Experts: Ethereum Losing Ground to New Networks

Experts: Ethereum Losing Ground to New Networks


The Ethereum network is  losing ground as developers switch to other

projects, various experts told Bloomberg on March 28. Ethereum, which debuted in 2015, initially provided a platform on which developers could build decentralized apps (DApps), conduct initial coin offerings (ICOs) and write smart contracts. Many saw it as being the successor to Bitcoin (BTC).

According to Bloomberg, developers are now opting for other platforms like EOS and Stellar. In January, only 28 percent of DApps users were on the Ethereum network, while the EOS network saw 48 percent and Tron accounted for 24 percent. Co-founder of hedge fund Multicoin Capital Management Kyle Samani said “The simple reality is that until the last six-to-nine months, there were no other options besides Ethereum. Now there are."

Ikigai crypto hedge fund founder Travis Kling said, “Owning Ethereum today is a call option on what you think the network is going to be in the future. To the extent that Ethereum competitor projects get traction with developers, with users, with DApps built on top of the platform, that will be viewed by the market as being detrimental to the overall value of Ethereum, and that can have a negative price impact on Ether."

Others say that Ethereum’s block speed of roughly 13 seconds is beginning to lag behind other networks, which can purportedly confirm transactions in under a second. Bloomberg notes that the majority of token offerings are still reportedly conducted on the Ethereum network, and that its dedicated base of developers will keep it competitive. A member of the Ethereum Foundation

reportedly said:

“The thing that really shines about Ethereum is its vibrant community. Everyone keeps building and supporting the cause regardless of the markets. All of the recent progress on Plasma and Serenity (Eth2) really speak to that. ”

Earlier this weekend, Ethereum co-founder and prominent face in the crypto community Vitalik Buterin argued that the crypto community should evolve beyond the individualism associated with its early cypherpunk days.

Article Produced By
Aaron Wood

Aaron Wood is an editor at Cointelegraph, with a background in energy and economics. He keeps an eye on Blockchain's applications in building smarter and more equitable energy access globally.

Can the Blockchain and Token Economics Fix Privatizations?

Can the Blockchain and Token Economics Fix Privatizations?



When I wrote this article about the dramatic collapse of the Morandi Highway Bridge in Genoa, I did it out of anger. Though it was clear to me that the roots of this tragic event were to be found in the wrong privatization model and its wrong incentives, I did not yet realize how this was a global issue. In the sense that the discontent and the failures of privatizations are a worldwide phenomenon — little known, mostly unacknowledged and rarely debated. Indeed, a quick web search under the keywords "failed privatizations" results in a long list of global failures — anywhere from Europe, to Africa, the United States, South America and Asia. This Columbia University paper and the Michael Hudson paper "Let us glory in inequality" are worth reading.

Privatizing state-owned assets or state-run services and functions has been an easy option for governments to raise money to contribute fixing their budgets. If privatizations may effectively improve the efficiency in which some assets or services are managed — whenever such assets or services are subject to free market forces and competition — there are privatizations which rather replace a state monopoly with a privileged rent-extracting private monopoly, which is shielded from free market competition. In practice, the state transfers its privilege of extracting rents — with a public asset or a service — into the hands of a wealthy private investor. This is the downside of privatizations, especially in so-called "natural monopolies" or with key strategic assets or services which the public is compelled to use without any alternative option. Such is the case, for instance, with toll roads, water, general health services, electric grids or prisons.

Dissatisfaction for such a model of privatizations has fuelled many calls to reverse them in many countries such as — for example, in the United Kingdom regarding its dysfunctional railway system or the water and gas sectors. In another interesting research paper, the author, Mildred E. Warner,  


"The privatizations experiment of the 80s and 90s has failed to deliver [….] This has led to reversals. But this reverse privatization process is not a return to the old model […] Instead, it heralds the emergence of a new, balanced position, which combines use of markets, deliberation and planning to reach decisions which may be both efficient and more socially optimal."

Then suddenly it occurred to me that what I did elaborate — instinctively and out of anger after the events of Genoa — is exactly what is needed globally to achieve this new "more balanced position.” So I went to work again on that initial proposal and the result is this article, which expands on the use of the blockchain and token-economics as a viable model to reverse wrong and dysfunctional privatizations in strategic public sectors.  

I also wish to thank my fellows Thomas Euler and Karl Michael Henneking, who provided me with valuable feedback and ideas on the governance for this new model. Since the crypto space is moving at a rapid pace, I expect to see frequent new developments and innovative approaches on this topic. Thus, I regard this model as being very "fluid" and subject to future modifications and improvements.

Using token-economics

Although the origins of token-economics can be traced back to the early 19th century — in the field of psychiatric studies — the term is now commonly borrowed by the crypto world to refer broadly to a system of economic incentives used to influence stakeholders´ behavior toward a predefined virtuous model that benefits the whole system. Token-economics is a branch of the social studies, and it does not differ from traditional economics, except that it looks closely at behavioral economics and game theory in order to provide the right economic incentives to drive individual behavior.

Creating a blockchain/DLT-based system to manage strategic public assets

The template below can be applied to public assets or services that are strategic to the society as a whole and would be better not left solely in private hands but, ideally, the state shall always retain at least the control of such assets/services in order to shield the society from the consequences of abuses by private operators. Such assets are, for example, vital water sources and its supply infrastructures, energy plants and grids, public roads, minimum healthcare services and infrastructures, and prisons.

The Tokenization: Equity or security token?

The term "tokenization" is mainly associated with securities, equities and real assets, and it indicates the creation of a digital token that represents different types of rights — such as ownership, right to some economical payment, voting, etc. — connected with the underlying asset.  The token is normally issued on a blockchain. In the proposed model, the tokenization is necessary to "translate" economical rights connected with the public asset in a digital format that can be easily distributed to stakeholders and to which smart contract provisions can be attached in order to guarantee the automatic enforcement of certain provisions key to the incentives. The strategic public asset (‘A’) will be transferred into a special-purpose vehicle ("SPV"). Here there are substantially two options:

Option one is to tokenize the shares of the SPV by issuing equity tokens which incorporate ownership rights, voting and profit-distribution rights via smart contracts.

Option two is to issue security tokens — not representing equity participation in the SPV — but simply an economic right to share the profits of the SPV.  

The difference between the two options are: (i) in option one, equity tokens are issued, and therefore the corresponding ownership portion of the SPV and ‘A’ are also transferred; (ii) applicable corporate law will dictate the voting rights belonging to shareholders and, as a consequence, to all equity token-holders. This will likely reduce the flexibility of the governance. Moreover, because applicable corporate law also dictates the formalities for the transfer of the shares (such as companies’ registries and public notaries), those "real world" procedures enormously complicate the reconciliation between the equity tokens issued digitally and the underlying share certificates, thereby impacting on the flexibility and the automated execution of smart contract provisions.

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that the second option is better because:
a) ‘A’ and the SPV remain always 100 percent in public hands;
b) the security token issued does not represent equity in the SPV but simply the right to a monetary payment;
c) even if this is still a security for the purpose of securities laws application and compliance, the issuer will have very few constraints in designing the monetary rights attached to it — as well as their role in the governance (i.e., voting rights);
d) the issuance is not limited by physical ownership like in option one (i.e., one share-one token) or by the value of the shares, but only by the profitability of the SPV-’A’ or, if insufficient, by the willingness of the state to step up to guarantee for the shortfalls;
e) such security tokens can also be airdropped to key stakeholders and/or properly auctioned to investors, should the state need to raise money to either buy back the asset or pay penalties to private investors in the case of reverse-privatizations or,  if necessary, to revoke previously granted private concessions over public assets. In conclusion, option two seems simply far more flexible.

Main stakeholders and financial flows

The main stakeholders will then be:

  • The state which owns the asset.
  • The citizens who use the public services/assets.
  • The maintenance and service contractors.
  • Token holders.

Financial flows will be:

  • Fees generated by the ‘A’ and collected by the SPV, such as tolls for public roads or utility bills.
  • SPV´s payments for maintenance services and repairs.

Blockchain and DL

In my first proposal, I advocated for the use of a public blockchain with open access. Some commentators have also disputed the need for a blockchain in that model. Some confusion is generated around the term ‘blockchain.’ This term is now widely used to refer to pretty much any type of distributed ledger (DL) and certainly not only to the first and purest form of blockchain, which is the Bitcoin protocol. Therefore the use of a blockchain/DL in this model essentially means creating an asset accounting system of the records stored. Since the way DLs can be built is both modular and optional, there is no need here to build a 100 percent permissionless and decentralized blockchain like Bitcoin. Some functions can be decentralized, while others can be centralized. Also, centralization can still be positively influenced by governance provisions in order to guarantee more distributed supervision and control.

Moreover, whatever type of blockchain/DL and consensus protocol are adopted to make this model work, this remains a technical issue, which is outside the purpose of this article and which will be solved by technically proficient people other than myself. What is important to note here is that it should guarantee mainly (i) transparency and (ii) immutability of the records stored. This means that the Stakeholders should be able to access all documentation regarding, for instance, the financials of the SPV, maintenance bills, safety reports, engineering reports, public tender procedures, bills from contractors, etc.  Everything should be under the light and open to public and governmental scrutiny, and data should not be changed or corrupted by any stakeholder. This is a well-known problem. When dramatic events like those in Genoa happen, key evidence and documents suddenly disappear from the servers.

Token-economics and the right incentives for stakeholders

A balanced system of economic incentives and governance tools is essential in order to positively influence the behavior of key stakeholders, such as the contractors, the auditors and the state itself. The contractors are an essential part of it. Too frequently, especially in public procurement jobs — such as public roads, for instance — the poor conditions of the work done and of their subsequent maintenance status are of great concern to all the citizens. In the best case, this is both a sign of the state´s incapability of managing its resources and of holding the contractors accountable for the bad jobs done. In the worst case, this is a sign of corruption.  

To hold the contractors accountable, they must have an economic interest in the proper functioning and proper maintenance of the asset which generates the revenues. This can be done by ensuring that contractors "have skin in the game.” In addition to being paid in installments at the reaching of milestones, as is normal, contractors will also be paid-in-kind with the tokens issued by the SPV. This ensures that the contractor holds an interest in the continued functionality of the assets. In case of disputes, the public administration will have an additional recourse against the tokens allocated to the contractor, which can be automatically repossessed or burned via smart contract provisions. Clearly, dispute-resolution mechanisms and so called "Oracles" must be in place as well.

More "skin in the game" can also be given by requiring the contractors to subscribe to an interest-bearing government bond in percentage of the contract value. This government bond can be also ‘tokenized,’ thereby ensuring an additional recourse against the contractor, should it be in breach of contract obligations or of its guarantees/warranties or maintenance periods. This bond will be held as a collateral in a smart-escrow.  While its function is similar to that of a traditional performance-bond — where a bank guarantees performance on behalf of the contractor — the difference here is that the state bond does not have a cost for the contractor, and it benefits, in a virtuous cycle, both the government and the contractor which receives the interest payments. The flexibility that can be achieved by programming different features in that digital bond is another key advantage.

Governance tools

Aligning private contractors´ incentives is only part of the game, while influencing the state´s behavior is much more difficult. To do so, we have to create the right set of governance tools.  The main concern here is to avoid that the state wastes money and to make sure that it efficiently allocates the revenues generated by the asset. Therefore, a proper set of governance rules for the SPV and all the stakeholders are essential in this model.

The first step shall be to earmark the revenues generated by the SPV to be either (i) spent in maintenance or (ii) reinvested in new infrastructure or (iii) distributed to the token-holders. The percentage of redistribution of the residual profits can also be programmed differently in the smart contracts in order to maximize incentives — for example, by rewarding the most diligent contractors with higher percentages.

The second step shall be the creation of governance bodies.

In this model I have conceived three governing bodies, the Treasury, the Asset Committee and the General Assembly:

  • The Treasury receives the revenues from the SPV and, in compliance with its mandate to earmark the revenues as indicated above, it allocates the funds as indicated by the Asset Committee.
  • The Asset Committee shall be constituted by representatives of the state, of token-holders and of technically qualified professionals in the specific sector of activity. The Asset Committee decides how to spend the revenues of the SPV, based on a set of priorities and reports received from third-party controllers, auditors and technical experts on the conditions of the asset (i.e., maintenance and/or new investments).
  • The General Assembly is composed by all stakeholders, and it will vote the composition of the Asset Committee and perform an ex-post supervision of the allocation of the funds done by the Asset Committee.

Interestingly, my colleague Karl Michael Henneking at Untitled-INC has introduced the concept of Proof of Quality Management (PQM), which is basically a rating mechanism to evaluate how efficient the Asset Committee has been in allocating the funds. Essentially, a rating index — reflecting the status of the asset — can be created by comparing the sums invested with the levels of satisfaction expressed by its users and with the reports from the auditors and technical experts. Simply, the more the funds invested and the lower the feedback received from stakeholders, then the lower the rating and therefore the performance of the Asset Committee will be. Vice versa, the lower the sums invested and the higher the feedback reports received, then the higher the rating and the performance of the Asset Committee will be.


While the limitations and dysfunctions of past privatizations are now apparent and ever more publicly questioned, the need for a new approach and a new model for managing key public strategic assets becomes ever more pressing. The interest with which my first proposal has been received was, for me, a pleasant surprise and the enquiries received from a number of public administrations — including from Nigeria regarding the possibility of using this model to reverse the privatization of its electricity grid — brings me hope that something will change in the future and that new technologies, such as blockchain/DLs and smart contracts, will be instrumental to the creation of this new model.

My hope is to see this model applied anywhere there is need to economically and effectively manage public strategic assets without blindly leaving them in private hands nor in wasteful public hands. A new and more balanced model of management for strategic public assets and services is now at hand.

Article Produced By
Andrea Bianconi

Andrea Bianconi is an international business Lawyer with over two decades experience, a scholar of Austrian Economics, monetary history and geopolitics, a believer in the future of Bitcoin and Blockchain based technologies, a trader with interest in commodities, precious metals, currencies, Tech stocks and Cryptos. A speaker/panelist at conferences and events.

Crypto Exchange CoinBene Assures Users That Prolonged Maintenance Not Due to Hack

Crypto Exchange CoinBene Assures Users That Prolonged Maintenance Not Due to Hack


Top-ranked cryptocurrency exchange CoinBene

has reassured users that its prolonged maintenance downtime is not due to a hack, as some community members had feared. The exchange made its official announcement in an official tweet today, March 27. With the announcement, CoinBene has responded to users’ ongoing concerns that delays in processing deposits and withdrawals were signs of a possible platform hack.

In its statement, CoinBene
— currently ranked 4th on CoinMarketCap by adjusted daily trade volume
— clarifies that is has been undertaking measures to update the exchange’s wallet immediately. The exchange reports that it had received news from multiple other
— unnamed
— crypto exchanges of recent thefts of their users’ assets. The CoinBene security team says it then took swift action to protect and upgrade the wallet’s security to protect their users. The announcement, emphasizing this has been a preventive
— not reactive

measure, reassures users that:

“User assets on CoinBene platform are 100% secure, our platform promises that if any user assets will be lost, we will compensate 100% [sic]. […] The CoinBene security team monitors any anomalies at all times and will issue a warning the first time to prevent any possible risks.”

The statement also instructs any user aware of a security risk to their account to contact the platform’s support team. In a separate tweet in the same thread, CoinBene emphasized that users should not worry about the prolonged maintenance currently underway. Evidently relieved twitter users responded positively to CoinBene’s clarification, although stated it would have been preferable to issue an announcement sooner to quash community concerns. One user expressed their ongoing frustration over frozen deposits, to which CoinBene responded that Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH) and Tether (USDT) deposits have already been reopened, and others are set to be opened “asap.”

As previously reported, community members had been closely eyeing open blockchain transaction data records in light of their suspicions surrounding CoinBene. One industry figure had proposed that massive outgoing transactions from CoinBene shown on major statistics website for Ethereum, Etherscan, might serve as an evidence of an attack — concerns that a fellow sleuther assuaged by noting that the transactions in fact appeared to indicate transfers to a wallet designated as cold storage.

In a recent report to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, crypto index provide Bitwise Asset Management stated that it believes CoinBene’s trading activity is suspicious, especially due to the fact that trading timesteps frequently coincide and the amounts of buying and selling are almost similar. Just yesterday, Singapore-based cryptocurrency exchange DragonEx notified its users that it suffered a hack on March 24, the full details and scales of which are yet to emerge.

Article Produced By
Marie Huillet

Marie Huillet is an independent filmmaker, with a background in journalism and publishing. Nomadic by nature, she’s lived in five different countries this decade. She’s fascinated by Blockchain technologies’ potential to reshape all aspects of our lives.

QuadrigaCX Would Never Have Lost Crypto Keys Had It Been in Bermuda, Says Premier

QuadrigaCX Would Never Have Lost Crypto Keys Had It Been in Bermuda, Says Premier


The Premier of Bermuda, David Burt, has argued that a QuadrigaCX-like situation

could not have happened in Bermuda because of the country’s existing legislation in regard to cryptocurrencies. Burt made his statements in an interview on Fortune’s “Balancing the Ledger” show on March 25.

Burt delivered his comments following QuadrigaCX’ founder, Gerald Cotten’s sudden death last December, and financial difficulty the exchange subsequently faced. QuadrigaCX has not been able to access its cold wallets where it kept most of its assets, because Cotten was apparently solely responsible for the wallets and corresponding keys. Burt stated in the interview that QuadrigaCX’s private keys could never have been lost if the exchange were registered in Bermuda, and not Canada.

Burt said:

“If Quadriga was licensed under the Bermuda Monetary Authority, what has happened would not have been able to happen, because we have rules regarding the custody of master keys and making sure they’re not held by a particular individual.”

Burt apparently discussed the country’s Digital Asset Business Act 2018, the new regulatory regime that sets visible boundaries for blockchain and cryptocurrency-related businesses and protects the rights of their existing and

potential clients:

“It basically states what you have to do with the master keys, how those things have to be handled, and making sure that they cannot be lost, or if they are lost, there’s a way for that recovery to happen.”

Bermuda is known for its blockchain and cryptocurrency-friendly stance. Last year, the country’s government announced plans to make amendments to the Banking Act in order to establish a new class of bank to render services to local fintech and blockchain organizations. Burt said then that individual bank policies not to provide banking services to the new type of companies "cannot be allowed to frustrate the delivery on our promise of economic growth and success for Bermudians." Bermuda also implemented new regulations on initial coin offerings (ICOs), that require Bermudian ICO issuers to provide detailed information about “all persons involved with the ICO.”

Article Produced By
Ana Alexandre

Total change in her career took Anastasia into the world of analytics and business information as a researcher and translator in 2010. Some time later she got into FinTech, a dynamically developing segment at the intersection of the financial services and technology. Ana joined Cointelegraph in September 2017.

Fintech Firm trueDigital Expands Over-the-Counter BTC, ETH Reference Rate Distribution

Fintech Firm trueDigital Expands Over-the-Counter BTC, ETH Reference Rate Distribution


New York-based fintech infrastructure provider trueDigital Holdings (TDH)

is partnering with crypto data firm Kaiko and digital assets analytics company Inca Digital Securities to widen the distribution of its over-the-counter (OTC) reference rates for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH). The development was shared with Cointelegraph in a press release on March 25.

As reported last year, TrueEX created TDH as an affiliate in March 2018, immediately announcing a TDH partnership with prominent blockchain tech firm ConsenSys (created by Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin) to create a benchmark rate for the price of Ethereum. The newly forged strategic partnership deal will see Kaiko and Inca distribute trueDitigal’s reference rates to their clients, including asset managers and institutions. Inca will further reportedly use the OTC reference rates as the basis for new analytics.  

Kaiko, which is based in Paris, reportedly collects and distributes its crypto market data via a websocket, REST API and cloud-based data feed in order to spur global institutional engagement in the crypto industry. Inca — a self-described remote-only firm with meet up locations in Washington DC, Tokyo, Paris, and St. Petersburg — provides analytics for data scientists, finance professionals and government policy makers, as well as industries looking to implement blockchain solutions.

As the press release outlines, trueDigital’s rates are reportedly derived from twelve institutional market-maker partners and are intended to prevent market manipulation by providing an accurate picture of institutional digital asset pricing and liquidity. Nick Goodrich, director of business development at trueDigital, has given a statement outlining that the reference rates aim to contribute to the establishment of institutional-grade infrastructure for digital asset trading.

In its own statement, Kaiko has underscored the need to promote data transparency in the crypto sector. TrueDigital claims that ahead of the new partnership, its OTC reference rates have already generated over 17 million price points since their launch in July 2018,  and are used by asset managers and other enterprises for pricing, NAV calculations and to support regulated index-based crypto products.

As recently reported, trueDigital announced the appointment of former Bridgewater Associates chief operating officer Thomas Kim as its new CEO in mid-February. Momentum for infrastructure for the crypto industry continues to gather pace, with stalwart exchange Nasdaq launching two new indices tracking crypto prices last month, designed to provide real-time spot or reference rates for BTC and ETH quoted in USD.

Article Produced By
Marie Huillet

Marie Huillet is an independent filmmaker, with a background in journalism and publishing. Nomadic by nature, she’s lived in five different countries this decade. She’s fascinated by Blockchain technologies’ potential to reshape all aspects of our lives.

Tor Digital Privacy Project Accepts Donations in Cryptocurrency

Tor Digital Privacy Project Accepts Donations in Cryptocurrency


Tor digital privacy software is now accepting donations

in various cryptocurrencies, as a new crypto donational portal appeared on the project’s website on March 18. The site now accepts nine major cryptocurrencies, namely Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Dash (DASH), Ethereum (ETH), Litecoin (LTC), Monero (XMR), Stellar Lumen (XLM), Augur (REP) and Zcash (ZEC). Tor’s crypto donation page encourages users to “stand up for the universal human rights to privacy and freedom and help keep Tor robust and secure.” The page also specifies that users can contact the project if they would prefer to donate in a cryptocurrency not listed there.

The Tor Project is a non-profit that offers free and open-source software made for onion routing, the technology of anonymous information exchange. In addition, Tor has two official versions of its browser: Tor Browser and TorBro. The main purpose of using the Tor Browser is to remain anonymous and circumnavigate censorship by disguising an IP-address. At press time, the Tor Project has not responded to Cointelegraph’s request for comment on the addition of crypto donations. Countries wherein the internet has been heavily censored, such as Venezuela, Russia and China, have all introduced bans on Tor and similar tech, such as virtual private networks.

Earlier this month, the head of the Finance Committee of France’s National Assembly suggested a ban on anonymous cryptocurrencies, or so-called privacy coins, such as ZEC and XMR. The Tor community and crypto community both share an ethos of privacy and decentralization. In 2017, Researchers from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada and Concordia University in Quebec introduced a blockchain-based system which uses onion routing techniques to facilitate anonymous deliveries.

Article Produced By
Aaron Wood

Aaron Wood is an editor at Cointelegraph, with a background in energy and economics. He keeps an eye on Blockchain's applications in building smarter and more equitable energy access globally.

Binance Changes Launchpad Token Sale Format to Lottery

Binance Changes Launchpad Token Sale Format to Lottery


Leading cryptocurrency exchange Binance announced major changes

to the format of its Launchpad token sale in a post on its blog published on March 24. Per the announcement, the company “will use a new lottery format for the next project on Binance Launchpad.” Previously, the system functioned on a first come, first served basis, which left many users who joined high-demand sale queues without tokens.  

The post also outlines a lottery ticket system in which participants will be able to claim up to five tickets by holding Binance Coin (BNB) tokens over the 20 days leading up to the lottery, with 1 ticket per 100 BNB. The exchange will announce the number of winning tickets and the amount of funds that the owner of a winning ticket will receive.

Users will be able to choose how many tickets they want to use to participate in a given lottery in the 24 hours before the winners are chosen, with the maximum number based on their BNB holdings over the prior 20 day period. While Binance admits that the new system may cause some fluctuations in BNB trading before and after the snapshot time, its reports that the side effects should be

minimal adding:

“Other market participants may view this as an opportunity, and countertrade to even out the fluctuations.”

Binance Launchpad, as the name suggests, is the company’s token launch platform, which most recently concluded a $4 million sale of Celer Network (CELR) tokens last week. The platform reportedly conducted the Fetch.AI (FET) token sale, which raised $6 million within 22 seconds in February.

As Cointelegraph recently reported, changes made to Binance’s public Application Programming Interface seemingly reveal that the company is working on implementing margin trading. Last Tuesday, two exchanges, LBank and Bit-Z, overtook Binance on the adjusted trade volume cryptocurrency exchange rankings on CoinMarketCap, but research published on March 18 by the Tie suggests most of their volume is fake.

Article Produced By
Adrian Zmudzinski

Adrian is a newswriter based out of Pisa, Italy. He's passionate about cryptocurrency, digital rights, IT, tech and futurology and likes to think about the future in a positive way.

China’s 11th Crypto Rankings: EOS First, TRON Second, Ethereum Third, Bitcoin Fifteenth

China’s 11th Crypto Rankings: EOS First, TRON Second, Ethereum Third, Bitcoin Fifteenth



China has released its latest government-sponsored rankings

of major cryptocurrencies on March 22, placing Bitcoin (BTC) in 15th, while EOS keeps its top spot. Tron (TRX) came in second, after overtaking Ethereum (ETH) in February. The crypto rankings by China’s Center for Information and Industry Development (CCID) were first announced in May last year. In this eleventh edition of the index, EOS has remained as the top-ranked blockchain, a place occupied by the platform since June 2018.

The eleventh CCID Global Public Chain Technology Evaluation Index puts Tron on the second spot, as did the tenth edition. The ninth edition had previously placed Ethereum in the second spot, while Tron wasn’t present at all on the list. In the tenth edition, Bitcoin had moved from number 15 to number 13, now falling back down two spots to occupy 15th place again. As Cointelegraph recently reported in a dedicated analysis, EOS is seemingly still a work in progress, as the blockchain has seen controversy over some aspects of its allegedly centralized governance system.

Two major crypto exchanges — Singapore-headquartered Huobi Global and Malta-based OKEx — proclaimed their support for the Tron-based version of stablecoin Tether this week. At the beginning of the current month, Tron and Tether had first announced their intention to introduce the USDT to the Tron network. Recently, Cointelegraph reported that Ethereum is being used by a North Korean political dissident group, the Cheollima Civil Defense, to sell tokenized visas for entering the country once it is supposedly liberated.

Article Produced By
Adrian Zmudzinski

Adrian is a newswriter based out of Pisa, Italy. He's passionate about cryptocurrency, digital rights, IT, tech and futurology and likes to think about the future in a positive way.

Major Latin American E-Commerce Company Bans Cryptocurrency-Related Ads

Major Latin American E-Commerce Company Bans Cryptocurrency-Related Ads


The largest e-commerce company in Latin America,

Mercado Livre, has banned cryptocurrency advertising on their website, Cointelegraph em Português reported on March 18. The development was revealed in an exclusive interview with Cointelegraph em Português after the company’s users reported receiving of emails informing them about the change in Mercado Livre’s policy. The new policy requires all users to remove their listings pertaining to digital currency, otherwise all listings will automatically be taken down from the platform starting March 19. One of the users received a letter,


"We would like to inform you that as of March 19, you will no longer be able to advertise used products in the following categories:

– Cryptocurrencies

– Prepaid cards for games

Because you have ads for used products that will soon be banned, we recommend that you end them. Otherwise, they will be finalized on the date mentioned above. "

Mercado Livre reportedly stated:

"Mercado Livre clarifies that as of March 19, crypto ads that are active on the site in the ‘used’ condition will automatically be finalized and new ads can only be created as ‘new products’."

Mercado Livre (or Mercado Libre in Spanish) has overtaken fellow e-commerce giant Amazon in Latin America. Earlier this month, the firm reportedly sealed a deal for a whopping $750 million investment via a sale of common stock to payments network PayPal.

Large technology firms like Google and Facebook have previously introduced similar bans. In March last year, Google announced the ban of all cryptocurrency-related ads of all types starting from June 2018. The move affected all of Google's ad products, meaning companies were not able to serve crypto-related ads on the search engine giant’s own sites, as well as third-party sites in its network.

In January, Google reportedly blacklisted keywords mentioning Ethereum (ETH) on its advertising platform. Google reportedly stated that cryptocurrency exchanges targeting the United States and Japan could be advertised on the platform, and that targeting other countries could be the reason for the ad rejection. Last January, Facebook prohibited ads that use “misleading or deceptive promotional practices,” which reportedly includes ads of cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings.

Article Produced By
Ana Alexandre

Total change in her career took Anastasia into the world of analytics and business information as a researcher and translator in 2010. Some time later she got into FinTech, a dynamically developing segment at the intersection of the financial services and technology. Ana joined Cointelegraph in September 2017.

Bakkt Delay Due to CFTC Concerns Over Its Planned Custody of Clients’ Bitcoin: WSJ

Bakkt Delay Due to CFTC Concerns Over Its Planned Custody of Clients’ Bitcoin: WSJ


Much-anticipated crypto platform Bakkt’s plans to store customers’ Bitcoin (BTC)

from its Bitcoin futures could cause further delay on obtaining approval from United States regulator the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The news was reported by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on March 21, citing anonymous sources.

When Bakkt was first announced back in August, the platform had revealed that its first product would be Bitcoin futures that are physically delivered daily, subject to CFTC approval. Bakkt also said that it planned to hold Bitcoin on behalf of its clients via its “physical warehousing.” According to “people familiar with the matter,” in February, the CFTC told the platform that if it were to have custody over its customers’ crypto, it would have to take additional steps to comply. In particular, the CFTC would “require disclosures of the venture’s  business plan and a public comment period, which would have further delayed approval.”

The WSJ reported that the plan for Bakkt to custody its clients’ Bitcoin then “ran aground” that month to avoid said further delays. Bakkt and the CFTC are reportedly now considering other ways the platform can handle the futures contract so that it is compliant with the regulator.  According to the report, the CFTC has outlined various alternative options for Bakkt, including having the firm register as a trust company. However, other sources told the WSJ that such a process could also be time consuming. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Intercontinental Exchange — the operator of the New York Stock Exchange, which is launching Bakkt  —

told the WSJ:

“We are working through the regulatory review process and are looking forward to updating the market soon.”

Bakkt was first slated to debut in November, but delays around obtaining approval from the CFTC pushed back the deadline several times. Nonetheless, according to CFTC commissioner Dan Berkovitz  in an interview this week, the regulator is currently “diligently” working on issuing an approval for multiple crypto-related applications, including for Bakkt. As Cointelegraph wrote today, March 22, Bakkt has reportedly earned a $740 million valuation after it raised over $180 million in funding last year.

Article Produced By
Max Yakubowski

Max Yakubowski has a Ph.D. in Linguistics and Anthropology, with a focus in innovative technology and its cultural and social influence. He joins Cointelegraph after working as a freelance copywriter and blogger.