Bitcoin Exchange Cryptocurrency Exchange Binance

CoinRollHunting: the hobby of searching change pulled from circulation for collectible coins

This subreddit is a redirect to the /CRH subreddit.
[link]

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not submitted by Solodeji to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not submitted by Odunayo20 to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not submitted by Solodeji to btc [link] [comments]

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not submitted by Odunayo20 to Crypto_Currency_News [link] [comments]

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not

CZ Binance Airs His Opinion on Whether Bitcoin Halving Is Priced In or Not submitted by Odunayo20 to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash Fork (Bitcoin SV up +90% on Binance today) and other 70+ Bitcoin Forks only harming the value of the Cryptocurrency space. Forks are ploys by the Crypto 1% to extort value from Bitcoin, pump up prices, and create capital gains for themselves through thin air.

submitted by Mycoinrisk to binance [link] [comments]

@cz_binance: @pBouDib That’s better than printing money out of thin air, but there are better options available now. Why not just base it on bitcoin?

submitted by rulesforrebels to BinanceTrading [link] [comments]

Stellar Lumen (XLM) Air Drop/ Binance.US / Bitcoin Price

Stellar Lumen (XLM) Air Drop/ Binance.US / Bitcoin Price submitted by bvadams1835 to cryptovideos [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Airs on 60 Minutes; 'Bitcoin' Google Searches Hit 14-Month High; Binance Recaps Hack

Bitcoin Airs on 60 Minutes; 'Bitcoin' Google Searches Hit 14-Month High; Binance Recaps Hack submitted by n4bb to CoinPath [link] [comments]

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Reminder from previous bull markets

Usually, bull markets attract a lot of new investors - although speculators should be the right word here - and as usual, a lot of them are going to be crushed a way or another.
First, before putting a single dollar, euro or whatever in the market, you should read a lot to know exactly what you're looking for.
Are you here for the tech and/or the cypherpunk ethos ? Great, there's lot of resources out there (my links are cleaned but as always, do your due diligence) :
Now, you've read and you want to put some skin in the game. Several exchanges are acceptable, a lot of aren't, be careful and assume that none really are (know that I won't post any ref links) :
This was for centralized exchanges aka CEX. Talking about custodial, you'll need wallets to store your (bit)coins. Always try to use non-custodial wallets, which means wallets that give you your private keys. This way, if the software goes down, you can always retreive your money. Now, I won't link to all the existing wallets but will advise you to buy hardware wallets (trezor or ledger but there are others) or to create (on off-gap computers) paper wallets you're able to store safely (against all risks, not only robbery but housefire). You also could use your memory with brain wallets but, my gosh, I wouldn't trust myself. For Bitcoin (or even Litecoin), Electrum software can do a good job (but save your keys).
AGAIN, DON'T KEEP YOUR SAVINGS ON AN EXCHANGE
Now, about trading : it's been repeated and repeated but don't chase pumps and altcoins. Yep, it's probably the fastest way to make money. It's also the fastest to lose it. I won't lie : I made good money during the 2017-bullrun and I took profits but I also forgot to sell some shitcoins thinking it would keep going up, now I'm still holding these bags (although I don't really care). I know that a lot forgot to take profits. Take profits, always take profits, whatever your strategy is. Don't fall for people trying to sell you their bags, for ICOs trying to sell you a product which isn't released yet and obviously, don't fall for people asking for your private key.
Also, know that there's two endgames : accumulating bitcoin or fiat. I'm rather in the first team but whatever your strategy is, take profits. (Yes, I know, some will say accumulating ethereum or something else). It's true that a lot of ethereum holders made a lot of money during the last bullrun (ethereum helped me make money too) but I'm really biased in favor of bitcoin (and monero). So, pick your coin but again, do your due diligence.
A lot of people here or there will talk about the best tech, the fact that bitcoin is old and slow. I would need another post to go further on this point but know that a lof of air flight systems are old too but reliable. Trustless and reliable is the point here.
This is the post from someone who bought bitcoin seven or six years ago, who lost part of them, who spent part of them (but don't regret this at all), who is still learning and I hope it will help others, although it would need a book to be complete.
submitted by EmmanuelBlockchain to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Updating the weekly traded volume in Venezuela. 497 BTC were traded last week using LocalBitcoin. One BTC is around 5,000,000 Bs. (Bolivares, Venezuela currency)

This has been a stable trend for months, 500 BTC weekly. 2,000 BTC monthly.
This is only measured in BTC and LocalBitcoins. There are other exchanges that accept Bolivares like Binance and AirTM but I think they dont have a open API. Paxful stoped working here a few weeks ago.
I'm Venezuelan living here, my life changed (a bit) because MOONS and some redditors have found me even work. I always post these updates!
You can ask me anything!
Sources:
https://www.usefultulips.org/combined_VES_Page.html
https://www.caracaschronicles.com/
https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins/VES/BTC
https://localbitcoins.com/buy-bitcoins-online/ves/
Edit: I missed 3 zeroes. One BTC is 5,000,000,000 Bs. Sorry.
submitted by WorkingLime to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bob The Magic Custodian



Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses.
Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes.

First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure:

Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:

But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are!

"On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid".
"Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since."

"As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!"
"Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?"

"Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party."
"Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!"

"What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven."
"Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!"

"We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies.
And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often".

How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen?
Just one.

Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so?
If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security.

The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle.

And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet?

Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds.
So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever.

Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see.
It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation.
A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7.

History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance.
Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.)
Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive.

Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today.
Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well.
Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do.

Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):



Thoughts?
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

[ CryptoCurrency ] Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

[ 🔴 DELETED 🔴 ] Topic originally posted in CryptoCurrency by xSeq22x [link]
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/lg16iwk2dhq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c899ee69800dd6c5e2900d8fa83de7a43c57086

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/Eb8xkDi_PUg

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/_-k0xkooSlA

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
https://youtu.be/mWBzFmzzBAg

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/ththwq5qdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=92f75152c90d984911db88ed174ebf3a147ca70d

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/lv2h7g9sdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=56eada6e8c72dbb4406d7c5377ad15608bcc730e

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/qe8e5ltudhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=18a2866104590f81a818690337f9121161dda890

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/0mnvpnzwdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8927ff2821415817265be75c59261f83851a2791

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/rsctxi6zdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff762dea3cfc2aaaa3c8fc7b1070d5be6759aac2

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/7phaylb1ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=d86d2ec49de456403edbaf27009ed0e25609fbff

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/l775gue3ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7c4b5802ceb1a9307bd2a8d65f393d1bcb0d7c6

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/zb72eto5ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ee102a2881d763296ad9ffba20667f531d2fd7a
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/fwi3clz7ehq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=c91c1645a4c67defd5fc3aaec84f4a765e1c50b6
xSeq22x your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

[TimeBucks] Exclusive high credit with Your-Surveys

[TimeBucks] Exclusive high credit with Your-Surveys
Hi guys,
I joined TimeBucks due to an offer which I had mentioned before (here if you haven't read it yet). I noticed that sometime a really high credit survey appears (survey from Your-Surveys wall, which is quite familiar to many of us, especially who's doing survey regularly). I completed one of those yesterday, and be credited with $3, you can see the last one in the picture below .
Your-Surveys - exclusively high credit survey
With that $3, I was able to complete the "earn $5 with TimeBucks to be rewarded $8.5" offer, which I had expected to clear it in 1-2 weeks.
TimeBucks offer - $8.5
Your-Surveys is listed on many offer wall sites out there, but I don't see any exclusive high credit Your-Surveys survey on those sites but TimeBucks. If you're a survey-lover, I recommend taking a look.
They also have other surveys and offer wall tasks like installing app, sign-up, paid-to-click and paid-to-view,... but the payout rate for those is a little lower than some common sites I recommended here - pinned post. So make sure to pay attention to those exclusive high credit Your-Surveys, it's ok to do other surveys, offers or tasks in TimeBucks too (the payout rate is not much lower then common sites above), but it will be somewhat better in other common sites.
Payment proof
If you want to try, here are your registration links: ref-link and no-ref.
P.S 1: more information about TimeBucks
  1. They don't support withdraw to PayPal anymore. You can select other payment methods like Bitcoin, Payeer or AirTM
  2. The minimum to withdraw is $10
  3. They have a variety of offetask types. I haven't seen any other sites with the number of offetask types as high as them.
  4. They have weekly lotery, called sweepstake, where a total prize pool of $500 is awarded to 30 winners each week. It's quite attractive :D
P.S 2: In case you need a Crypto wallet, you can use Coinbase, registration links: ref-link and no-ref, or Binance ref-link and no-ref. You can read here for the comparison between Coibase and Binance
submitted by trihai3012 to beermoneyASEAN [link] [comments]

Marketing Strategies and Practices for Block chain Projects and Startups.

If you are a blockchain startup, open source project or decentralized protocol and believe that you don’t need the right kind of marketing to succeed, think again.
Marketing” has traditionally been a weakness in the early lives of many tech startups for a variety of reasons. Most startups are often led by young or inexperienced CEOs or project leaders who come from a strong engineering or product mindset. These founders either don’t understand or don’t appreciate the value of marketing, and certainly that comes from a lack of experience or education on the subject. Most blockchain companies/projects founders are no different.
At the root of this situation lies a common and fundamental misconception: not knowing the true meaning and functions of marketing agency in mumbai .

Marketing Mistakes

Wrongfully, marketing is prematurely equated to shouting about a product prior to having it ready for the market to try. Others think that marketing is about hiring a PR firm, polishing a website, publishing a blog post, promoting on social media, designing a great logo with new colors and fonts, or producing videos about your product and Society Activation in Mumbai.
Unfortunately, during the ICO frenzy days, the term marketing has been bastardized around excessive usage of the above named activities. Therefore, marketing has received a bad rap in blockchain circles because it has been equated to pumping bad ICOs where the marketing consisted of purely unchecked promotion.
In the past few months, I have had several conversations with founders of blockchain related projects and companies who clearly didn’t seem to understand, let alone appreciate the value and priority they should be giving to doing a better job at marketing. When I challenged them on their marketing, or broached the topic, the responses ranged along the following flavors:
· We’re not ready for marketing until the next product is released and announced
· We have it in the budget for next year to hire a PR firm
· I’ve been doing videos that will air as advertising later
· We prefer to deliver first, and then talk about what we have done
· Marketing is expensive and we don’t have the budget now
· We hired a design firm and redoing our website with a new visual identity
· We don’t need marketing, we focus on our community on Reddit
All of the above are the wrong answers, and point to not understanding the various parts of marketing.

Marketing is a Process

So let’s start with the basics and further discuss what marketing is, or is not about. First, there are 3 parts to marketing:
· Product marketing – explaining what the product does (features/benefits), and how it is differentiated from others. Goal: Positioning the product.
· Corporate marketing – positioning the company and communicating its messages in a variety of means. Branding and Marketing Communications is a big part of it. Goal: Generate Awareness and Preference.
· Customer marketing (sometimes labelled as field marketing, direct marketing or content marketing) – getting in front of your target market to generate adoption, leads and sales. Goal: Generate Adoption and Loyalty.
The kind of marketing that is often deficient in blockchain companies or projects is Marketing Communications, i.e. how to strongly and clearly message in a few words what your project, company or product do for the usecustomer. But this must be done as a continuum. Messaging is not a single shot of sound bites around a launch event. To make it even more effective, it must be customized to the specific audience you are trying to reach: customers, investors, employees, media, influencers, partners, etc.
The process of creating the messaging is a complex exercise that has several layers designed to answering the WHY, WHAT and HOW of your value proposition. Many companies nail the WHY (Elevator pitch), but don’t follow through with the WHAT (Competitive positioning and Core value proposition), or the HOW (Product/Solution messaging and Technology differentiation).
Marketing is a process that evolves along a series of objectives, from Awareness, to Consideration, to Trials, and then Loyalty. Different tools are effective for each one of these steps. For example, thought leadership focuses on the awareness aspect and trying to shape the market by educating it. The brand leadership helps to influence the prospect’s perception towards you. You want to gradually progress from letting your target market care, understand, believe, then act to try your product and merchant onboarding agency in mumbai .
Here is the right order of progression for the following activities:
  1. Brand Strategy
  2. Positioning Statement
  3. Messaging Elements
  4. Visual Identity
Sadly, a common mistake I see is starting with the visual identity and thinking that it is branding. Often, that is the result of being led by an inexperienced CMO or one that came from the PCommunications side, or when the organization has hired a brand design firm instead of a brand strategy firm. Most brand design houses (and some PR companies) will tell you they will take care of your messaging and branding, but that is the tail wagging the dog. Brand strategy takes a very unique skill, and there are few brand strategy experts that do a great job with it. One brand strategy firm with whom I have had experience working with, is Brandsinger.
In a nutshell, if you are not occupying a position in the minds of users/customers (and the prospective market), then your brand value is zero. Someone else will come and articulate their value proposition better than you, and will subsequently occupy that position. If you are first to deliver a product, it may not matter. You need to be first in occupying that specific position in the minds of your target market. The battle is a battle of the minds, as rightfully spelled out in the seminal book on that topic Positioning: The Battle For Your Mind, a classic book that I have perhaps read over 20 times (over a course of 25 years), and almost memorized and put into practice accordingly. The sequel to that book, – Marketing Warfare, is also a must read marketing classic from the legendary Ries and Trout, the two authors of that series of work.

Blockchain Examples

Let’s give it some blockchain and cryptocurrency flavours.
Bitcoin occupied first the digital money position and still does to this point. Ethereum exploited a weakness in Bitcoin,- its ease of programmability and development platform potential, and it currently owns that position. All other (newer) blockchains have to attack Bitcoin or Ethereum as the reference points. Most of them have to raise the volume and intensity of their marketing in order to make an assault on these established leaders. It is always more expensive to attack than it is to defend a position.
ZCash and Monero have exploited the privacy niche. Coinbase occupies the safety ladder in cryptocurrency exchanges. Binance is trying to attack it with a me-too strategy focused on scale, and they are extending their brand with new services. LoomX has been good at becoming a Layer 2 leader for Ethereum. Take any other segment. For example, when you think file storage, you probably think Storj or Filecoin because that’s the position they are occupying. When you think prediction markets, you probably think of Augur or Gnosis. And when you think of stablecoins, Maker comes to mind.

Back to Basics

For those of you who know me from the blockchain market only (over the past 6 years roughly), you may not know that I’ve previously spent a long career in sales and marketing with a variety of positions and experiences in direct sales, field marketing, corporate marketing and several startups as founder and default chief marketer. More specifically, since I exited the operational world via my last startup in April 2013, I’ve written extensively about startup marketing in the early years of this blog. All of it still applies, as I focused on explaining the basics of market positioning, marketing strategy, messaging, brand strategy, and related marketing topics.
There is no point re-inventing marketing for the blockchain sector. So, I’m going to link to some basics that I’ve already written about. Here, I collected the 12 most pertinent blog posts into a single one that links to them: Startup Marketing Compendium of 12 Posts on Positioning, Branding, Messaging and more. Then I wrote one more, The Biggest Blind Spot of a Startup CEO is Ignoring Their Brand.
So please go read that series, and if you need help implementing some of that, don’t start by hiring a PR agency. Rather, take an introspective view, and hire the right marketing person first.
Another common weakness with blockchain companies is they fail to tell their stories in non-technical terms to the market. It is not enough to excite the developers.
And don’t just focus entirely on social media publishing. Unless you have 1 Million+ Twitter followers in your target audience, promoting on social media will only make a dent in your awareness goals.
Remember, marketing is not just writing a press release. It is not shouting from the rooftops. It takes finesse, planning, thought, accuracy, targeted actions, and iterations to get it right.
And timing is so important. Sometimes the marketing is way ahead of delivery, and sometimes it is way behind it, but when the timing and sequence are right, that’s when the magic of results happens.
Allow me repeat this: marketing is a process. Learn it, acquire experience in it, practice it, but don’t be amateurish about it.
About Us.
We are a local marketing and sales agency that help small/medium sized businesses and Start up. Established for over 10 years, our clients vary in size and cover a wide variety of business sectors. we see ourselves as active members of the local community helping local businesses by providing a variety of field marketing, btl marketing , door to door marketing, brand promotion, social media marketing, telemarketing, web and printed based marketing materials.
Contact Us.
Get in touch with us, we would love to discuss your marketing needs.
We love a good coffee and a challenge, so would be happy to meet up with you face to face.
submitted by parth770 to u/parth770 [link] [comments]

coinlibanalysis1

https://coinlib.io/coin/BTC/Bitcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ETH/Ethereum#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XRP/XRP#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BNB/Binance+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/USDT/Tether#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LINK/ChainLink#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BCH/Bitcoin+Cash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LTC/Litecoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BSV/Bitcoin+SV#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EOS/EOS#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ADA/Cardano#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CRO/Crypto.com+Chain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TRX/TRON#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XTZ/Tezos#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XMMonero#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XLM/Stellar#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NEO/NEO#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LEO3/UNUS+SED+LEO#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HT/Huobi+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XEM/NEM#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ATOM/Cosmos#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SNX/Synthetix#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IOT/IOTA#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LEND/EthLend#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DASH/Dash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VET/VeChain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZEC/ZCash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ETC/Ethereum+Classic#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ONT/Ontology#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/OMG/OmiseGo#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MKMaker#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/USDC/USCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/THETA/Theta+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HYN/Hyperion#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/OKB/OKB+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BAT/Basic+Attention+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DOGE/Dogecoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FXC/Flexacoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZRX/0x#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QTUM/QTUM#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WAVES/Waves#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DGB/DigiByte#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ICX/ICON#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EDC/EDCBlockchain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LRC/Loopring#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ALGO/Algorand#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/KNC/KyberNetwork+Crystal#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/REN/Republic+Protocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/REP/Augur#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PAX/Paxos+Standard+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LSK/Lisk#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ANT/Aragon#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZIL/Zilliqa#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZB/ZB+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DCDecred#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BTG/Bitcoin+Gold#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DGD/Digix+DAO#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SC/Siacoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TUSD/TrueUSD#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ENJ/Enjin+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ERD/Elrond#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DAI/Dai#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NANO/Nano#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BCD/Bitcoin+Diamond#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GNT/Golem+Network+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DX/DxChain+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ABBC/ABBC#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SNT/Status+Network+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ATOM/Atomic+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QNT/Quant#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RVN/Ravencoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LUNA/Luna#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BTM/Bytom#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RLC/iEx.ec#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HOT/HoloToken#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MONA/MonaCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MANA/Decentraland#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IOST/IOStoken#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BTS/Bitshares#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/UTK/Utrust#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XVG/Verge#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BNT/Bancor+Network+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MCO/Monaco#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NEXO/Nexo#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ELF/aelf#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/STORJ/Storj#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/STEEM/Steem#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/KMD/Komodo#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RSReserve+Rights#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ARDArdor#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GNO/Gnosis#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ENG/Enigma#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HSHshare#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MATIC/Matic+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FTM/Fantom+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ETN/Electroneum#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/STRAT/Stratis#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GUSD/Gemini+Dollar#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WIC/WaykiChain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VSYS/V+Systems#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XIN/Mixin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CVCC/CryptoVerificationCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CENNZ/Centrality#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TOMO/TomoCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HDAC/Hyundai+DAC#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ARK/ARK#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GXC/Gx+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MAID/MaidSafe+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AE/Aeternity#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AION/Aion#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZEN/Horizen#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SYS/Syscoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GXS/GXShares#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WAN/Wanchain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/REV/Revain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/THEX/THEX#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/POWPower+Ledger#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SOLVE/SOLVE#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TFUEL/Theta+Fuel#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MLN/Melon#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NPXS/Pundi+X#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AGI/SingularityNET#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/UBT/Unibright#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ELA/Elastos#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DGTX/Digitex+Futures#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DATA/Streamr+DATAcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QSP/Quantstamp#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XZC/ZCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RDD/ReddCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RCN/Ripio#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ORBS/Orbis#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BCN/ByteCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BLZ/Bluzelle#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VEST/Vestchain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PIVX/PIVX+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NULS/NULS#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LOOM/Loom+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XDCE/XinFin+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CRPT/Crypterium#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FUN/FunFair#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WTC/Waltonchain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NAS/Nebulas+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/REQ/Request+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AST/AirSwap#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LAMB/Lambda#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GAS/Gas#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DAG/Constellation#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XSN/Stakenet#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GNX/Genaro+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CTXC/Cortex#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IGNIS/Ignis#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DENT/Dent#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IOTX/IoTeX#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CELCeler+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XHV/Haven+Protocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ETP/Metaverse#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CND/Cindicator#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FSN/Fusion#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PPT/Populous#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FOForce+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QASH/QASH#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NIM/Nimiq#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GRS/Groestlcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ABT/Arcblock#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/KBC/KaratGold+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FCT/Factom#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DRGN/Dragonchain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NXS/Nexus#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LA/LAToken#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RDN/Raiden+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZAP/Zap#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VTC/VertCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/APL/Apollo+Currency#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/STORM/Storm#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ADX/AdEx#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MTL/Metal#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CVC/Civic#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SBD/Steem+Backed+Dollars#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/UBQ/Ubiq#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CS/Credits#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VGX/Voyager+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WINGS/Wings+DAO#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZEON/ZEON+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MFT/Mainframe#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GRIN/Grin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WGWagerr#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BRD/Bread+token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/KEY/SelfKey#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ACT/Achain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IQ/Everipedia#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PAY/TenX#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VITE/VITE#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TEL/Telcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NAV/NavCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BIX/Bibox+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WABI/WaBi#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DMT/DMarket#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TTC3/TTC#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/KIN/Kin+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MET2/Metronome#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BURST/Burst#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NEBL/Neblio#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ITC/IoT+Chain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/INT/Internet+Node+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PPC/PeerCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NEW/Newton#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GVT/Genesis+Vision#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TCT/TokenClub#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PRO/Propy#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ODE/Odem#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DNT/district0x#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DERO/DERO#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AMO/Amo+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GTO/Gifto#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AEON/AeonCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/UPP/Sentinel+Protocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EVX/Everex#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SKY/Skycoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XDN/DigitalNote#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LET/LinkEye#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/B2B/B2BX#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SRN/SirinLabs#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TNB/Time+New+Bank#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ONG/onG.social#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MDA/Moeda#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TPAY/TokenPay#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/POA/POA+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SMT/SmartMesh#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RUFF/Ruff#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SALT/Salt+Lending#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GARD/Hashgard#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HC/Harvest+Masternode+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LBC/LBRY+Credits#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SERO/Super+Zero#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FNB/FNB+Protocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CDT/CoinDash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NIX/NIX+Platform#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SOUL/Phantasma#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BLOCK/Blocknet#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QKC/QuarkChain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BZ/Bit-Z+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/POE/Po.et#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PART/Particl#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SWFTC/SwftCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BZNT/Bezant#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QLC/QLC+Chain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SNM/SONM#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SNGLS/SingularDTV#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VIA/ViaCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NKN/NKN#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MDS/MediShares#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XAS/Asch#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EGT/Egretia#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PMA/PumaPay#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NPXSXEM/Pundi+X+NEM#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ATP/Atlas+Protocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VIBE/VIBE+(VIBEHub)#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ILC/ILCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SMART/SmartCash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ABYSS/Abyss#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TNT/Tierion#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CNN/Content+Neutrality+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/APPC/AppCoins#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WPWePower#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DLT/Agrello+Delta#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SEELE/Seele#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BWX/Blue+Whale+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NCASH/Nucleus+Vision#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NOAH/Noahcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NLG/Gulden#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/JNT/Jibrel+Network+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MITH/Mithril#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AMB/Ambrosus#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TCH/Tiger+Cash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PAI/PChain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/YOYOW/Yoyow#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/INXT/Internxt#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VIB/Viberate#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SNC/SunContract#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZEL/Zel#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NOS/NOS+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ABL/Airbloc#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CPX/APEX#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DTA/Data#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/YEE/Yee#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EDR2/Endor+Protocol+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BEAM/Beam#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QUN/QunQun#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SKM/Skrumble+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SEAL/Seal+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CARD/Cardstack#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XAUXaurum#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ACC/AdCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LINA/Lina#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MOBI/Mobius#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/OAX/OAX#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VDG/VeriDocGlobal#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IONC/IONChain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BLK/BlackCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/UGAS/UGAS#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/OST/SimpleToken#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CZCanonChain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BCPT/BlockMason+Credit+Protocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DCN/Dentacoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MVP/Merculet#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/OLT/OneLedger#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LCC/LitecoinCash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EXRN/EXRNchain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MTH/Monetha#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/OCN/Odyssey#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LYM/Lympo#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DDD/Scry.info#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PST/Primas#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/UBEX/Ubex#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TOL/Tolar#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SS/Sharder#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EDN/Eden+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CURE/Curecoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DAX/DAEX#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RNT/OneRoot+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VIN/VinChain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BOX/ContentBox#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/REM/REMME#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CHAT/ChatCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ROX/Robotina#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZUM/ZumCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TBX/Tokenbox#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EOSDAC/eosDAC#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/USC/Ultimate+Secure+Cash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DAT/Datum#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VEX/Vexanium#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SLT/Smartlands#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZCO/Zebi+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PPY/Peerplays#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PAYX/Paypex#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HYDRO/Hydro#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DBC/DeepBrain+Chain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SUB/Substratum+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QCH/QChi#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BTM/BitMark#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BTO/Bottos#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HMQ/Humaniq#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ACAT/Alphacat#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CPC/CPChain#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ISIKC/Isiklar+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CHX/Chainium#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NSD/Nasdacoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SHIFT/Shift#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RFRefereum#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EKO/EchoLink#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ROCK/RocketCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CLOAK/CloakCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AXE/Axe#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EXP/Expanse#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MEMercury#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IHT/IHT+Real+Estate+Protocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TUBE/BitTube#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SPHTX/SophiaTX#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SSC/SelfSell#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IMT/MoneyToken#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SCV/Super+CoinView+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EQUAD/QuadrantProtocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TOTO/Tourist+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AAC/Acute+Angle+Cloud#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/COSM/Cosmo+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LOBS/LOBSTEX+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/YEED/YEED#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PIPL/PiplCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MAS/MidasProtocol#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SIB/Sibcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/LUN/Lunyr#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XSG/SnowGem#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SPHSphere+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MEME/Pepe+Memetic#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/AIT/AICHAIN#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZXC/0xcert#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/0XBTC/0xBitcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BIBirake#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TRTL/TurtleCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/QBT/Qbao#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BEET/BeetleCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FUEL/Etherparty#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/NOTE/DNotes#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FDZ/Friendz#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RATING/DPRating#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CVCOIN/Crypviser#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/RTE/Rate3#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ABX/Arbidex+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HBZ/HBZ+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/GEO/GeoCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ARN/Aeron#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HGT/Hello+Gold#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/UT/Ulord#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PCL/Peculium#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/METM/MetaMorph+Pro#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DUO/ParallelCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/HQX/HOQU#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MEXC/MEXC+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ZLA/Zilla#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TGAME/Truegame#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BBO/Bigbom#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/STQ/Storiqa+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ERC20/ERC20#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DAC/DACash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/FOXT/Fox+Trading#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ADI/Aditus#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/JET/Jetcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/PTT/Proton+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/EVN/EvenCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TDP/TrueDeck#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/OCEAN/BurstOcean#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ELY/Elysian#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ETHO/Ether-1#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/DML/Decentralized+Machine+Learning#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BETHEBethereum#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/KLKS/Kalkulus#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/TNS/Transcodium#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MORE/More+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/APAPR+Coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ATB/ATB+coin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XUEZ/Xuez#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/WEB/Webcoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/SINS/SafeInsure#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BTT/Blocktrade#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CEN/Coinsuper+Ecosystem+Network#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/IG/IGToken#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/STREAM/STREAMIT+COIN#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/META/Metacash#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/CMT/CometCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/MNX/MinexCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BPT/Blockport#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BIP/BipCoin#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/BOLD/Boldman+Capital#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/XOV/XOVBank#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/ARC/Arcade+Token#analysis
https://coinlib.io/coin/VIKKY/VikkyToken#analysis
submitted by Quippykisset to peaceCorpsCoding [link] [comments]

BITCOIN Ruhe vor dem STURM? Binance will CoinMarketCap kaufen! Zu viel Macht? Krypto News Deutsch Binance REGALA 50.000 BNB + Scalping en VIVO (Bitcoin 2020 ... Binance AIR-DROP and Trading News - Binance Platform Growth Explosive Bitcoin Movement, Binance Florida, XRP Airdrop ... Binance Tutorial deutsch - Anleitung zum Kaufen und ...

PayPal akzeptiert Bitcoin: Warum jetzt sehr viel auf dem Spiel steht; Bitcoin-Gebühren in 13 Tagen um 628 Prozent gestiegen; Abverkauf bei Ethereum, Iota und Ripple lässt Kursphantasien vorerst platzen ; Jetzt handeln: Plus500. Schnelleinstieg für den Handel von Krypto CFDs. Kryptowährungen handeln bei einem der führenden Anbieter für Krypto CFDs. Bitcoin $ 13,787.75 0.47%. Ethereum ... Binance, exchange de criptomoedas - nós operamos a maior exchange de bitcoin e altcoins do mundo por volume Up to 30% AIR with Pool Savings. This is where the combination of mining and crypto finance comes into play. In September, Binance Pool launched an exclusive Pool Savings product that allows miners to save their mining profits and earn bonus BTC at a 30% annualized interest rate (AIR). In just one month, about 32% of Binance Pool miners who have participated in Pool Savings. They have started ... Create an account at Binance. Follow them on Twitter. Give the correct answer to the question mentioned in this tweet as a comment (correct answer is A. 1%) and also make a retweet. Ten lucky participants will get $100 worth of BNB each. Chinese New Year Airdrop: Claim free Limited Edition Binance NFT. Create an account at Binance. Jetzt Bitcoin günstig kaufen auf BINANCE & Krypto Trading! Steckbrief der Kryptobörse Binance. Binance wurde 2017 gegründet; Mehr als 100 Kryptowährungen können gehandelt werden; Headquarter auf Malta; Weltweit höchster Umsatz (Trading Volumen) von allen Kryptobörsen; Marktkapitalisierung: > 1 Milliarden Euro ; Die Kennzahlen der Kryptobörse Binance sind zweifelsohne beeindruckend. Wer Auf Binance können Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Ripple (XRP), IOTA, Cardano (ADA), Tron (TRX) und viele weitere Kryptowährungen direkt gehandelt werden. Dabei bietet Binance mittlerweile 517 verschiedene Handelspaare an und erweitert diese Liste regelmäßig mit weiteren Kryptowährungen. Binance unterstützt unterdessen vier verschiedene Stablecoins (USDT, PAX, USDC, TUSD). Damit können ... Binance cryptocurrency exchange - We operate the worlds biggest bitcoin exchange and altcoin crypto exchange in the world by volume Binance cryptocurrency exchange - We operate the worlds biggest bitcoin exchange and altcoin crypto exchange in the world by volume AirSwap is a decentralized protocol that enables peer-to-peer trading on the Ethereum blockchain. The platform offers off-chain negotiation and on-chain settlement.; Parties are able to signal their intent to trade tokens to others off-chain.Once connected, counterparties can freely communicate prices and transmit orders to each other. Kopiere nun die Bitcoin-Adresse aus Binance aus Schritt 4 (befindet sich in der Zwischenablage) in das Feld 'Bitcoin Adresse'. ACHTUNG: Wenn diese Adresse fehlerhaft eingegeben wird, ist der Geldbetrag verloren. Kontrolliere daher noch einmal gründlich, insbesondere ob die erste und letzte Ziffer übereinstimmen. Gib bei 'Anzahl' den Euro-Betrag ein und wähle die SEPA-Überweisung, um Geld ...

[index] [3802] [18208] [8767] [21152] [17778] [3339] [11445] [10817] [1630] [21318]

BITCOIN Ruhe vor dem STURM? Binance will CoinMarketCap kaufen! Zu viel Macht? Krypto News Deutsch

Binance Tutorial deutsch In diesem Video erfährst du wie man auf der Plattform Binance Kryptowährungen handeln kann und gegen Bitcoins kaufen und verkaufen k... 103K מנויים #BINANCE #BITCOIN #ETHEREUM A Competition for all Binancians & Fans with Bitcoin and Ethereum! To participate, and read the competition rules please visit the link bellow: https ... Explicamos como participar de Pool para ganar #BNB que repartirá #Binance y compartimos operaciones de #Scalping en vivo Noticia oficial de Binance: https:/... Bitcoin (BTC) Update! Blick auf die Charts und die News des Tages! 💰 $90 Bonus bei ByBit sichern: https://www.bybit.com/app/register?affiliate_id=1873&langua... NEW CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH9HlTrjyLmLRS0iE1P4rrg ----- Rich Dad Poor Dad: https://amzn.to/3cKJ4Ia C...

http://iqmining-review.gold-forex.club