Especialistas dizem que construir soluções de custódia é complicado, mas se tornará crucialmente importante à medida que a criptografia se tornar mais valiosa.

Principalmente se os bancos optarem por construir suas próprias soluções , os gastos e o tempo podem se acumular rapidamente

Os bancos terão que contratar desenvolvedores dedicados, “alocando grandes investimentos em infraestrutura”, incluindo data centers e servidores, e executar toda a gama regulatória – um processo que sozinho pode levar de “6 a 12 meses”.

“O nível de esforços e investimentos necessários para fornecer a uma instituição uma solução de autocustódia pronta para a empresa é substancialmente maior do que para um indivíduo. Requer tecnologias e processos de governança ligeiramente diferentes para garantir bilhões de dólares em ativos digitais ”, acrescentou.

Independentemente da rota que os bancos tomem, Pailhon diz que é um sinal da crescente legitimidade da criptografia que bancos como o BNY Mellon queiram fornecer soluções de custódia. Além disso, à medida que o marketcap total da crypto cresce e o valor dos ativos para instituições e até mesmo para alguns indivíduos aumenta, as soluções de custódia segura se tornarão cada vez mais importantes.

“Você não pode proteger 5, 10 ou 50 bilhões de dólares em bitcoins com um servidor baseado em garagem ou um computador com air-gap localizado em um bunker nas montanhas Apalaches. Você deve implementar uma infraestrutura de custódia totalmente redundante, resiliente, segura, certificável e auditável que pode escalar e capacitar milhões de usuários e oferecer suporte a centenas de milhares de transações de ativos digitais em um mês. O sucesso futuro e a adoção de ativos digitais e da indústria de gerenciamento de ativos digitais dependerão disso. ”

Non-fungible tokens are currently a major topic of discussion within the crypto space with creators and collectors alike jumping on the bandwagon

However, Litecoin (LTC) creator Charlie is of the opinion that the hype is unsustainable. Tweeting on Monday, Lee said that, unlike ‘real art,’ NFTs have “zero cost” of creation.

According to Lee, artists in the real world are constrained by time and effort, likening this limitation to proof-of-work. For Lee, this restriction creates scarcity and therefore value for art pieces created by famous artists.

“NFTs, on the other hand, create artificial scarcity,” Lee tweeted, adding, “Because of the near zero cost to create another NFT, the market will eventually be flooded with NFTs from artists trying to cash in on this craze. Supply will overwhelm demand and the prices will eventually crash.”

Lee’s comments are a common criticism of NFTs à la right click and save. However, there are arguments to be made for the art scene — both real-world and digital — being flooded by reproductions. However, the value of the piece often depends on the artist with collectors paying attention to the creator of a work of art, thus distinguishing it from other copycat pieces.

Indeed, the ability to cryptographically sign art pieces is another oft-attributed benefit of NFTs, allowing artists to include metadata, file links, and other necessary copyright elements.

With NFTs, scarcity becomes an expression of consensus, which is why an ultra-rare alien CryptoPunk sold for 605 ETH back in January. While it would be possible to recreate this rare item, it would not be part of the collection created by Larva Labs back in 2017.

Hashmasks, outra coleção da NFT, criou 16.384 “cartões” que venderam mais de US $ 10 milhões nos primeiros quatro dias, conforme relatado anteriormente pela Cointelegraph.

A crítica de Lee também parece limitar os NFTs à arte e não ao cenário mais amplo de colecionáveis ​​com elementos como ativos do jogo e terreno digital. No início de fevereiro, nove terrenos digitais no reino virtual Lunacia foram vendidos por cerca de US $ 1,5 milhão .

Is the Stablecoin Tether (USDT) really covered by enough reserves? This question has been hanging like a sword of Damocles over the crypto space for a long time.

But this could soon be finally clear

Not only the central banks let the money printing machines run at full speed in 2020. Tether Limited, publisher of the stablecoin Tether, also created more USDT tokens than ever before. Stablecoin critics question whether every USDT is really covered 1: 1 by the reserve of Tether Limited. But soon there could be final clarity about Tether’s financial position: On January 15, Tether and iFinex, operator of the Bitcoin exchange Bitfinex, had to give the New York Public Prosecutor’s Office (Office of the Attorney General, OAG) access to their books. Both companies are subsidiaries of DigFinex Inc. There is also overlap on the executive floor.

Tether and Bitfinex in the crosshairs of the New York Attorney General

The OAG, then headed by Barbara Underwood, has had Bitfinex and Tether in its sights since 2018. At the center of the investigation is the allegation that the sister companies are said to have committed a criminal offense under Article 23-A of the New York Trade Act. The article concerns “Fraudulent Practices Relating to Stocks, Bonds and Other Securities”.

Since January 1, 2019, Underwood’s successor Letitia James has been concerned with the Bitfinex / Tether case. In late April 2019, she filed a public lawsuit against iFinex with the New York Supreme Court. The allegation: Bitfinex is said to have secretly borrowed over $ 850 million from Tether in 2018 to cover up a liquidity shortage. Numerous Bitfinex customers complained about problems with withdrawing funds. That, in turn, had fueled rumors of a bankruptcy on the Bitcoin exchange.

In a Christmas gift to the cryptomime industry, traders who comply with existing rules while keeping security tokens in custody will not face enforcement action for the next five years.

US SEC shows ‚leniency‘ with security tokens ownersNOTHING

The US Securities and Exchange Commission is listening to the crypto community. At least, according to an announcement on 23 December, the SEC is responding to long-term industry complaints that no one knows who can handle security token trading.

The SEC is soliciting comments on the matter and reaching out to the crypto industry. Perhaps most notable is the fact that the commission’s announcement keeps traders safe from surveillance for the next five years:

„In particular, the Commission’s position, which will expire after a period of five years from the date of publication of this statement, is that a trader operating in the circumstances set out in Section IV will not be subject to enforcement action by the Commission. “

The „circumstances“ specified basically boil down to keeping security tokens at the primary focus of the transaction and doing due diligence in terms of cyber security and customer disclosures, including ensuring that each potential customer is aware that the exchange in question is dealing with digital assets also considered securities.

In connection with the announcement, the SEC is seeking comments on a number of issues related to the appropriate requirements for trading security tokens. One of the questions suggests that the commission is trying to allow investors to use non-equity tokens such as Bitcoin and Ether to pay for security tokens: „Should this position be expanded to include the use of non-equity digital assets as a means of payment for digital asset securities? „

Only a few weeks ago, several congressmen signed a letter to the SEC asking the commission for clarification on this matter. These parliamentarians have joined the chorus that has been coming from the cryptomime industry for a long time: for more regulatory clarity.

The SEC’s hesitation in issuing important statements is understandable in a sense. A regulator is unlikely to move as quickly as a technology developer. Consequently, many of SEC’s most conspicuous actions have had very limited application, including a series of prohibition letters for symbolic projects.

Despite long-term hopes that security tokens can update traditional stock markets, the industry has been plagued by isolated negotiations and low volumes.

Jeffrey Gundlah, head of DoubleLine Capital, recommended the first crypt currency and gold as assets that can protect capital from impairment due to the weakening dollar. A renowned cryptovite skeptic expressed his views in the Rosenberg Research webcast.

In 2017, Gundlah noted that he was not ready to participate in the Bitcoin Loophole scam boom. In October this year, in an interview with Business Insider, he called the first cryptovaly a „lie“, as he still doubted that it was „impossible to crack“.

„I do not believe in bitcoin. I think it is well tracked. I don’t think it’s anonymous,“ he said.

Gundlah then stressed that he should not be listed as a critic of the first crypt currency.

In the Rosenberg Research webcast he suggested that students hedge against inflation risks by adding gold and bitcoin to their investment portfolios.

DoubleLine Capital manages $141 billion in assets.

Last week the „bond king“ announced that Donald Trump has a high chance of being re-elected as president of the United States.

Let’s remind, quotations of futures traded on the FTX exchange and prediction markets predict a representative of the Democratic Party Joe Biden to win the US presidential election on November 3.

Subscribe to the ForkLog channel on YouTube!

Bitcoin Coming Out Continues – Big investors in traditional finance are no longer hiding their love for Bitcoin. After Paul Tudor Jones a few months ago and Bill Miller just a few days ago, today it is Stanley Druckenmiller who admits to betting on the king of cryptos.

Bitcoin, a great store of value?

American billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller is a long-time manager of hedge funds (the famous h edge funds ). He was notably the founder and chairman of Duquesne Capital , a fund that has held up to $ 12 billion in assets under management.

In an interview with CNBC on November 9, Druckenmiller explains that he has gradually completely changed his point of view on Bitcoin (BTC). Indeed, the billionaire realized that:

“Bitcoins could be an asset class that has great appeal as a store of value (…). It has been around for 13 years (sic, 12 years in fact since its white paper) and, with each passing day, it stabilizes more and more as a well-known and recognized brand. “

However, in December 2017 , the fund manager was not kind to Bitcoin, also during an interview with CNBC. He claimed to have „no“ BTC at that time, because the invention of Satoshi Nakamoto did not represent for him a valid medium of exchange , because of its too great volatility .

Gold and Bitcoin are the cure for fiats hyperinflation

A hell of a change in the jacket has taken place since then, since Stanley Druckenmiller says today that:

“I own a lot, a lot more gold than I own bitcoin. But frankly, if the gold bet turns out to be successful, the bitcoin bet will probably work even better, because its market is smaller and less liquid (…). “

If they are betting on safe havens , it is also because the billionaire is short (seller) of fiat currencies , in particular the US dollar .

In summary, not only does Stanley Druckenmiller see Bitcoin as a very good store of value, the billionaire even believes that he will outperform gold. Indeed, the market of the king of cryptos being smaller than that of the precious metal, a possible hyperinflation of fiats currencies would cause an explosion of the price of BTC, higher than the rise of gold.