too new to offering custody to have been hacked yet. The fact they have taken proactive steps shows promise.
According to the site, they "undergo annual 3rd party financial statement audits", but don’t mention by whom. According to “Newswire”, it’s a firm called MNP LLP.
I was unable to find any published report on the audit, which was completed prior to January 17th, 2019.
Overall assessment: It’s hard not to be a fan of Medium articles describing proactive steps that a company is taking, however without an actual report it can be difficult to assess the integrity of the reserves.
No audit is mentioned on their website, however multiple news sources report that one occurred. According to TechVibes, the audit was completed "by a national accounting firm whose identity is protected under an NDA", which is the best I was able to ascertain from several news sources.
A report about the audit was found as early as September 27th, 2018. TechVibes indicates "the audit covered the operational years of 2015, 2016 and 2017 for Coinsquare, and concluded an “unmodified opinion,” which means the financial statements from those years are “free from material misinformation.”" Other articles had even less information, and I was unable to find any published report.
Overall assessment: The fact that an audit was completed is a great step in the right direction, however the fact the firm is undisclosed by NDA, the audit is completely unmentioned on their website, and minimal details are available should be concerning. It also may be concerning that they claim to be "[t]he most secure trading platform" and also "100% proprietary". This would imply the team at Coinsquare is smarter than established security standards by experts all around the world at protecting your funds, contradicting recently reported incidents.
Kraken - Not a registered MSB in Canada (that I could find)
“So and so” is Stephan Thomas, CTO of Ripple.
The page literally says the audit was done "over the past several weeks", and since the page doesn’t have any date you might assume it’s recent. But look closely at the screenshot and you’ll see a date in 2014! Yes, that’s 5 years ago!
Overall assessment: While it certainly feels good to know an audit was done, the opinion of one individual from 5 years ago doesn’t say much about the state of anything today and they openly admit all kinds of limitations.
Proof of Reserves ("here's your money, right here right now on the blockchain, and here's a proof that we included your balance in that total")
Rather than depend on outdated audits (or lack thereof), it’s actually possible to use the blockchain and cryptography to enable a public real-time audit. This can give assurance to every customer that their balances are fully backed. Giving everyone the ability to check the integrity of balances will keep us all safer. It immediately exposes any fraud, and in most major hacking cases there was advanced hacking that went unnoticed ranging from months (Bitgrail), or years (Mt. Gox). Having an aware public reduces the number of people trading on fraudulent exchanges, and can pressure the exchange to shut down trading or resolve the hack faster, so less funds are permanently lost. To help explain exactly what this is and how it works, I’ve started a detailed tutorial. I did not come up with this algorithm - it was created in 2014 by a guy named Gregory Maxwell. Sometimes cryptography can be hard to understand. Hopefully this tutorial is simple:
Given what can often be at stake, I had hoped that maybe one of the “audited” exchanges might embrace Proof of Reserves. Sadly I haven’t had any such luck. Bitbuy:
Actually they reached out to me in response to one of my posts on Reddit July 14th, asking for detailed feedback on their services.
I provided an extensive summary of my research (I’d just put together descriptions of every exchange for a business plan.)
As of today, that response, which included Proof of Reserves among a multitude of other suggestions, is still unanswered.
On the 4th of July I actually got a response from them to a casual mention where I was recommending their exchange (based on the Medium articles).
Their response, which didn’t address the Proof of Reserves, included the statement “All coins on our platform are 100% secured offline in cold storage“. On their site, Coinberry shows 15 minute withdrawal times in one of the screenshots. Perhaps they have a team standing around “offline” and ready to service withdrawals 24/7.
My subsequent response to them was not answered.
On their website they expressly give reasons why they don’t want "public knowledge of exchanges’ or wallet providers’ bitcoin wallets and total holdings".
They claim it has an effect on security, however public keys do not enable any access to funds - only private keys can. One would hope that their security of funds doesn’t depend on not knowing which wallets they own, since the blockchain is pretty public.
They also claim an effect on user privacy, which is important. Nobody should have any illusion that transactions to or from an exchange are secret in any way. I would highly recommend using privacy coins and setting up new wallets regularly, given that transactions are completely public on the blockchain already.
I was unable to get any clarification, either in live chat or multiple Reddit posts. Understandable, given the size of their operation.
Given that this was their stance after Mt. Gox, it seems unlikely to change based on recent events half a decade later affecting a much smaller exchange.
As such, the bottom line is that present exchanges don’t want to share public keys and offer the kind of transparency which is necessary to enable customers to know their funds are backed. Attempting to get answers doesn’t reveal them, and I’m left with an unnerving silence not unlike the end of Halloween night, like I’m asking questions nobody should ask. Having spent the last 8 months of my life watching and being part of a large group of people suffer through a grueling bankruptcy, where we’ll be “lucky” to only lose 90% of our funds, I want this fixed. I don’t want to live in a reality where fraud can happen just buying/selling on the largest and most trusted exchanges. Especially now that I’ve learned blockchain provides the capability for even greater transparency and a level of public audit far beyond even what's possible with fiat. If you feel the same way, I invite you to join Quadriga Initiative, where we are fighting for a Proof of Reserves future and also enabling businesses to help Quadriga victims with an innovative token recovery project. Every sign-up helps us reach our goal and launch the project! If any information in this post is incorrect, please let me know so I can fix it! Thanks! I’m happy to update the audit status of any exchange given reasonable evidence, or provide a review of any other custodial exchange I might have missed.
Understanding Tether: Why it accounts for a substantial part of the crypto market cap and why its the #1 outstanding issue in crypto markets today
In this post I will go in-depth on:
How Tether got to be what it is today
Why Tether's market cap is a lot more than 0.5% of the total market cap for crypto you see on CoinMarketCap
Tether printing timing
What could happen to the market if Tether is found to not be backed by reserves
Tether is incredibly important to the cryptocurrency market ecosystem and I've noticed far too few people understand what is going on. Very little actual discussion of the 2nd biggest crypto by volume happens here and whenever someone starts a discussion they most often got slapped for "FUD". Tether themselves recently hired the major New York based PR firm 5W to spread positive information online and take down critics, I'm sure some of their operatives are probably on Reddit. But its absolutely critical you understand the risks behind Tether and especially now with the explosion in reserve liability, breakdown in relationship with banks and their auditor and recently announced subpoena.
What exactly is Tether and what happened so far?
Tether is a cryptocurrency asset issued by Tether Limited (incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and a sister company of Bitfinex), on top of the Bitcoin blockchain through the Omni Protocol Layer. It is meant to give people a "stablecoin", for example a merchant who accepts bitcoin but fears its volatility could shift bitcoin into tether, which can be easier to do than exchanging bitcoin for dollars. Recently they've also added an Ethereum-based ERC20 token. Tether Ltd claims that each one of the tokens issued is backed by actual US dollar (and more recently Euro) reserves. The idea is that when a business partner deposits US dollars in Tether’s bank account, Tether creates a matching amount of tokens and transfers them to that partner, it is NOT a fractional reserve system. Tether makes the two following key promises in its whitepaper on which the entire premise is build:
Each tether issued will be backed by the equivalent amount of currency unit (one USDTether equals one dollar). Professional auditors will regularly verify, sign, and publish our underlying bank balance and financial transfer statement.
Tether is centralized and dependent on your trust of Bitfinex/Tether Limited, and that the people behind it are honest people. For the new entrants to this market it will be greatly beneficial understand the timeline of Tether and their connection to Bitfinex. A brief timeline:
Bitfinex operators Phil Potter and CFO Giancarlo Devasini set up Tether Limited in the British Virgin Islands, but told the public that Bitfinex and Tether are completely separate. Throughout 2015 and 2016, the amount of Tether stays relatively flat.
In August 2nd, 2016, the second-largest digital currency exchange heist in history happened, when Bitfinex lost nearly 120,000 bitcoin. Bitfinex never revealed full details of the hack, but BitGo (the security company that had to sign off on the transactions) claims its servers were not breached.
Just 4 days after the hack Bitfinex “socializes” its losses from the theft by announcing a 36 percent haircut for almost all of its customers. In return, customers receive BFX tokens, initially valued at $1 each.
Two weeks after the hack Bitfinex announces it has hired Ledger Labs, to investigate the theft and perform a financial audit of its cryptocurrency and fiat assets. The public nevers sees the results of the investigation, and months later, Bitfinex admits it never actually hired Ledger Labs to perform an audit to begin with.
In May 2017, after long standing calls for an actual audit, Bitfinex hires Friedman LLP to "complete a comprehensive balance sheet audit."
November 7, 2017: Leaked documents dubbed “Paradise Papers” reveal Bitfinex and Tether are run by the same individuals.
November 19, 2017: Tether is hacked, with 31 million USDT suddenly disappearing. Tether Limited reacts to this by creating a hard fork.
December 4, 2017: Right after hiring the PR firm 5W to help improve their image, Bitfinex hires law firm Steptoe & Johnson and threatens legal action against critics.
December 6, 2017 - CFTC issues a subpoena to Tether and Bitfinex. This news isn't made public until the end of January.
December 21, 2017 : Without making any formal announcement, Bitfinex appears to suddenly close all new account registrations. Those trying to register for a new account are asked for a mysterious referral code, but no referral code seems to exist.
After a month of being closed to new registrations, Bitfinex announces it is reopening its doors, but now requires new customers to deposit $10,000 before they can begin trading.
Friedman LLP completely cut ties with Tether on January 27, 2017.
Most common misconception: Tether is only a small part of the total market cap
One of the most common misconception people have about cryptocurrencies is that the "market cap" amount they see on CoinMarketCap.com is actually the amount of money that is invested in each coin. I often hear people online dismiss any issue with tether by simply claiming its not big enough to cause any effect, saying "Well Tether is only $2.2 billion on CoinMarketCap and the market is 400 billion, its only 0.5% of the market". But this misunderstands what market capitalization for cryptocurrency is, and just how different the market cap for Tether is to every other token. The market cap is simply the last trade price times the circulating supply. It doesn't take into account the order book depth at all. The majority of Bitcoin (and most coins) are held by those who either mined or purchased for a very low price early on and simply held on as very small portions of the total supply was rapidly bid up to their current price. An increase in market cap of X does NOT represent an inflow of X dollars invested, not even close. A 400 billion dollar market cap for crypto does NOT mean that there is 400 billion dollars underwriting the assets. Meanwhile a 2 billion dollar Tether market cap means there should be exactly $2 billion backing up the asset. Nobody can tell for sure exactly how much money has been invested in cryptocurrency market, but analysts from JPMorgan found that there was only net inflow of $6 billion fiat that resulted in $300 billion market cap at the time. This gives us a roughly 50:1 ratio of market cap to fiat inflow. Prominent crypto evangelist Julian Hosp gives the following estimate: "For a cryptocurrency to have a market cap of $1 billion, maybe only $50 million actually moved into the cryptocurrency." For Tether however the market cap is simply the outstanding supply, 2.2 billion USDT is actually equal to 2.2 billion USD. In order to get $50 USDT you have to deposit $50 real U.S. dollars and then 50 completely new tokens will be issued, which never existed before on the market. What is also often ignored is that Bitfinex allows margin trading, at a 3.3x leverage. Bitfinexed did an excellent analysis on how tether is entering Bitfinex to fund margin positions There are $2.2 billion in Tether outstanding and the current market cap of the entire market is $400 billion according to CoinMarketCap. You can actually calculate Tether as a % of total fiat invested in the market according to the JP Morgan estimate, the following table outlines for a scenario of no margin lending and 15/25% of tether being on a 3.3x leverage margin account:
Fiat Inflow/Market Cap Ratio
Tether as % of total market (no margin)
Tether as % of total market (15% on margin)
Tether as % of total market (25% on margin)
JP Morgan estimate (50:1)
Even without any margin lending Tether is underwriting the worth of about 27.5% of the cryptocurrency market, and if we assume only 25% was leveraged out at 3.3x on margin we have a whole 43% of the market cap being driven by Tether inflow. A much better indicator on CoinMarketCap of just how influential Tether is actually the volume, its currently the 2nd biggest cryptocurrency by volume and there are even days where its volume exceeds its market cap. What this all means is that not only is the market cap for cryptocurrencies drastically overestimating the amount of actual fiat capital that is underwriting those assets, but a substantial portion of the entire market cap is being derived from the value of Tether's market cap rather than real money. Its incredibly important that more new investors realize that Tether isn't a side issue or a minor cog in the machine, but one of the core underlying mechanisms on which the entire market worth is built. Ensuring that whoever controls this stablecoin is honest and transparent is absolutely critical to the health of the market.
Two main concerns with Tether
The primary concerns with Tether can be split into two categories:
Tether issuance timing - Does Tether Ltd issue USDT organically or is it timed to stop downward selling pressure?
Reserves - Does Tether Ltd actually have the fiat reserves at a 1:1 ratio, and why is there still no audit or third party guarantee of this?
Does Tether print USDT to prop up Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?
In the last 3 months the amount of USDT has nearly quadrupled, with nearly a billion being printed in January alone. Some people have found the timing of the most recent batch of Tether as highly suspect because it seemed to coincide with Bitcoin's price being propped up. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/technology/bitfinex-bitcoin-price.html This was recently analyzed statistically:
Author’s opinion - it is highly unlikely that Tether is growing through any organic business process, rather that they are printing in response to market conditions. Tether printing moves the market appreciably; 48.8% of BTC’s price rise in the period studied occurred in the two-hour periods following the arrival of 91 different Tether grants to the Bitfinex wallet. Bitfinex withdrawal/deposit statistics are unusual and would give rise to further scrutiny in a typical accounting environment.
https://www.tetherreport.com I'm still undecided on this and I would love to see more statistical analysis done, because the price of Bitcoin is so volatile while Tether printing only happens in large batches. Simply looking at the Bitcoin price graph over the last 3 months and then the Tether printing its pretty clear there is a relationship but it doesn't seem to hold over longer periods. Ultimately to me this timing isn't that much of an issue, as long Tether is backed by US dollars. If Bitfinex was timing the prints then it accounts to not much more than an organized pumping scheme, which isn't a fundamental problem. The much more serious concern is whether those buy order are being conducted on the faith of fictitious dollars that don't exist, regardless of when those buy orders occur.
This engagement does not contemplate tests of accounting records or the performance of other procedures performed in an audit or attest engagement. Our procedures performed are not for the purpose of providing assurance...In addition, our services do not include determination of compliance with laws and regulations in any jurisdiction.
They state right from the beginning that this is a consultancy job (not an audit), and that its not meant to be assurance to third parties. Doing a consultancy job is just doing a task asked by your customer. In a consultancy job you take information as true from the client, and you have no mandate to verify whether your customer's claims are true or not. The way they checked is simply asking Tether to provide them the information:
All inquiries made through the consulting process have been directed towards, and the data obtained from, the Client and personnel responsible for maintaining such information.
Tether provided a screenshots of twp bank balances. One of these is in the name of Tether Limited, and while the other is a personal account of an individual who Tether Limited claims has a trust agreement with them:
As of September 15, 2017, the bank held $60,919,810 in an account in the name of an in individual for the benefit of Tether Limited. FLPP obtained an engagement letter for an interim settlement plan between that individual and Tether Limited and that according to Tether Limited, is the relevant agreement with the trustee. FLLP did not evaluate the substance of the letter and makes no representation about its legality.
Even worse is that later on in Note 1, they clearly claim that there is no actual evidence that this engagement letter or trust has any legal merit:
Note 1: FLLP makes no representations about sufficiency or enforceability of any trust agreement between the trustee and the Client
Essentially what this is saying is that the trust agreement may not even be worth the paper it’s printed on. And most importantly… Note 2:
“FLLP did not evaluate the terms of the above bank accounts and makes no representations about the clients ability to access funds from the accounts or whether the funds are committed for purposes other than Tether token redemptions”
Basically Tether gave them a name of an individual with $60 million in their account according to a screenshot, Tether then gave them a letter saying that there is a trust agreement between this individual and Tether Limited. They also have account with $382 million but no guarantee that this account holds to any lien or other commitments, or that it can be accessed. Currently Tether has 2.2 billion USDT outstanding and we have absolutely no idea whether this is actually backed by anything, and the long promised audit is still outstanding.
What happens if its revealed that Tether doesn't have its US dollar reserves?
According to Thomas Glucksmann, head of business development at Gatecoin: "If a tether debacle unfolds, it will likely cause quite a devastating ripple effect across many of the exchanges that see most of their volumes traded against the supposedly USD-backed cryptocurrency." According to Nicholas Weaver, a senior researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at Berkeley: "You could see a spike in prices in tether-only bitcoin exchanges. So, on those exchanges only you will see a run up in price compared to the bitcoin exchanges that actually work with actually money. So you would see a huge price diverge as people see that only way they can turn tether into real money is to buy other cryptocurrency then move to another exchange. That is a bank run." I definitely see the crypto equivalent of a bank run, as people actually try to secure their gains an realize that this money doesn't actually exist within the system:
If traders lose confidence in it and its value starts to drop, “people will run for the door,” says Carlson, the former Wall Street trader. If Tether can’t meet all its customers’ demand for dollars (and its Terms of Service suggest that in many cases it won’t even try), tether holders will try to snap up other cryptocurrencies instead, temporarily causing prices for those currencies to soar. With tether’s role as an inter-exchange facilitator compromised, investors might lose faith in cryptocurrencies more generally. “At the end of the day, people would be losing substantial sums, and in the long term this would be very bad for cryptocurrencies,” says Emin Gun Sirer, a Cornell professor and co-director of its Initiative for Cryptocurrencies and Smart Contracts. Another concern is that Bitfinex might simply shut down, pocketing the bitcoins it has allegedly been stockpiling. Because people who trade on Bitfinex allow the exchange to hold their money while they speculate, these traders could face substantial losses. “The exchanges are like unregulated banks and could run off with everyone’s money,” says Tony Arcieri, a former Square employee turned entrepreneur trying to build a legally regulated exchange.
Tether-enabled exchanges will see a massive spike in Bitcoin and cryptocurrency prices as everyone leaves Tether. Noobs in these exchanges will think they are now millionaires until they realize they are rich in tethers but poor in dollars.
Exchanges that have not integrated Tether will experienced large drops in Bitcoin and alts as experienced investors flee crypto into USD.
There will be a flight of Bitcoin from Tether-integrated exchanges to non-Tether exchanges with fiat off-ramps. Exchanges running small fractional reserves will be exposed, further increasing calls for greater reserves requirements.
The exchanges might slam the doors shut on withdrawals.
Many exchanges that own large balances of Tether, especially Bitfinex, will likely become insolvent.
There will be lawsuits flying everywhere and with Tether Limited being incorporated on a Carribean Island whose solvency and bankruptcy laws will likely ensure they don't ever get much back. This could take years and potentially push away new investors from entering the space.
We can't be 100% completely sure that Tether is a scam, but its so laiden with red flags that at this point I would call it the biggest systematic risk in the crypto space. Its bigger than any nation's potential regulatory steps because it cuts right into the issue of trust across the entire ecosystem. Ultimately Tether is centralizing one of the very core mechanics of the cryptocurrency markets and asking you to trust one party to be the safekeeper, and I really see very little reason to trust Bitfinex given their history of lying and screwing over their own customers. I think that Tether initially started as a legit business to facilitate the ease of moving money and avoiding regulations, but somewhere along the lines greed and/or incompetence took over (something that seems common with Bitfinex's previous actions). Right now we're playing proverbial hot potato, and as long as people believe that Tether is worth a dollar everything is fine, but as some point the Emperor will have to step out from hiding and somebody will point out they have no clothes. In the long term I really hope once Tether collapses we can move on and get the following two implemented which would greatly improve the market for all investors:
Actual USD fiat pairings on the major exchanges for the major currencies
Regulatory rules on exchange reserve requirements
I had watched the Bitconnect people insist for the last 2 years that everything about Bitconnect made perfect sense because they were getting paid daily. The scam works until one day it suddenly doesn't. Tether could still come clean and avoid all of this "FUD" by simply getting a simple review of their banking, they don't even need a full audit. If everything was legit with Tether, it would be incredibly easy to have a segregated bank account with the funds used solely to back up Tether, then have an third party accounting firm simply review the account and a bank reconciliation statement then spend a few hours in contact with the bank to ensure no outstanding liabilities are held on that balance. This is extremely basic stuff, it would take a few hours to set up and wouldn't take a lot of man-hours for a qualified account to do, and yet they don’t do it. Why? Why hire a major PR firm and spend god knows how much money to pay professional PR representatives to attack "FUD" online instead? I think I know why.
12-04 11:13 - 'Have a Look at the Most Valuable Companies in Crypto Space' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/MonteCarloDEX removed from /r/Bitcoin within 465-475min
''' Many things have been said about the champions who have been at the forefront of making things happen in the crypto space but not much has been known about them. The list below and the descriptions indicate the biggest companies in the industry not only by valuation and capitalization but also by goodwill and corporate presence both online and offline as well. They shall be listed in no particular order of preference.
Ripple (Valuation of about $5 Billion)
Many people have heard one way or the other about [Ripple Labs Inc]1. It is widely associated with the now popular [XRP]2token as it uses this coin in its solutions. Ripple Labs owns and runs RipppleNet. Driven by what is referred to as the Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm (RPCA), RippleNet is used for all kinds of transactions between financial institutions but with the introduction of new tools different kinds of platforms will be able to run off it making Ripple be not only the darling of the financial services sector but also to be one of the cryptocurrency companies to watch out for come next year. Ripple has been [tipped]3to be worth about $5 billion.
Circle (about $3 Billion)
While [Circle]4is quite popular these days with its hands in many pies in the crypto space, this cryptocurrency unicorn started out as a service where you could buy [Bitcoin]5with credit card and has grown to be one of the most dynamic organizations out there also with its own stablecoin USDcoin which is tied to the United States Dollar. Sources indicate that Circle achieved its $3 billion valuation after a funding round of about $100 million last year.
Bitmain (about $12 Billion)
Now everyone knows that [Bitmain]6is by far the largest cryptocurrency corporate organization by sheer size and valuation. Owning the world’s largest cryptocurrency mining facilities and being a major hardware manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining equipment, Bitmain has overtaken just about everyone else to be at the top when it comes to valuations. This does not mean however that it hasn’t had its share of corporate issues. Sources [estimated]7last year that the total valuation of Bitmain stood at $12 billion.
Binance (about $2 Billion)
[Binance]8is quite popular in the crypto space as it is one of the most popular cryptocurrency exchanges at the moment. Its premier position in terms of trading volume (as the second largest) has only made it more obvious that it holds the top spot in the hearts and minds of many within the industry.Apart from trading cryptocurrencies, Binance is also known for other products such as [Binance Coin]9and its decentralized trading blockchain Binance Chain. CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has [indicated]10that Binance is worth at least $ 2 billion or more.
Canaan Creative (about $2 Billion)
While maybe not many new people know about this particular cryptocurrency mining company, Canaan Creative is also one of the leaders when it comes to cryptocurrency mining. Even though the company itself hasn’t been dong well as of late, it is still punching above its weight when it comes to having superstar status. Reports have it that the recent [IPO]11places it at a little over $ 2 billion.
Coinbase (about $8 Billion)
We all know [Coinbase]12and its cryptocurrency exchange platform were one way or the other going to be on the list. With other products such as the recently introduced Coinbase Prime, Coinbase Custody and even Coinbase Commerce, Coinbase is indeed on a curve to grow exponentially. So much so that the cryptocurrency exchange put its [valuation]13at $8 billion last year after finishing its series E round of financing.
BitMEX (around $3 Billion)
With an innovative cryptocurrency trading platform that offers more than the usual trading of cryptocurrencies ( futures and perpetual contracts as well), [BitMEX]14enables traders to use the necessary leverage to enhance the potential for profit as well. Reports [indicate]15that BitMEX is worth $3.6 billion from last year although other reports contradict this and put the valuation at around $1 billion.
Robinhood (about $7 Billion)
[Robinhood]16has created a more centrist appeal than many other cryptocurrency trading platforms. This has led to its massive success as its main focus are the millennials. Robinhood took off in the beginning as a fee-free stock trading platform. Its valuation at around $7 billion was [reported]17earlier this year and this, of course, makes it be a force to be reckoned within the industry.
Block.One (around $3 Billion)
[Block.One]18has been one of those organizations that have scaled through all the odds when it comes to corporate-startup challenges. Being a contender for the throne of king of Decentralized Applications, Block.One it has been [reported]19has a valuation of about $3 billion with a significant majority of its holdings in fiat assets surprisingly for a company that rules its share of the crypto space.
Kraken (about $4 Billion)
[Kraken]20is one of the premier cryptocurrency exchanges. This goes without saying that the recent [acquisition]21of a futures trading platform and the closing of its last [funding round]22to the tune of $13 million had quite a bit to do with its recent $ 4 billion valuation. It has, of course, raised the bar for the cryptocurrency trading platform whose future had reportedly been in the doldrums prior to the acquisition and new funding round.
Is It All about Money?
While the performance of the companies is as important as the reason that they were set up or are operational in the first place, the basic reason for the consideration of the most valued companies in terms of valuation is to gauge the health of the corporate actors currently on the big stage within the crypto space. This also indicates the direction that the sphere is going in; the direction of greater adoption and inclusion in normal day-to-day events. One thing is certain from the above: a new industry has been born and those who can catch the “crypto-fire” may one day be also among these above-listed companies as many others are in fierce pursuit of being unicorns themselves. ''' Have a Look at the Most Valuable Companies in Crypto Space Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: MonteCarloDEX 1: *ww*coi*s*ea*e*.*o**organi**tions*ripple-labs/ 2: w***coi*spe*ker.com/coi***xrp/ 3: *w**forbes.com/*ites/*ic***ldelcast*ll*/2018/0*/04/rip*le*-tril*ion-*o**a**ma*/ 4: www.**inspeaker.com/orga**z*tion**ci**l*/ 5: w**.coinspe*ker**o*/c*in*/bitcoin/ 6: w*w.coi*s*eaker.com**r*a*i*ation*/bitm*in/ 7: w**.caixinglobal.com/20*8-06-***crypto-c****czars**e*rc*-*or*ai-pow*red-future-10*27***4*htm* 8: **w.c*inspe*k*r.com/org*n*zations/bi**n*e/ 9: *w*.coinspeak*r.*om*coins*bi*ance**oi*/ 10: fork***.me*ia/ex*lus*v*-cz-bina*ce-on-***-**a*t*-values-russia-*nd-chi*a* 11: **w.c**nspeake*.co*/ca*aan-raise*90*mi**ion-i*o/ 12: ww*.*oins*eak*r.*o*/orga*i*ations*c**nbase/ 13: bl**.coinbas*.com/*o*nba*e-raises*serie*-e-*o*n*-o*-fin*nci**-to-***el**at*-th*-adop***n-of-c*yptocurren*ies-1ad92*46*81* 14: www.*oinspeaker.c****r*aniz*ti*ns/bitme** 15: www.th**i*es***.u*/**t*cle/wheres-*al*et-c*n-*o*-spot-ben-delo*the-*ks-*i*st*bitco*n*billion*ire-llp**k2r* 16: ww*.coi*s*eaker*c*m*org*n*zati*ns/rob*nho*d/ 17: www.theinf*rmati*n*com/*r*icle**robinh*od-*e*rs-f**ding-*t-*alua*ion*o*er-7-***lio* 18: *w*.c*inspeaker.c*m*tag*bl*ck-o*e/ 19: www.bl*omb*r*.com/new*/articles/**1*-****2/thiel-b*ck*d****pto-startup*pay*-out*6-567-*et*r* 20: **w.**in*p*aker*com/organiz**ion*/kraken/ 21: www.coi*s*e*ke*.*om/k*aken-cry*to*facili*ie*-s*o*-f*tu*es/ 22: w*w.co*n*peak*r*c*m/krakens-f*n*ing*valu*tion-*-bi**i*n/ Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
Trial Back on After Craig Wright Breaks Bitcoin Settlement Agreement
Australian-born technologist Craig Wright has attested that he cannot finance his court settlement negotiated with the Kleiman estate. According to a court document filed in the Southern District of Florida Oct. 30, Wright pulled out of the settlement agreement in which he would forfeit half his intellectual property and bitcoin mined prior to 2014. With the agreement broken, trial motions are now back on. The document was filed by Kleiman’s counsel to set a date to depose an out-of-state witness. Ira Kleiman brought the charges against Wright in 2018 on behalf of his deceased brother’s estate. Kleiman alleges Wright manipulated business documents, emails and other correspondence to defraud the estate. Wright was sanctioned in late August, after being found in contempt of court by Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for failing to disclose a complete list of his bitcoin addresses, reportedly amounting to 1.1 million bitcoin. During the hearing, Wright claimed his bitcoin was inaccessible due to his former business partner David Kleiman’s death as well as a complicated encryption scheme. The arguments were found to be inconsistent and in bad faith. “These discussions began at Craig’s request and due to the fact that Craig represented he had the means to finance a settlement,” Velvel Freedman, member of the prosecution and partner at Roche Freedman, said in the filing. Wright allegedly reneged on the non-binding agreement “without notice.” Earlier, just days after the sanction was levied, Wright requested additional time to challenge the judge’s court order due to the approach of Hurricane Dorian. Kleiman is represented by Kyle Roche and Velvel Freedman of Roche Freedman LLP, while Wright is represented by Rivero Mestre LLP. The trial date is set for March 30, 2020.
Un-Tethered: The Assets That (probably) Don't Exist
Are you an investor in cryptocurrency? If you are, and you haven't heard of Tether ($USDT) then I highly urge you to sit up and take notice. Things are about to get a little crazy in crypto-land, to the tune of up to $2 billion dollars of assets turning into vapor. This would dwarf last weeks $500M+ hack of Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck. Tether is a cryptographic token owned by the Tether Corporation. They haven't fully disclosed this, but it seems likely that the corporation is actually operated by the same folks behind the popular exchange Bitfinex. Tether was deployed as a "StableCoin" so that traders wanting to hold their money in a stable asset (but not USD) could easily do so within exchanges. $1 Tether ($USDT) is supposed to always be equal to $1 USD. In order to achieve this valuation, every amount Tether releases in digital currency should be backed by exactly equivalent real USD in their accounts. Reportedly, most exchanges literally hard-code the $1 USDT to $1 USD exchange rate on their order books, instead of letting the value float based on supply and demand. By trading into an asset with low volatility like Tether, one could ride out a bear market, hold dry powder for an ICO, take a vacation from crypto-investing or any number of reasons one would want to be temporarily "out" of a market position. If you look at the chart on CoinMarketCap, it seems pretty stable, right? And, sure, it is. Remember, every $USDT is mimicking a USD held in reserve, as investors who want to withdraw a "StableCoin" into USD should be able to do so, right? The money has to be there. Logic follows that if the market cap of Tether is $2.2 billion, as seen above, then somewhere the Tether Corporation is holding that much money in USD. LOL, yeah right. To create new $USDT at the rate we're seeing, Tether would need to be receiving tens of millions of dollars of institutional funding every single week, sometimes every day. Wallets with an enormous amount of Tether are being discovered on a near-weekly basis -- literally created out of thin air. Why would that many sophisticated investors invest so much into an off-shore, previously hacked, dubiously operated company? No major institutional investors I could find have announced any partnership with Tether. In addition to that major question mark, Tether has currently turned off most forms of redeeming USDT into USD directly into a bank account. You can, of course, easily sell your Tether to someone else on a exchange -- swapping Tether between traders but never redeeming it directly from the Tether bank account. Over $2B of Tether capital, printed at opportune times, can do quite a bit to prop up the price of Bitcoin. And Bitcoin price correlates with AltCoin price. To some degree, Tether is propping up a small but significant piece of the entire cryptocurrency market. If Tether were any other currency, like Monero ($XMR) for example, then this wouldn't be such an issue. People believe in the value of $XMR because they believe in the teams, the product, the developer community, and the network effect. Tether has a completely different psychology; Tether is "stable" and a safe haven on an exchange. If it continues to print Tethers at will and if the general public believes there are assets to the tune of $1 for $1, it could potentially never collapse even if the assets in the Tether vault don't exist. But the crypto market is moving beyond the general public, and crypto investors are becoming more sophisticated. These investors want to ensure that if they store their assets in Tether, there's something to back it up. As the market cap of Tether skyrocketed in the final months of 2017 calls for an audit into their balance sheet began to mount. Demands for Tether to hire a third party auditor heated up in November of 2017. After enormous pressure, they caved and hired Friedman LLP to conduct a full audit and prove they had the assets they said they had. After months of promising to release an audit and silence, CoinDesk reports on January 27th that Friedman and Tether have "dissolved" their relationship. Here, I believe, is where the market psychology begins to unravel. If (when) Tether fails to provide a concrete and believable reason for this relationship with an auditor to unravel so spectacularly and unexpectedly, consumers could lose confidence in the entire thing. A quick look at the Tether subreddit does little to inspire confidence. If exchanges were to stop the BTC/USDT trading pair... over two billions dollars worth of assets might become illiquid, with regular traders holding much of that amount. I don't know when this will happen, and I can't say with absolute certainty that Tether doesn't have the billions in assets they claim they do. All I can do is raise a yellow flag for those reading this post.
SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco
SegWit is a "clever innovation" brought to you by clueless / corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs;
MERS is a "clever innovation" brought to you by reckless / corrupt Wall Street bankers;
SegWit and MERS both work by simply deleting crucial "ownership data" for transactions.
Of course, the "experts" (on Wall Street, and at AXA-owned Blockstream) present MERS and SegWit as "innovations" - as a way to "optimize" and "streamline" vast chains of transactions reflecting ownership and transfer of valuable items (ie, real-estate mortgages, and bitcoins). But, unfortunately, the "brilliant bat-shit insane approach" devised by the "geniuses" behind MERS and SegWit to do this is to simply delete the data which proved ownership and transfer of these items - information which is essential for legal purposes (in the case of mortgages), or security purposes (in the case of bitcoins).
SegWit allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for bitcoins - ie, SegWit supports deleting the cryptographic data specifying "who transmitted what bitcoins to whom" (as originally specified in Satoshi's whitepaper defining Bitcoin);
MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) allowed deleting the "chain of (legal) title" for real-estate mortgages - ie, MERS supported deleting the legal "notes" specifying "who transmitted what mortgages to whom" (as previously tracked by banks / mortgage lenders / originators / notaries / land registries / "cadasters", etc.)
So, the most pernicious aspect of SegWit may be that it encourages deleting all of Bitcoin's cryptographic security data - destroying the "chain of signatures" which (according to the white paper) are what define what a "bitcoin" actually is. Wow, deleting signatures with SegWit sounds bad. Can I avoid SegWit? Yes you can. To guarantee the long-term cryptographic, legal and financial security of your bitcoins:
You should avoid sending / receiving / holding Bitcoins using the dangerous, new "SegWit" addresses. (As far as I understand, "SegWit" bitcoin addresses all start with a "3".)
You should just use safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses - and avoid using unsafe "SegWit" addresses. (If I understand correctly, all "normal" Bitcoin addresses still start with a "1", while "SegWit" addresses always start with a "3".)
You can also use Bitcoin implementations which encourage using "normal" Bitcoin addresses. (As far as I understand, implementations such as Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic are being deployed mainly to support "normal", "non-SegWit" Bitcoin addresses - as well as market-based (bigger) blocksizes and (lower) fees.)
You can avoid Bitcoin implementations which require SegWit. (As far as I understand, SegWit2x, UASF/BIP148 are being deployed mainly to support "SegWit" Bitcoin addresses - as well as centrally-planned (smaller) blocksizes and (higher) fees).
MERS = "The dog ate your mortgage's chain of title". SegWit = "The dog ate your bitcoin's chain of signatures."
By deleting / losing the "chain of title" for mortgages stored in the MERS database (in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" being pushed by "clever" bankers on Wall Street), MERS caused a legal and financial catastrophe for mortgages - by making it impossible to (legally) prove who owns which properties.
By deleting / losing the "chain of signatures" for Bitcoins stored in SegWit addresses (in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" being pushed by "clever" devs at AXA-owned Blockstream), SegWit could end up causing a financial (and possibly also legal) catastrophe for Bitcoin - by making it impossible (or at least more complicated in many cases) to (cryptographically) prove who owns which bitcoins.
Wall Street-backed MERS = AXA-backed SegWit It is probably no coincidence that:
Clueless, corrupt bankers from Wall Street used MERS to recklessly delete the "chain of (legal) title" for people's mortgages;
And now clueless, corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream want to recklessly use SegWit to delete the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for people's bitcoins.
by supporting the most ignorant developers and "leaders" (lying Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CEO Adam Back, drooling authoritarian idiot Luke-Jr, vandal Peter Todd, etc);
by supporting a massive campaign of propaganda, censorship, and lies (on forums like r\bitcoin and sites like bitcointalk.org - both controlled by the corrupt censor u/Theymos) to try to force SegWit on the Bitcoin community.
Do any Core / Blockstream devs and supporters know about MERS - and recognize its dangerous parallels with SegWit? It would be interesting to hear from some of the "prominent" Core / Blockstream devs and supporters listed below to find out if they are aware of the dangerous similarities between SegWit and MERS:
Luke-Jr u/luke-jr - co-founder of and occasional contractor for Blockstream, in charge of Core's "BIP" numbering process, known for his [delusions] and authoritarianism - and for the messy SegWit-as-a-soft-fork kludge - now leading the brainwashed lemmings and sybils of r\bitcoin off the cliff, with his doomed UASF/BIP148;
Core / Blockstream devs might not know about MERS - but AXAdefinitely does While it is likely that most or all Core / Blockstream devs do not know about the MERS fiasco... ...it is 100% certain that people at AXA (the main owners of Blockstream) do know about MERS. This is because the global financial crisis which started in 2008 was caused by:
CDOs - collateralized debt obligations
MBSs - mortgage-backed securities
MERS - the company / database Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems which "lost" (deleted) millions of people's mortgage notes - leading to "clouded titles" which made possible the wave of foreclosure fraud and robo-signing, which eventually cost the "clever" banks tens of billions of dollars in losses.
Loans originated with MERS as the original mortgagee purport to separate the borrower’s promissory note, which is made payable to the originating lender, from the borrower’s conveyance of a mortgage, which purportedly is granted to MERS. If this separation is legally incorrect - as every state supreme court looking at the issue has agreed - then the security agreements do not name an actual mortgagee or beneficiary. The mortgage industry, however, has premised its proxy recording strategy on this separation, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “the note and mortgage are inseparable.” [Compare with the language from Satoshi's whitepaper: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."] If today’s courts take the Carpenter decision at its word, then what do we make of a document purporting to create a mortgage entirely independent of an obligation to pay? If the Supreme Court is right that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note, then a security agreement that purports to grant a mortgage independent of the promissory note attempts to convey something that cannot exist. [...] Many courts have held that a document attempting to convey an interest in realty fails to convey that interest if the document does not name an eligible grantee. Courts around the country have long held that “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void.”
The parallels between MERS and SegWit are obvious and inescapable.
MERS separated (and eventually deleted) the legal information regarding the "conveyance" (transfer) of ownership of "realty" (real estate)
SegWit segregates (and allows eventually deleting) the cryptographic information regarding the sending and receiving of bitcoins.
Note that I am not arguing here that SegWit could be vulnerable to attacks from a strictly legal perspective. (Although that may be possible to.) I am simply arguing that SegWit, because it encourages deleting the (cryptographic) signature data which defines "bitcoins", could eventually be vulnerable to attacks from a cryptographic perspective. But I heard that SegWit is safe and tested! Yeah, we've heard a lot of lies from Blockstream, for years - and meanwhile, they've only succeeded in destroying Bitcoin's market cap, due to unnecessarily high fees and unnecessarily slow transactions. Now, in response to those legal-based criticisms of SegWit in the article from nChain, several so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" have tried to rebut that those arguments from nChain were somehow "flawed". But if you read the rebuttals of these "Bitcoin legal experts", they sound a lot like the clueless "experts" who were cheerleading MERS for its "efficiency" - and who ended up costing tens billions of dollars in losses when the "chain of title" for mortgages held in the MERS database became "clouded" after all the crucial "ownership data" got deleted in the name of "efficiency" and "optimization". In their attempt to rebut the article by nChain, these so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" use soothing language like "optimization" and "pragmatic" to try to lull you into believing that deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for your bitcoins will be just as safe as deleting the "chain of (legal) notes" for mortgages: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-legal-experts-nchain-segwit-criticisms-flawed/ The (unsigned!) article on CoinDesk attempting to rebut Nguyen's article on nChain starts by stating:
Nguyen's criticisms fly in the face of what has emerged as broad support for the network optimization, which has been largely embraced by the network's developers, miners and startups as a pragmatic step forward.
Then it goes on to quote "Bitcoin legal experts" who claim that using SegWit to delete Bitcoin's cryptographic signatures will be just fine:
Marco Santori, a fintech lawyer who leads the blockchain tech team at Cooley LLP, for example, took issue with what he argued was the confused framing of the allegation. Santori told CoinDesk:
"It took the concept of what is a legal contract, and took the position that if you have a blockchain signature it has something to do with a legal contract."
Stephen Palley, counsel at Washington, DC, law firm Anderson Kill, remarked similarly that the argument perhaps put too much weight on the idea that the "signatures" involved in executing transactions on the bitcoin blockchain were or should be equivalent to signatures used in digital documents.
"It elides the distinction between signature and witness data and a digital signature, and they're two different things," Palley said.
"There are other ways to cryptographically prove a transaction is correctly signed other than having a full node," said BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp. "The assumption that if a transaction is in the blockchain, it's probably valid, is a fairly good guarantee." Legal experts asserted that, because of this design, it's possible to prove that the transaction occurred between parties, even if those involved did not store signatures. For this reason, Coin Center director Jerry Brito argued that nChain is overstating the issues that would arise from the absence of this data. "If you have one-time proof that you have the bitcoin, if you don't have it and I have it, logically it was signed over to me. As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine," he said.
There are several things you can notice here:
These so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" are downplaying the importance of signatures in Bitcoin - just like the "experts" behind MERS downplayed the importance of "notes" for mortgages.
Satoshi said that a bitcoin is a "chain of digital signatures" - but these "Bitcoin legal experts" are now blithely asserting that we can simply throw the "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - and we can be "fairly" certain that everything will "probably" be ok.
The "MERS = SegWit" argument which I'm making is not based on interpreting Bitcoin signatures in any legal sense (although some arguments could be made along those lines).
Instead, I'm just arguing that any "ownership database" which deletes its "ownership data" (whether it's MERS or SegWit) is doomed to end in disaster - whether that segregated-and-eventually-deleted "ownership data" is based on law (with MERS), or cryptography (with SegWit).
Who's right - Satoshi or the new "Bitcoin experts"? You can make up your own mind. Personally, I will never send / receive / store large sums of money using any "SegWit" bitcoin addresses. This, is not because of any legal considerations - but simply because I want the full security of "the chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - which, according to the whitepaper, is the very definition of what a bitcoin "is". Here are the words of Satoshi, from the whitepaper, regarding the "chain of digital signatures": https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Does that "chain of digital signatures" sound like something you'd want to throw in the trash??
The "clever devs" from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of so-called "Bitcoin legal experts) say "Trust us, it is safe to delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of bitcoins". They're pushing "SegWit" - the most radical change in the history of Bitcoin. As I have repeatedly discussed, SegWit weakens Bitcoin's security model.
The people who support Satoshi's original Bitcoin (and clients which continue to implement it: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Classic - all supporting "Bitcoin Cash" - ie "Bitcoin" without SegWit) say "Trust no one. You should never delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of your bitcoins."
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.
So, according to Satoshi, a "chain of digital signatures" is the very definition of what a bitcoin is.
Meanwhile according to some ignorant / corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of "Bitcoin legal experts") now suddenly it's "probably" "fairly" safe to just throw Satoshi's "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - all in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" - because they're so very clever.
Who do you think is right? Finally, here's another blatant lie from SegWit supporters (and small-block supporters) Let's consider this other important quote from Satoshi's whitepaper above:
A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Remember, this is what "small blockers" have always been insisting for years. They've constantly been saying that "blocks need to be 1 MB!!1 Waah!1!" - even though several years ago the Cornell study showed that blocks could already be 4 MB, with existing hardware and bandwidth. But small-blockers have always insisted that everyone should store the entire blockchain - so they can verify their own transactions. But hey, wait a minute! Now they turn around and try to get you to use SegWit - which allows deleting the very data which insisted that you should download and save locally to verify your own transactions! So, once again, this exposes the so-called "arguments" of small-blocks supporters as being fake arguments and lies:
On the one hand, they (falsely) claim that small blocks are necessary in order for everyone to be run "full nodes" because (they claim) that's the only way people can personally verify all their own transactions. By the way, there are already several errors here with what they're saying:
Actually "full nodes" is a misnomer (Blockstream propaganda). The correct terminology is "full wallets", because only miners are actually "nodes".
Actually 1 MB "max blocksize" is not necessary for this. The Cornell study showed that we could easily be using 4 MB or 8 MB blocks by now - since, as everyone knows, the average size of most web pages is already over 2 MB, and everyone routinely downloads 2 MB web pages in a matter of seconds, so in 10 minutes you could download - and upload - a lot more than just 2 MB. But whatever.
On the other hand, they support SegWit - and the purpose of SegWit is to allow people to delete the "signature data".
This conflicts with their argument the everyone should personally verify all their own transactions. For example, above, Coin Center director Jerry Brito was saying: "As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine."
So which is it? For years, the "small blockers" told us we needed to all be able to personally verify everything on our own node. And now SegWit supporters are telling us: "Naah - you can just rely on someone else's node."
Plus, while the transactions are still being sent around on the wire, the "signature data" is still there - it's just "segregated" - so you're not getting any savings on bandwidth anyways - you'd only get the savings if you delete the "signature data" from storage.
Storage is cheap and plentiful, it's never been the "bottleneck" in the system. Bandwidth is the main bottleneck - and SegWit doesn't help that at all, because it still transmits all the data.
Conclusion So if you're confused by all the arguments from small-blockers and SegWitters, there's a good reason: their "arguments" are total bullshit and lies. They're attempting to contradict and destroy:
Satoshi's original design of Bitcoin as a "chain of digital signatures":
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership."
Satoshi's plan for scaling Bitcoin by simply increasing the goddamn blocksize:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
The the notorious mortgage database MERS, pushed by clueless and corrupt Wall Street bankers, deleted the "chain of (legal) title" which had been essential to show who conveyed what mortgages to whom - leading to "clouded titles", foreclosure fraud, and robo-signing.
The notorious SegWit soft fork / kludge, pushed by clueless and corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs, allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" which is essential to show who sent how many bitcoins to whom - which could lead to a catastrophe for people who foolishly use SegWit addresses (which can be avoided: unsafe "SegWit" bitcoin addresses start with a "3" - while safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses start with a "1").
Stay safe and protect your bitcoin investment: Avoid SegWit transactions.
[See the comments from me directly below for links to several articles on MERS, foreclosure fraud, robo-signing, "clouded title", etc.]
Bitcoin Inventor Can't Access Coins Requested In $10B Law Suit
Law360, West Palm Beach (June 28, 2019, 10:26 PM EDT) -- The Australian computer scientist who claims to have invented bitcoin told a Florida federal court Friday he cannot comply with a court order to produce a list of his bitcoin holdings in a $10.2 billion lawsuit against him. Craig Wright, who took the stand in West Palm Beach, said that's because the bitcoin holdings are held in a blind trust and he does not have the requisite keys to access them. Wright explained to the court why he could not produce the list of public addresses, or unique identifiers, of his bitcoin holdings as of Dec. 31, 2013, as requested by plaintiff Ira Kleiman, who claims Wright stole $10 billion worth of bitcoins from the company of his deceased brother Dave Kleiman, who is said to have helped invent the cryptocurrency bitcoin. Wright explained that the bitcoins have 15 different key "slices," at least eight of which would be necessary to access them. He said he had some of the slices and Dave Kleiman had some of the others, and he’d directed Kleiman to give them to bonded couriers who would return the key slices on certain dates. He said he has no idea if Kleiman set them up correctly or who holds the other slices. He said some of the slices would not become available until June 2020, which caught the attention of U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart. “So since 2016 you have known that you didn’t have access to these files and wouldn’t have access until 2020?” Judge Reinhart said. “And you knew that in February 2019 and in March 2019?” Wright, who lives in the U.K., was on the stand Friday after being ordered by Judge Reinhart to show up in court and explain why he could not comply with a March order to produce a list of his bitcoin holdings, as well as certain documents and certifications related to a blind trust in which Wright says he put his bitcoin holdings in 2011. The judge is considering whether or not to recommend sanctions, including possible contempt of court, for defying the court order. Wright testified that though he wanted to comply with the order, it was impossible for him to do so. “If there was any way at all that I could, then I would,” he said. He said he is ashamed of his invention, which he says has been used to trade in drugs, weapons and child pornography. “I set up bitcoin to be honest money,” Wright said. “I set up bitcoin to fix the problems of every other digital cash that had been. Every single other one had fallen to crime. I thought I would set up the world’s first digital cash that would not fall to crime.” But as others he worked with launched dark web sites like Silk Road and Hydra, Wright said through tears that he stopped mining bitcoin completely in August 2010. Whatever bitcoins he owned were put into a blind trust that he says will go to funding educational charities. Wright said it was Dave Kleiman who talked him out of destroying the bitcoins entirely. In 2011, Wright said they were not worth much money and he thought they would “drag [his] life to hell.” “If I had my way, I would’ve put a hammer through the hard drive that held those,” Wright said. During cross-examination, Wright was also questioned about an email he’d submitted that Ira Kleiman says is forged. In the email, dated Dec. 20, 2012, Dave Kleiman allegedly appoints a woman named Uyen Nguyen as director of W&K Info Defense Research LLC, the company Kleiman and Wright co-founded. But the cryptocurrency community, and an expert hired by Kleiman’s estate, have pointed out that the PGP signature at the bottom of the email was generated on March 12, 2014, one year after Kleiman’s death. Wright denied ever changing the date on the email, accused Kleiman’s counsel of misleading the court by presenting a doctored pdf of the email, and said the data had come from a known compromised server. The email came from his staff, he said, which was attempting to push his company into liquidation at the time. “You want me to comment on a file from a server run by a person who was trying to force me into liquidation so they could sell my intellectual property,” Wright said. At one point, Wright accused Kleiman’s counsel of committing perjury and threw the document into the air in frustration, which immediately drew a sharp rebuke from the judge. “You throw another document in my courtroom, you will be in handcuffs so fast your head will spin,” Judge Reinhart said. Wright later apologized for the comment, and the judge agreed that he would not hold it against him in any ruling. The parties got through Wright’s testimony but did not have time to put their expert witnesses on the stand and will have to reconvene for a second hearing at a later agreed-upon date. Kleiman’s estate sued Wright in February 2018 for more than $10 billion — representing up to 1.1 million bitcoins at the time of the suit — and intellectual property related to bitcoin software, alleging that Wright has schemed to seize Kleiman’s bitcoins ever since his death in 2013. Wright, according to the suit, forged documents to make it appear that Dave Kleiman had previously signed away ownership of W&K. But when Ira Kleiman challenged the veracity of the documents, he was reportedly promised funds from his brother’s estate, although those payments never materialized, according to the suit. Wright orbited outside the public's view until 2015, when Australian tax authorities investigated his role in developing the currency, eventually leading him to acknowledge that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of bitcoin, a claim he later refused to substantiate but one that he never withdrew. Wright has called the suit a shakedown and said the complaint is based on speculation and motivated by greed. He says Ira Kleiman tried to mine his brother’s hard drives after his death, only to find that any possible fortune hidden therein was encrypted and out of reach. Instead of being able to cash in, Wright accused Kleiman of drudging up tired slander to fabricate a lawsuit that echoes claims over bitcoin fraud and the ownership of intellectual property rights to the code used to create the bitcoin software that were already settled in Australia, where the Supreme Court of New South Wales awarded Wright 28.5 million Australian dollars ($22.15 million at the time). Ira Kleiman is represented by Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Kyle W. Roche and Stephen N. Zack of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. Wright is represented by Andres Rivero, Amanda McGovern, Zaharah Markoe, Alan H. Rolnick, Bryan Lee Paschal and Schneur Zalman Kass of Rivero Mestre LLP. The case is Kleiman et al. v. Wright, case number 9:18-cv-80176, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. --Additional reporting by Christopher Crosby. Editing by Bruce Goldman.
In 2011, Dr. Wright transferred ownership of all of his Bitcoin into a blind trust. Dr. Wright is not a trustee or a beneficiary of the blind trust. Nor does Dr. Wright know any of the public addresses which hold any of the bitcoin in the blind trust. First, as of December 31, 2013, all of Dr. Wright's bitcoin had been transferred to the blind trust, and therefore are owned by the trusts, not by Dr. Wright
Something to note in the previously referenced document is the assertion that Wright is neither a trustee nor beneficiary of the trust. Turns out this was a lie.
In June of 2011, I took steps to consolidate the Bitcoin that I mined with Bitcoin that I acquired and other assets. In October 2012, a formal trust document was executed, creating a trust whose corpus included the Bitcoin that I mined, acquired and would acquire in the future. The names of that trust is Tulip Trust. It was formed in the Seycelles, I refer to this trust below as Tulip Trust I. 7. The trustees for Tulip Trust I are: ... c. Craig Steven Wright; ... 13. The beneficiaries of Tulip Trust are Wright International Investments Ltd. Tulip Trading Ltd 14. I am the contact person for both beneficiaries, I can be contacted through my counsel Rivero Mestre LLP,
By Philip Rosenstein. Law360 (August 27, 2019, 10:35 PM EDT) -- Self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor Craig Wright must give up half his bitcoin trove, presumably worth billions of dollars, and half his Bitcoin-related intellectual property after willfully failing to comply with court orders, a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Florida said Tuesday. Bitcoin Mining Hashrate and Power Analysis. July 15 2020. Global Fintech Series Interview with Tim Kelly, CEO and Founder at BitOoda. March 03 2020. BitOoda Launches Hashpower Contract. January 27 2020. Crypto agency broker BitOoda raises $7M in seed funding to expand globally. December 23 2019. Bitcoin backs off three-week high, trades below $3,600 . February 12 2019. Wall Streeters Who ... Ausgegeben von Galaxy Digital Capital Management LP, einer Tochterfirma der amerikanischen Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd., investiert der im November 2019 lancierte Fonds ausschließlich in Bitcoin. Es handelt sich um ein passives Vehikel , mit dem institutionelle und akkreditierte Investoren ab einer Mindestanlage von 25.000 USD an der Wertentwicklung von Bitcoin partizipieren können. Bitcoin ist bei dem CFD Broker seit 2013 handelbar, CFDs auf andere Kryptowährungen sind seit Februar 2017 im Sortiment. eToro sitzt in Limassol/Zypern und wird durch die zypriotische Finanzaufsichtsbehörde CySEC beaufsichtigt. Über das Venture Capital Unternehmen CommerzVentures ist die deutsche Commerzbank an eToro beteiligt. Einzahlungen sind u.a. mittels Kreditkarte, Banküberweisung ... Bequest Bitcoin Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Domestic Limited-Liability Company filed on August 21, 2019. The company's filing status is listed as Active and its File Number is 7571097. The Registered Agent on file for this company is Harvard Business Services,inc. and is located at 16192 Coastal Hwy, Lewes, DE 19958.
Bitwala "Crypto Bank": Earn Up To 5% On Your Bitcoin ...
💲 OPEN A CRYPTO.COM ACCOUNT 💲 Use my referral link https://platinum.crypto.com/r/cryptodad to sign up for Crypto.com and we both get $50 USD :) Or use the co... Bitcoin Market Analysis 27th October 2020 LTC ETH DOT BNB BTC.D Don't forget to share this video with friends and family! Socials: https://www.linkedin.com/i... ️ Leverage OPM (Other People's Money): http://opm.cryptonewsalerts.net Pantera: Bitcoin in Early Stages of Large Bull Market Fueled by Powerful Macro Tide –... 🚨 MEGA BITCOIN BLUEPRINT SALE 🚨 https://www.btcblueprint.com 🔥 Up To $600 Discount - Limited Time 🔥 🔲 My Top 3 Recommended Exchanges 🔵 Phemex http ... Follow me on instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kakashicrypto/ Follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/KakashiCrypto _____...