As account portability becomes the the standard in financial services, community ownership (i.e. providing customers with exposure the growth of the platform) gains ground as one of the most important factors considered by customers when deciding where to host their funds. In other words, account portability turns equity crowdfunding into a competitive advantage vis-à-vis VC funding, as it offers the possibility to build loyalty amongst crowd investors and reduce churn rates.

What. the. absolute. hell.

Please tell me this is not actually happening.

https://twitter.com/eriz35/status/1413215061808648196

Circle takes dollars
↓
Circle issues USDC
↓
Circle invests dollars in Bitcoin collateralised yield products.
↓
Circle transfers risk to USDC holders.
↓
USDC holders repackage Bitcoin risk and pledge it as collateral in DeFi yield products.
↓
Please tell me this is not true.

Any papers/research out there on the limitations to store digital content on the blockchain? — Would like to understand how such limitations could affect NFTs in terms of ownership trustlessness, decentralization and self-sovereignity. When it comes to NFTs, the real innovation lies in the possibility that the underlying object/item can be attached to its property title and, thus, they can both seamlessly and trustlessly be moved together. If due to blockchain storage capacity, it becomes unfeasible to

A few conclusions from my conversation with @HugoPhilion at the Telegram Flare Proposal Group (please correct if necessary):

1. The initial 15% distribution is set in stone (I won't be further addressing this topic hereon).

2. The Spark selling pressure caused by the

1/13 Staggered distribution model is supposed to be absorbed by network stake-like incentives (FTSO rewards and F-Asset yields), though I have my doubts.

3. The Staggered distribution model was designed to last 3 years as a way to provide exchanges and wallets with

2/13

Brief 🧵 on why I think @FlareNetworks' notion of inflation falls short and fails to appropriately communicate the [negative] effects that the planned 34 month Spark "staggered distribution" will produce on the markets.

This is an attempt to open a constructive debate.

1/22

https://twitter.com/sprwn/status/1406365406881800192

First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not feel entitled to demand anything from Flare Networks Ltd ("FNL"); they are free to do whatever they deem appropriate in order to secure the future development of the network.

It is true though, as I've mentioned before,

2/22

This Crunchbase report reveals 3 increasingly relevant trends in the VC industry.

1. The amount of $ invested in startups is picking up.

2. The $ is being invested in fewer deals/Cos.

3. Acquisitions of venture-backed Cos. are skyrocketing.

(1/2)

news.crunchbase.com/news/global-20… Conclusion: VC firms are raising barriers to entry for new competitors and are also promoting the concentration of markets with their aggresive, profit-seeking exit strategies.

Your back down to earth reading of the news coming from El Salvador 🇸🇻:

1. Bitcoin Law makes it mandatory for merchants to accept BTC, *IF* customers offer it as means of payment.

2. No incentives are created to use Bitcoin as legal tender; most Salvadorans with access

(1/6) to bitcoin will most likely be die hard HODLers.

3. The Bitcoin Law doesn't actually address how the country will use Bitcoin to promote financial inclusion. It doesn't even make it clear where the country stands in terms of digital inclusion.

(2/6)

I'm not a huge supporter of how finance is regulated, but paradoxically, I tend to believe that we won't enjoy the full benefits of blockchain/crypto until the tech is innovatively employed by regulated entities (e.g. open finance, account portability, self-sovereign ID, etc.). There's another angle in this paradox, which is: blockchain/crypto founders usually want to avoid all the hurdles and costs associated with regulated services (e.g. finance), which is why there's so much stuff happening in DeFi, as it's perceived as a regulation-free safe harbor.

After reading 6 or 7 articles about this announcement, I think I finally got to weed out the unsubstantiated noise and actually understand how the USDC/USD settlement and payment process on Visa's treasury will work.

1/

https://twitter.com/jerallaire/status/1376493343476187138

1. Crypto. com users who hold USDC and have a Visa card attached to their Crypto. com account, make USDC payments to Visa merchants.

2. USDC payments are cleared, but funds not immediately transferred by Crypto. com to Visa (i.e. settled).

2/

I don't know if it's possible under US law, but in case intervention is allowed for #XRPHolders in SEC v Ripple, SEC commissioner @HesterPeirce should file an amicus brief, as it'd be THE opportunity to stand for her vision and push for new regulatory policy within the SEC. Imagine the impact that having an SEC commissioner opining against the SEC's own actions, would provoke on the judge.

Hester Pierce has published a variety of communications with the clear intention to show her dissension with the crypto enforcement actions launched by the SEC.

I'm perplexed that neither @coincenter nor @BlockchainAssn have issued a single statement on SEC v. Ripple (let alone fight the industry-harming interpretation of securities laws), despite this case CLEARLY falling within these advocacy groups' missions [attached for reference]. I see no single strategic reason, beyond perhaps management bias, for these blockchain/crypto [more like BTC/ETH] advocates, to not fight the SEC's harmful predilection to regulate crypto through reckless enforcement actions that destabilize the industry as a whole.

Thread:

While the entire US crypto industry (exchanges, funds, associations, PsPs, lobbyists, etc) is currently focused on fighting the AML rules proposed by FinCEN, the XRP Community has been left ALONE fighting the securities battle FOR THE BENEFIT of the whole industry.

1/ The entire US crypto industry (excluding the XRP Community) has been miserably failing to acknowledge that, until now, all the SEC has had for purposes of characterising a blockchain-based token as a security under the Securities Act of 1933 ...

2/

Just finished reading the SEC v. Ripple Complaint — Most of the allegations in re. XRP being a security are built around the false idea that investors bought an asset that had no 'use' beyond speculative purposes.

This is exactly where their whole case cracks up.

1/ Ripple has to properly document and demonstrate all the 'uses' made available by the XRPL since the beginning of times. Some of them include:

- Immediate and cheap peer-to-peer transfers (everyone could be its own ODL since XRPL was first launched).

2/

March 9, 2020

Congressman Paul Gosar introduced the "Cryptocurrency Act of 2020" to determine which US regulator is responsible for which digital assets (DAs).

The proposal divides DAs into 3 main categories:

1)Crypto-Commodities
2)Crypto-Currencies
3)Crypto-Securities

1/ 2/

1) Crypto-Commodities are defined as goods or services, including derivatives, that:

a)have full or substantial fungibility.
b)the markets treat with no regard as to who produced the goods/ services; and
c)rest on a blockchain or decentralized cryptographic ledger.