If you’d bought $1,000 of Bitcoin in 2010, you’d be worth ...

StuffPoints

StuffPoints is one of the easiest and fun places on the web to make money.
[link]

1000 transactions per hour avg - Dogecoin is more than 10% in value compare to bitcoin - that means $1070 evaluation for the year of the Dogecoin!! It’s me jbeaupre87- I’m back and still on my quest for 1m Doge!

submitted by Jbeaupre87 to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Hi, good morning! You know martscrypto.com? Forex Binary Options Trading Cryptomes - Earn 8.5% per week, directly to your Bitcoins portfolio. - Earn 7 x the Value of your Initial Investment. Example: Invests 1000 that generates 7000 -Gain 10% of all registrations you make - qualifi /r/Bitcoin

Hi, good morning! You know martscrypto.com? Forex Binary Options Trading Cryptomes - Earn 8.5% per week, directly to your Bitcoins portfolio. - Earn 7 x the Value of your Initial Investment. Example: Invests 1000 that generates 7000 -Gain 10% of all registrations you make - qualifi /Bitcoin submitted by SimilarAdvantage to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

I bought $1k of the Top 10 Cryptos on January 1st, 2019 (Sept Update)

I bought $1k of the Top 10 Cryptos on January 1st, 2019 (Sept Update)

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 - Month Nine - UP +54%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr
  • I like moons, I like music. I also like burying musical references in crypto reports. First one to name the two musical references gets some moons.
  • Remember the panic in early Sept? Despite a tough month, the 2019 Top Ten are +54% and still well ahead of the stock market.
  • What's this all about? I purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2019, haven't sold or traded. Did the same in 2018 and 2020. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experiments here.
  • September - all cryptos in the red, so I guess Tether wins the month.
  • Overall since Jan. 2019 - ETH loses lead to BTC which is +189%. Only 2 out of the Top Ten in negative territory.
  • Combining all three three years, Top Ten cryptos underperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.

Month Twenty One – UP 54%

2019 Top Ten Summary for September
Although crypto recovered a bit from an early September dive, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio ended the month completely in the red, similar to what we saw in June. Litecoin dropped out of the Top Ten this month, the first time since these Experiments began.

Question of the month:

In September, Tether moved 1 billion USDT coins from TRON to this blockchain:

A) Ethereum B) Neo C) Polkadot D) EOS
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and September Winners and Losers

2019 Top Ten Ranking
Here come the new coins: with the exception of BCH (up one place from #6 to #5) every crypto either remained in place or dropped. BSV, down one place, EOS and Tron down two, and Stellar fell three. Litecoin dropped a massive five places to land itself outside of the Top Ten, the first time since I began the Experiments back in January 2018.
Due to Litecoin’s expulsion from the Top Ten, 40% of the crypotos have dropped out of the Top Ten since January 1st, 2019: Tron, Stellar, Litecoin and EOS have been replaced by BNB, DOT, ADA, and LINK.
September Winners – With all cryptos in the red, stablecoin Tether outperformed the rest. BTC finished second, down -8% in September, followed by BSV, down -10%.
September LosersLTC had a truly horrible month, losing nearly a quarter of its value (-24%), falling five places in the ranking, and falling out of the Top Ten. Close behind was Stellar and ETH, down -23% and -22%.
For overly competitive nerds, here is a tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and losses during the first 21 months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment:
2019 Ws and Ls
Depressingly, Tether is still far ahead with seven monthly victories, more than twice as much as second place BSV and ETH. And although BSV is up 87% since January 2019, it dominates the monthly loss count: it has now finished last in eight out of twenty-one months.
Swing trade anyone?
And XRP is still the only crypto that has yet to notch a win.

Overall update – BTC takes lead from ETH. Stellar now worst performing since Jan. 1st, 2019

After briefly pulling ahead of BTC last month, ETH gave up its overall lead in September. The top two are up +189% and +169% respectively followed distantly by BSV, up +87% since January 2019. The initial $100 investment in BTC is currently worth $295.
Twenty-one months into the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment, 80% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are either flat or in the green. The other two cryptos are well in negative territory: last place Stellar (-33%) and second to last place XRP (-32%) have each lost about one third of their value since January 2019).
At +54%, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is just behind the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio’s +56% gain and both are far, far ahead of the 2018 group (much more on that below).

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

Monthly total market cap, since Jan 2019
Since January 2019, the total market cap for crypto is up +176%. The overall market fell around $35B in September, ending the month around $351B. Despite the tough month, this is the second highest month-end level since the 2019 Top Ten Experiment started 21 months ago.

Bitcoin dominance:

BitDom ticked up slightly this month, but is trending lower than the last year or so, where it had remained in the mid-60s%. As always, a low BitDom signals a greater appetite for altcoins. Zooming out, the BitDom range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has been between 50%-70%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:

The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio lost nearly $300 in September. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 Top Ten Crypto Portfolio is worth $1,538. That’s up about +54%.
Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first 21 months of the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund experiment, month by month:
Monthly ROI on Top Ten since Jan 2019
Unlike the completely red table you’ll see in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, the 2019 crypto table is almost all green. The first month was the lowest point (-9%), and the highest point (+114%) was May 2019.
At +54%, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is now the second best performing out of the three but just barely (the 2020 Top Ten is up +56%).
Speaking of the other Experiments, let’s take a look at how the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Portfolio compare to the parallel projects:
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $‭3,340‬ ($238+ $1,538 +$1,564).
That’s up about +11% for the three combined portfolios, compared to +31% last month.
Lost in the numbers? Here’s a table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios:
Combined ROI on $3k over 3 years - UP +11%
To sum up: 11% gain by dropping $1k once a year on whichever cryptos happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
But what if I’d gone all in on only one Top Ten crypto for the past three years? While many have come and gone over the life of the experiment, only five cryptos have started in Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC (Litecoin, no pressure, but if you’re not back in the Top Ten in the next few months, you’re out of the club). Let’s take a look at those five:

ETH leading the three year club
Ethereum (+104%) would have returned the most at this point, followed by BTC (+77%). On the other hand, following this approach with XRP, I would have been down -31%.
Alright, that’s crypto. How does crypto compare to the stock market?

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiments to have a comparison point with traditional markets. Although the S&P fell from an all time high the month before, it is up +35% since January 2019.
The initial $1k investment I put into crypto 21 months ago would be worth $1,350 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019. +35%, not bad at all. But the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is up +54% over the same time period.
That’s 2019. But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging $1,000-per-year-on-January-1st crypto approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018 = $1260 today
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019 = $1350 today
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020 = $1050 today
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,660.
That is up +22% since January 2018, compared to a +11% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
As you can see in the table below, that’s a 11% swing in favor of the S&P 500. September breaks a two month mini-streak of wins from the Top Ten crypto portfolios.
S&P takes the lead in Sept.

Conclusion:

After a strong August, both the stock and crypto markets fell in September. In a year that feels neverending, a lot can and will happen in the remaining months of 2020.
Be safe and take care of each other out there.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the 2020 Top Ten Experiment.

And the Answer is…

A) Ethereum
In September, Tether moved 1 billion additional USDT coins (7% of its total supply) from TRON to the Ethereum blockchain.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

At this point, the chances of Bitcoin dying are next to impossible

The worst that could happen to Bitcoin was that it would become some obscure decentralized internet network with no real value. But at this point in the game, it's too big to shrink away into infamy. Wall Street is buying, hospitals are starting to accept it, banks are accepting it, stores are accepting it, PEOPLE are accepting it. It's too far adopted at this point for the dominos of adoption to stop falling. We're on a path that leans in an overwhelming direction towards Bitcoin's continued growth and adoption in this world. It was always a Binary equation when it started, and at this point, it's only got 1 way to go. Do you think Grayscale's clients who own the over 450 thousand Bitcoins are going to want to let them go? MicroStrategy who bought over 250 million dollars worth of Bitcoin as it's primary treasury financial reserve asset? Any of these guys who are, and will adopt in at the pro level of the financial world? We're at the brink of another parabolic run, and even if Bitcoin repeats history and 1000% jumps, then dumps 80%, do you think these guys would sell? Even after the drop, they'll still be over 200% on whatever they owned pre ATH(All-Time High Price). AKA, 20k$.

These guys are going to see what we all saw after our first parabolic runs. They're going to see what happened, look at the history, and see that it does this every halving, realizing as we all did once, what Bitcoin truly is, and where it is headed. And these are hodlers who are already experienced in holding over 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100+F'ing years. These are the same institutional buyers pumping the stock market right now despite this pandemic. Once they get a taste of Bitcoin, they won't stop doing everything they can to get more. The volatility will slow down, the growth will become more consistent, boring, and predictable even, just as the stock market is today. But the math holds true; once these guys are fully adopted, and all the adoption dominoes have fallen; Bitcoin will be over 10 million per coin. By then, growth will probably be as boring and predictable as the stock market. The math will dignify it to still grow faster than the stock market does today, but boring, with no massive price swings as we see today; where you can buy Bitcoin at a 50% discount just 1 day, or 1 week later. By then, most companies will probably have already converted their stocks into their own cryptocurrencies of sorts. It's the only logical next step; cuts out the stockbroker middlemen, just like Bitcoin cuts out the banks. But, regardless of all that stuff that is likely to come with this path that we're on now, the one thing I know for most certain is, before this next run happens, you'll want to get in. Like now. Before this next run even starts pricing over 20k$. Because, after this whole next run up and drop is said and done, you'll be lucky if we ever see a 20k$ Bitcoin again. The best chances will be a drop to 30k$ if we break just over 100k$, or 70k$ if we break just over 300k$. That's if we even get the 80% drop that history has shown this time around, now with these old school investors joining the game before the parabolic run up even starts.

Buy now, before we break 20k$. Hell, keep buying whenever you can until we hit 20k again. I can guarantee you; after 8 years of buying through these markets, there is no better time to buy than right before the start of a parabolic run. Sure, you'll wish you'd have bought when it was at an all-time low price period, but then, you'd have to wait potentially up to 4 years for the next parabolic run to start after a halving, in order to experience any of the crazy historical price run action you've heard so much about. Buying 6 months after a halving like now; puts you on the financial rocket ship that is Bitcoin, right before takeoff, making you able to experience the ride that has made thousands of people addicts to this decentralized network over the last 10 years. IN the next 10 years, it will be millions of addicts; in the next 30, it will be billions. And the price, well the price will be numbers we think today as impossible. Because if you think 10 million is where this bad boy is stopping, then you really don't understand what will happen when the owners of quadrillions in value, become addicted to a decentralized network that's capped out at 21 million coins, and those owners of those quadrillions in value begin to move their asset holdings into Bitcoin; in order to feed their addiction to this decentralized network that many of us have grown to know. Once they know what Bitcoin is, and they have experienced the supply shock that Bitcoin's halvings have on it's value, then they'll begin to move their assets into Bitcoin's network like a crackhead selling their mom's TV just to score an ounce of meth after experiencing its financial ride. Buy every chance you can, every paycheck; hop on this boat before it's too late and you miss another opportunity of insane ROI. Don't get me wrong, even in buying in on the next cycle, you'll still be exponentially profitable if you hold for the long run. But every time we have a parabolic run, that exponential potential becomes less and less. Although exponential none the less. The 10k$ dollars per Bitcoin range will be looked at in 30 years, just like we look at the days of Bitcoin being worth less than a penny per Bitcoin today. Hell, 10 years from now will be looking at a 10k$ per Bitcoin price range like we look at buying Bitcoin at 20$ a coin today.
submitted by PositiveResonanceSng to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[WTS] LIBERTADS!! LIBERTADS!! QB’s, and some low premium silver & gold, some below spot

PM PLEASE. MUCH PREFERRED OVER CHAT.
LIBERTAD LOT:
LIBERTAD PROOF: https://imgur.com/a/Qqtz1xT
I am new to Libertads. For these, the ones from 1979 appear to be clean with maybe a little dulling. There is some toning on the ones from the 80s, but in general I would say in good shape. The ones from the 90s and 2000s all appear to be in good condition. There are a few from 2014 that read one bar to the right of the brackets on the Sigma precious metal verifier. I know the silver Eagles do the same. I am 99% sure that these are legitimate, but I am attempting to seek others‘ advice who have more experience with these. As these are the first Libertads I have dealt in, they are all OBO. However, I have marked them all below the national dealers. And as we all know, these have been hard to come by. But, if my prices are high for the market, I am willing to entertain offers.
1979 x 17 (Technically, these are Onzas, not Libertads. 0.925, but with 1 troy oz ASW each) — $37/ea (14 remaining)
1982 x 6 — $38/ea (4 remaining)
1984 x 5 — $43/ea. (1 remaining, toned reverse)
1985 x 23 — $45/ea (16 remaining)
1990‘s (‘93 & ‘95) x 40 — $40/ea (26 ‘93 remaining, 4 ‘95 remaining)
2012 x 20 — $40/ea (15 remaining)
2014 x 15 — $38/ea (ALL GONE)

Other Mexican Silver Lot:
MEXICAN PROOF: https://imgur.com/a/W0JH02T
—$17/ea: 1952-53 Mexican 5 Pesos Hidalgo, 72% silver, 0.643 troy oz silvecoin — 20 available (4 ‘52 remaining, 4 ‘53 remaining)
—$17/ea: 1977-78 Mexican 100 Pesos, 72% silver, 0.643 troy oz silvecoin — 20 available (1 ‘77 remaining, 9 ‘78 remaining)
—$14/ea: 1968— Mexican Olympic 25 Pesos, 72% silver, 0.521 troy oz silvecoin —40 available (22 remaining)

Queen’s Beasts Lot:
QUEEN’S BEASTS PROOF: https://imgur.com/a/fhEKqsM
Yales x 6 — $65/ea (STILL AVAILABLE)
Red Dragons x 5 — $70/ea (ALL SOLD)
Falcons x 4 — $70/ea (ALL SOLD)
Unicorns x 5 — $75/ea (ALL SOLD)
Griffin x 6 — $80/ea (ALL SOLD)
Lions x 5 — $70/ea (ALL SOLD)
Bulls x 3 — $70/ea (ALL SOLD)
The above were acquired from somebody who did not think they were in perfect condition. In looking them over, some may have some surface scratches, fingerprints, or faint milk spots on outer rim. I am not a coin grader, but in general they look pretty good to me. These may not be ones you send in for grading. They are priced accordingly to described condition. I am happy to send unedited photos, if desired. Please get photos if uncertain.
ALSO:
—10 oz Queen's Beasts Series Falcons x 3 — $300/ea (The capsules may have some cracks, but the coins are fine) (2 remaining)
—2 oz Queen's Beasts Series (better condition than above):
Falcons x 30 — $75/ea
Yales x 40 — $70/ea

Miscellaneous Silver Lot:
MISC. PROOF: https://imgur.com/a/RoPTUlj
20 oz Scottsdale kit kat bar — $560 (SOLD)
F**k COVID, 0.99oz — $40
Stoner Bob, 1oz — $40 (GONE)
Franklin Mint 1974 Father’s Day, 1000 grains 0.925 silver—- $50
Franklin Mint 1978 Christmas, 500 grains 0.925 silver — $25
Franklin Mint 1973 Christmas, 1000 grains 0.925 silver — $50

Late addition: https://imgur.com/a/XApnAMm
9 — 1976 Montreal Olympic $10 Commemmorative, 0.925 silver, 1.4454 troy oz/ea — $38/ea
1 — 1972 $25 Cayman Island Silver Wedding Anniversary, 0.925 silver, 1.5271 troy oz — $40

BELOW SPOT LOT: https://imgur.com/a/QM9y3O3
Silver war nickels: $0.03 below melt/ea as listed on coinapps.com, 8,500+ available, price to be set while actively messaging with me. A minimum number of these per order may be applicable.
Canadian junk silver. 0.925, 80%, 50%. Price is 98% of melt. Melt to be determined while actively messaging with me. Can get more specific on denominations, if needed. There are a lot of 80% quarters. ( Remaining Canadian junk silver: 50% quarters x70, 80% quarters x 256)

CHEAP 1g GOLD: https://imgur.com/a/NJ3ZdWm
Sterngold, 99.95%, used in making dental alloys, 1gm each x 30. This is a unique item not likely to be found in many collector’s stash. I will risky ship up to 3 of these in an envelope for $1 @ buyer’s risk. It will not be tracked and I do not like doing it. Would prefer $4 bubble mailer, but buyer’s choice— $70/ea

JEWELRY LOT: https://imgur.com/a/ZrKVulj
— 2014 1/10 oz American Gold Eagle in 14K eagle pendant, bezel weighs 3.487g — $400
— CRESCENT sterling silver pocket watch case, twist on bezel. Marked with CRESCENT, Sterling, serial number 4188. Amateur engraving with a marked name and 1919. Weighs over 100 grams!!! Pre-owned, with expected signs of tarnish and wear. A ding on back of case (see photo close up) — $75

COMING SOON, PERTH MINT LOT:
2014 Kookaburras, 2 rolls
2015 Kookaburras, 2 rolls
2017 Kookaburras, 4 rolls
2015 Lunar Goats, 5 rolls
2019 Swans, 2 rolls

TERMS: All eligible items are verified with a sigma precious metal verifier or Kee gold tester. Prices are generally based on the underlying spot price. Large fluctuations in spot prices could affect the price of items listed. Shipping will generally be at cost. USPS first class starts @ $4, SFRB @ $8, signature @ $2.50. Will insure for 1.1% of purchase price. Shipping is at buyer’s risk. All items will be tracked unless otherwise stated. Would recommend delivery to a secure box for precious metals. Accept in order of preference: 1st — Zelle or Venmo; 2nd — Cash app; 3rd —Bitcoin, but am still learning. Be patient, but I will try to work with you if other options do not suffice. NO PAYPAL. Other forms of payment will be considered. Thank you!
I am not a coin grader. The condition of any coin listed is how it was listed when I acquired it. I will be more than happy to provide any detailed, unedited photos for any coin. Unless specifically mentioned, assume coins are in generally good condition. Noticeable defects potentially affecting the value will attempt to be noted. I try to price my items substantially below the lowest price I can find online from a national dealer. If you see a legitimate cheaper price, let me know and I may very well adjust my price. FYI, I am in Eastern time zone if I do not respond, may be sleeping.
submitted by AgAuSeller to Pmsforsale [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]

Why Osana takes so long? (Programmer's point of view on current situation)

I decided to write a comment about «Why Osana takes so long?» somewhere and what can be done to shorten this time. It turned into a long essay. Here's TL;DR of it:
The cost of never paying down this technical debt is clear; eventually the cost to deliver functionality will become so slow that it is easy for a well-designed competitive software product to overtake the badly-designed software in terms of features. In my experience, badly designed software can also lead to a more stressed engineering workforce, in turn leading higher staff churn (which in turn affects costs and productivity when delivering features). Additionally, due to the complexity in a given codebase, the ability to accurately estimate work will also disappear.
Junade Ali, Mastering PHP Design Patterns (2016)
Longer version: I am not sure if people here wanted an explanation from a real developer who works with C and with relatively large projects, but I am going to do it nonetheless. I am not much interested in Yandere Simulator nor in this genre in general, but this particular development has a lot to learn from for any fellow programmers and software engineers to ensure that they'll never end up in Alex's situation, especially considering that he is definitely not the first one to got himself knee-deep in the development hell (do you remember Star Citizen?) and he is definitely not the last one.
On the one hand, people see that Alex works incredibly slowly, equivalent of, like, one hour per day, comparing it with, say, Papers, Please, the game that was developed in nine months from start to finish by one guy. On the other hand, Alex himself most likely thinks that he works until complete exhaustion each day. In fact, I highly suspect that both those sentences are correct! Because of the mistakes made during early development stages, which are highly unlikely to be fixed due to the pressure put on the developer right now and due to his overall approach to coding, cost to add any relatively large feature (e.g. Osana) can be pretty much comparable to the cost of creating a fan game from start to finish. Trust me, I've seen his leaked source code (don't tell anybody about that) and I know what I am talking about. The largest problem in Yandere Simulator right now is its super slow development. So, without further ado, let's talk about how «implementing the low hanging fruit» crippled the development and, more importantly, what would have been an ideal course of action from my point of view to get out. I'll try to explain things in the easiest terms possible.
  1. else if's and lack any sort of refactoring in general
The most «memey» one. I won't talk about the performance though (switch statement is not better in terms of performance, it is a myth. If compiler detects some code that can be turned into a jump table, for example, it will do it, no matter if it is a chain of if's or a switch statement. Compilers nowadays are way smarter than one might think). Just take a look here. I know that it's his older JavaScript code, but, believe it or not, this piece is still present in C# version relatively untouched.
I refactored this code for you using C language (mixed with C++ since there's no this pointer in pure C). Take a note that else if's are still there, else if's are not the problem by itself.
The refactored code is just objectively better for one simple reason: it is shorter, while not being obscure, and now it should be able to handle, say, Trespassing and Blood case without any input from the developer due to the usage of flags. Basically, the shorter your code, the more you can see on screen without spreading your attention too much. As a rule of thumb, the less lines there are, the easier it is for you to work with the code. Just don't overkill that, unless you are going to participate in International Obfuscated C Code Contest. Let me reiterate:
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
This is why refactoring — activity of rewriting your old code so it does the same thing, but does it quicker, in a more generic way, in less lines or simpler — is so powerful. In my experience, you can only keep one module/class/whatever in your brain if it does not exceed ~1000 lines, maybe ~1500. Splitting 17000-line-long class into smaller classes probably won't improve performance at all, but it will make working with parts of this class way easier.
Is it too late now to start refactoring? Of course NO: better late than never.
  1. Comments
If you think that you wrote this code, so you'll always easily remember it, I have some bad news for you: you won't. In my experience, one week and that's it. That's why comments are so crucial. It is not necessary to put a ton of comments everywhere, but just a general idea will help you out in the future. Even if you think that It Just Works™ and you'll never ever need to fix it. Time spent to write and debug one line of code almost always exceeds time to write one comment in large-scale projects. Moreover, the best code is the code that is self-evident. In the example above, what the hell does (float) 6 mean? Why not wrap it around into the constant with a good, self-descriptive name? Again, it won't affect performance, since C# compiler is smart enough to silently remove this constant from the real code and place its value into the method invocation directly. Such constants are here for you.
I rewrote my code above a little bit to illustrate this. With those comments, you don't have to remember your code at all, since its functionality is outlined in two tiny lines of comments above it. Moreover, even a person with zero knowledge in programming will figure out the purpose of this code. It took me less than half a minute to write those comments, but it'll probably save me quite a lot of time of figuring out «what was I thinking back then» one day.
Is it too late now to start adding comments? Again, of course NO. Don't be lazy and redirect all your typing from «debunk» page (which pretty much does the opposite of debunking, but who am I to judge you here?) into some useful comments.
  1. Unit testing
This is often neglected, but consider the following. You wrote some code, you ran your game, you saw a new bug. Was it introduced right now? Is it a problem in your older code which has shown up just because you have never actually used it until now? Where should you search for it? You have no idea, and you have one painful debugging session ahead. Just imagine how easier it would be if you've had some routines which automatically execute after each build and check that environment is still sane and nothing broke on a fundamental level. This is called unit testing, and yes, unit tests won't be able to catch all your bugs, but even getting 20% of bugs identified at the earlier stage is a huge boon to development speed.
Is it too late now to start adding unit tests? Kinda YES and NO at the same time. Unit testing works best if it covers the majority of project's code. On the other side, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. If you decide to start refactoring your code, writing a unit test before refactoring will help you to prove to yourself that you have not broken anything without the need of running the game at all.
  1. Static code analysis
This is basically pretty self-explanatory. You set this thing once, you forget about it. Static code analyzer is another «free estate» to speed up the development process by finding tiny little errors, mostly silly typos (do you think that you are good enough in finding them? Well, good luck catching x << 4; in place of x <<= 4; buried deep in C code by eye!). Again, this is not a silver bullet, it is another tool which will help you out with debugging a little bit along with the debugger, unit tests and other things. You need every little bit of help here.
Is it too late now to hook up static code analyzer? Obviously NO.
  1. Code architecture
Say, you want to build Osana, but then you decided to implement some feature, e.g. Snap Mode. By doing this you have maybe made your game a little bit better, but what you have just essentially done is complicated your life, because now you should also write Osana code for Snap Mode. The way game architecture is done right now, easter eggs code is deeply interleaved with game logic, which leads to code «spaghettifying», which in turn slows down the addition of new features, because one has to consider how this feature would work alongside each and every old feature and easter egg. Even if it is just gazing over one line per easter egg, it adds up to the mess, slowly but surely.
A lot of people mention that developer should have been doing it in object-oritented way. However, there is no silver bullet in programming. It does not matter that much if you are doing it object-oriented way or usual procedural way; you can theoretically write, say, AI routines on functional (e.g. LISP)) or even logical language if you are brave enough (e.g. Prolog). You can even invent your own tiny programming language! The only thing that matters is code quality and avoiding the so-called shotgun surgery situation, which plagues Yandere Simulator from top to bottom right now. Is there a way of adding a new feature without interfering with your older code (e.g. by creating a child class which will encapsulate all the things you need, for example)? Go for it, this feature is basically «free» for you. Otherwise you'd better think twice before doing this, because you are going into the «technical debt» territory, borrowing your time from the future by saying «I'll maybe optimize it later» and «a thousand more lines probably won't slow me down in the future that much, right?». Technical debt will incur interest on its own that you'll have to pay. Basically, the entire situation around Osana right now is just a huge tale about how just «interest» incurred by technical debt can control the entire project, like the tail wiggling the dog.
I won't elaborate here further, since it'll take me an even larger post to fully describe what's wrong about Yandere Simulator's code architecture.
Is it too late to rebuild code architecture? Sadly, YES, although it should be possible to split Student class into descendants by using hooks for individual students. However, code architecture can be improved by a vast margin if you start removing easter eggs and features like Snap Mode that currently bloat Yandere Simulator. I know it is going to be painful, but it is the only way to improve code quality here and now. This will simplify the code, and this will make it easier for you to add the «real» features, like Osana or whatever you'd like to accomplish. If you'll ever want them back, you can track them down in Git history and re-implement them one by one, hopefully without performing the shotgun surgery this time.
  1. Loading times
Again, I won't be talking about the performance, since you can debug your game on 20 FPS as well as on 60 FPS, but this is a very different story. Yandere Simulator is huge. Once you fixed a bug, you want to test it, right? And your workflow right now probably looks like this:
  1. Fix the code (unavoidable time loss)
  2. Rebuild the project (can take a loooong time)
  3. Load your game (can take a loooong time)
  4. Test it (unavoidable time loss, unless another bug has popped up via unit testing, code analyzer etc.)
And you can fix it. For instance, I know that Yandere Simulator makes all the students' photos during loading. Why should that be done there? Why not either move it to project building stage by adding build hook so Unity does that for you during full project rebuild, or, even better, why not disable it completely or replace with «PLACEHOLDER» text for debug builds? Each second spent watching the loading screen will be rightfully interpreted as «son is not coding» by the community.
Is it too late to reduce loading times? Hell NO.
  1. Jenkins
Or any other continuous integration tool. «Rebuild a project» can take a long time too, and what can we do about that? Let me give you an idea. Buy a new PC. Get a 32-core Threadripper, 32 GB of fastest RAM you can afford and a cool motherboard which would support all of that (of course, Ryzen/i5/Celeron/i386/Raspberry Pi is fine too, but the faster, the better). The rest is not necessary, e.g. a barely functional second hand video card burned out by bitcoin mining is fine. You set up another PC in your room. You connect it to your network. You set up ramdisk to speed things up even more. You properly set up Jenkins) on this PC. From now on, Jenkins cares about the rest: tracking your Git repository, (re)building process, large and time-consuming unit tests, invoking static code analyzer, profiling, generating reports and whatever else you can and want to hook up. More importantly, you can fix another bug while Jenkins is rebuilding the project for the previous one et cetera.
In general, continuous integration is a great technology to quickly track down errors that were introduced in previous versions, attempting to avoid those kinds of bug hunting sessions. I am highly unsure if continuous integration is needed for 10000-20000 source lines long projects, but things can be different as soon as we step into the 100k+ territory, and Yandere Simulator by now has approximately 150k+ source lines of code. I think that probably continuous integration might be well worth it for Yandere Simulator.
Is it too late to add continuous integration? NO, albeit it is going to take some time and skills to set up.
  1. Stop caring about the criticism
Stop comparing Alex to Scott Cawton. IMO Alex is very similar to the person known as SgtMarkIV, the developer of Brutal Doom, who is also a notorious edgelord who, for example, also once told somebody to kill himself, just like… However, being a horrible person, SgtMarkIV does his job. He simply does not care much about public opinion. That's the difference.
  1. Go outside
Enough said. Your brain works slower if you only think about games and if you can't provide it with enough oxygen supply. I know that this one is probably the hardest to implement, but…
That's all, folks.
Bonus: Do you think how short this list would have been if someone just simply listened to Mike Zaimont instead of breaking down in tears?
submitted by Dezhitse to Osana [link] [comments]

If you're stressed, zoom out - $1k in Top Ten Cryptos of 2019 is up +83%, double that of the S&P

If you're stressed, zoom out - $1k in Top Ten Cryptos of 2019 is up +83%, double that of the S&P

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 - Month Twenty - UP +83%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr:
  • purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2019, haven't sold or traded. Did the same in 2018 and 2020. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experiments here.
  • August - solid month for the 2019 Top Ten, led by Tron and ETH.
  • Since Jan. 2019 - ETH takes lead from BTC. XRP worst performing since Jan. 1st, 2019
  • Over three years, cryptos outperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.

Month Twenty – UP 83%

2019 Top Ten Overview
Although not quite a strong as red-hot July, the 2019 Top Ten Cryptos had a solid month. Overall, modest losses were offset by strong performances by Tron (+53%) and ETH (+32%).

Question of the month:

In August, this financial services giant filed for a new Bitcoin fund with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

A) Goldman Sachs B) Vanguard C) Charles Schwab D) Fidelity
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and August Winners and Losers

A whole lot of shaking going on this month as the 2019 Top Ten cryptos jostled for position. XRP, BCH, EOS, and XLM each fell one spot while BSV dropped two. Moving the other direction: Tether climbed up one, and is now back in the #3 position. Thanks to a very strong August, Tron made the most upward progress, advancing two slots to #14.
Only three cryptos have dropped out of the 2019 Top Ten since January 1st, 2019: Tron, Stellar, and EOS. Not bad after 20 months considering crypto’s volatility. As of August, they have been replaced by BNB, CRO, and LINK.
August WinnersTron, with a +53% gain, easily outperformed its peers. Tron was followed by ETH (+32%), a solid follow up to its +55% gain in July.
August LosersThe Forks. BCH and BSV under performed the pack, finishing the month down -17% and -9% respectively.
For overly competitive nerds, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 20 months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment: Tether is still in the lead with six monthly victories, twice as much as second place BSV and ETH. And although BSV is up over +100% since January 2019, it is running away with the monthly loss count: it has now finished last in eight out of twenty months. Swing trade anyone? XRP still hasn’t been able to take home a single W.
Ws and Ls

Overall update – ETH takes lead from BTC. XRP still worst performing since Jan. 1st, 2019

After three straight months ahead, BTC (+215%) lost its front-runner status to ETH (up +244% since January 2019). A distant third is BSV up +109%. The initial $100 investment in ETH is currently worth $353.
Twenty months in to the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment, 80% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are either flat or in the green. The other two cryptos are in negative territory, including last place XRP (down -19% since January 2019). At +82.5%, the 2019 Top Ten is essentially tied with the 2020 Top Ten, both far ahead of the 2018 group, which is down -71% (but trending upward).

Total Market Cap for the cryptocurrency sector:


Monthly market cap since Jan. 1, 2019
Since January 2019, the total market cap for crypto is up +204%. The overall market picked up nearly $43B in August and is approaching $400B. For the second month in a row, the market is at its highest month-end level since the 2019 Top Ten Experiment started 20 months ago.

Bitcoin dominance:

The last 20 months of BitDom
BitDom‘s wobble in July is nothing compared to the more than 5% dip we saw in August. It had been locked in the mid-60s% range for months, but started dipping in July, signaling a greater appetite for altcoins. Zooming out, the BitDom range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has been between 50%-70%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:

The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio gained over $100 in August, nothing like July‘s +$450 but still solid. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 group of Top Ten cryptos is worth $1,825. With some generous rounding, that’s up about +83%.
Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first 20 months of the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund experiment, month by month:
Month by month ROI of 2019 Top Ten
Unlike the completely red table you’ll see in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, the 2019 crypto table is almost all green. The first month was the lowest point (-9%), and the highest point (+114%) was May 2019.
At +82.51%, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio has lost its hard-fought position as the best performing of the three Top Ten Experiments, but just barely (the 2020 Top Ten is up +82.52%)
Speaking of the other Experiments, let’s take a look at how the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Portfolio compare to the parallel projects:
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $‭3,937‬ ($287+ $1,825 +$1,825).
That’s up about +31% for the three combined portfolios. It also marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I started keeping track in January 2020. The previous high was last month‘s +23%.
Here’s a table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios:
Combined ROI on $3k
That’s a +31% gain by dropping $1k once a year on whichever cryptos happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
But what if I’d gone all in on only one Top Ten crypto for the past three years? While many have come and gone over the life of the experiment, five cryptos have remained in Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Let’s take a look at those five:
Three year club - ETH out in front
Ethereum (+160%) would have returned the most at this point, followed by BTC (+93%). On the other hand, following this approach with XRP, I would have been down -17%.
Alright, that’s crypto. How does crypto compare to the stock market?

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiments to have a comparison point with more traditional markets. Even with everything that’s going on in the world, the S&P continues adding value and reached an all time high in August. It is now up +40% since January 2019.
Monthly S&P levels since Jan. 2019
The initial $1k investment I put into crypto 20 months ago would be worth $1,400 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019.
The 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning +83% over last 20 months, over double the ROI of the S&P 500 over the same time period.
But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging/$1,000-per-year-on-January-1st approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$310
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$400
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$90
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,800.
That is up over+27% since January 2018, compared to a +31% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
As you can see in the table below, August’s 4% difference in favor of crypto marks the second month in a row the Top Ten Crypto Portfolios have outperformed the S&P had I taken a similar investment approach.

Combined crypto vs. S&P

Conclusion:

Thanks to a strong couple of months, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is doing just as well as the 2020 Top Ten group, both of which are far, far ahead of the 2018 Top Ten. Meanwhile, despite the presence of a global pandemic and all the uncertainty associated with an election year, the US stock markets reached all time highs in August. As we approach the fall, I’m buckling up for an unpredictable final stretch of an unpredictable year.
Be safe and take care of each other out there.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the 2020 Top Ten Experiment.

And the Answer is…

D) Fidelity
In August, the SEC published a new filing for a Bitcoin fund, submitted by financial services giant Fidelity.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. Result? Down -79%

I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. Result? Down -79%

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2018 - Month Twenty-Nine - Down -79%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr - Cardano wins May, BTC still way ahead, ETH solidly in second place, NEM (anyone still remember NEM?) still in basement. Markets going up despite world on fire. 3 x $1k investments in crypto in 2018, 2019, 2020 are down -7% compared to the US stock market. Word.

Month Twenty-Nine – Down 79%

While not quite as strong as April, May was undeniably a strong month overall, especially with the last minute push that saw Bitcoin climb over the $10k mark. Although BTC (and the market overall) has fallen in the last few days while I’ve been compiling these updates, we saw almost every 2018 Top Ten crypto end the month of May higher than where it started.

Question of the month:

The Bitcoin halving took place on May 11th, 2020 at 7:23 PM UTC. Since the first Bitcoin block was generated in 2009, how many halving events have occurred?
A) One B) Three C) Five D) None of the above
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and May Winners and Losers

Half of our 2018 Top Ten group were on the move in May. Cardano made the most upward progress, climbing two positions to #11. IOTA picked up rose one spot in the standings to #24 as well. On the other side, NEM keeps slipping, losing three spots to #30. Dash and Stellar also dropped two positions each in May.
The overall drop out rate remains at the 50% mark (meaning half of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out). NEM, Dash, IOTA, Cardano, and Stellar have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tezos, Tether, and BSV.
May Winners – Massive month for ADA, up an impressive +62%. That’s about what Cardano gained last month, so, yeah, Cardano is having a great spring. IOTA also had a solid month, up +28%.
May LosersXRP lost about -4% making it the worst performing of this group in May.
How has your favorite crypto fared over the first 29 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment? Most monthly wins (7): Bitcoin. Most monthly losses (5) is a now tie between Stellar and NEM. All cryptos have at least one monthly win and Bitcoin stands alone as the only crypto that hasn’t lost a month (although it came close in January 2020 when it gained “only” +31%).

Overall update – BTC still way ahead, ETH firmly in second place, NEM worst performing.

Bitcoin made up more ground in May, now down -23% since January 2018. The last time we saw this price level to end a month was August 2019. The initial $100 investment is now worth about $77.
BTC is still well ahead of the field and Ethereum is firmly in second place. This may feel like a foregone conclusion at this point, but for context, long time 2018 Top Ten Experiment followers will note that this has not always been the case. Just a little over a year ago for example, BTC was second place behind Stellar.
NEM (down -95%) is in last place. That initial $100 investment in NEM? Now worth $4.74.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The overall crypto market added about $35B in May 2020, back near August 2019 levels. This is down about half from January 2018 when the market was worth roughly $575B.

Bitcoin dominance:

Another flat month for Bitcoin dominance, which hasn’t moved at all in the last three months.
For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been wide: a high of 70% BitDom in September 2019 and a low of 33% BitDom in February 2018.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio gained about $20 bucks in May 2020, back near where it was at the end of February. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return about $205, down -79% from January 2018.
Here’s the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month:
The streak of nine consecutive months down at least -80% was finally broken in May. Just barely (at -79%), but hey, I’ll take it. July 2019 was the last time the 2018 Top Ten finished a month in the negative seventies. What about the negative sixties? That level hasn’t been seen in about two years.
Painful stuff. What about the follow on Experiments? Let’s see:
So overall? Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios are worth $3,104‬.
That’s up about +3.5% for the combined portfolios. Better than a few months ago (aka the zombie apocalypse) where it was down -24%, but not yet back at January (+13%) or February (+6%) levels.

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The stock market (as measured by the S&P) continued to recover in May. It’s pretty amazing with all that’s going on in the world, but the market is already back up where it was in February 2020. The initial $1k investment into crypto on New Year’s Day 2018 would have gained about $140 had it been redirected to the S&P.
This is where it gets interesting. Taking the same drop-$1,000-per-year-on-January-1st approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$140
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$220
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$50
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,310.
That is up over+10% since January 2018, compared to the $3,104 value (+3.5%) of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
That’s about a 7% difference in favor of the stock market. Last month, there was only a 3% difference. The month before, the gap was 13%.

Implications/Observations:

No news here: the 2018 Experiment’s focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos has not and has never been a winning approach when compared to the overall market. The total market cap is down -51% from January 2018 compared to the -79% for the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked different cryptos – but much better than if I’d put all my eggs in NEM‘s -95% basket, for example. To reiterate, at no point in this experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-nine months compared to the market overall.
In the following two Top Ten experiments, it’s a slightly different story. There are a few examples of this approach outperforming the overall market in the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Experiment. For the most recent 2020 group, this approach had outperformed the overall market 100% of the time…until this month.

Conclusion:

The Bitcoin halving turned out to be a non event and markets continue to steadily rise despite riots in the US and a global pandemic. We’re almost half way through a very strange year. As the world changes, what will crypto’s place be in the new normal?
Final word: Please take care of yourselves, your families, and your communities. Be excellent to each other.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.

And the Answer is…

B) Three
Bitcoin’s third halving event took place May 2020.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Why the increased buying at Greyscale does not translate into higher BTC prices. An opinional analysis.

BREAKING: Greyscale Bitcoin Trust just bought another 134,000 BTC in the last hour!!!!! Why is the price NOT going up????????
The above headline is what everyone else is thinking. I mean come on - with all of the buying that greyscale is doing....why isn’t BTC 20,000 bucks by now.
The reason is simple: Although Greyscale did add X amount of Bitcoin to their Bitcoin fund - it does not add NET NEW BUYERS of BITCOIN as assumed.
Let me elaborate.
The Greyscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) allows investors to fund their shares of GBTC in cash....AND BITCOIN! What that means is people can give GBTC their BTC and receive common shares of GBTC in return. GBTC the common shares trade on the OTCQX private market exchange in the US....at a premium.
What it means to trade at a premium: it means that the price per common share of BTC is higher than the actual amount of BTC held in the fund.
Premium Illustration with fake numbers:
The entire GBTC fund has 100 bitcoin at $1,000 per Bitcoin meaning the entire fund should be worth 100 BTC* 1000 = $100,000!
As there are 100 bitcoin in the entire fund and bitcoin is trading at a thousand bucks - obviously the whole fund is worth $100k.
The common equity of GBTC would be trading a premium when the equity value is higher than $100k. For simplicity let’s say the total market cap (total value of public equity) is $110k - this indicates that the equity value of GBTC is trading at a 10% premium to market because the fund is clearly ONLY worth $100k yet the equity value is trading at $110k - the premium portion would be $10k.
Why does this happen: it is easier for investors to buy shares in GBTC with the click of a button in their brokerage account then it is to buy BTC the old fashioned way on an exchange like Gemini.
Now that we understand what a premium is and how it relates to GBTC: how does this relate to the bitcoin price not going up? It means that original holders of Bitcoin can arbitrage the GBTC Premium quite easily through funding their accounts of GBTC IN BTC then selling their common equity on the open market at the premium. The extra value gained is the premium. As the investor funded their account in BTC - no new Bitcoin buying actually occurred; someone GAVE Greyscale BTC, got equity back, then sold it for cash on the open market. People are doing this because the GBTC premium is so high that it’s way more lucrative selling through GBTC then going on Gemini or some other exchange.
Lucrative traders can exploit the GBTC premium but it’s important to note that new private investors of GBTC are subject to a 6 month hold on their shares. They’d be illiquid for awhile. This allows for savvy BTC investors to trade the GBTC premium twice per year.
Sample series of Trades:
Step 1: I have 1 Bitcoin. Step 2: I choose to give it to GBTC and get shares back. Step 3: I give GBTC my BTC and they give me shares in the fund which I cannot sell for 6 months. Step 4: 6 months later my shares are 15% higher premium. Step 5: sell my GBTC common shares for cash. Step 6: Take cash.
The above analysis ignores GBTC investment fund fees and trading fees.
See what I am saying people? Bitcoin traders can exploit the premium in the market for GBTC’s common shares by funding their accounts in BTC and selling the premium. People contributing BTC to GBTC is NOT the same as GBTC raising cash and buying BTC - effectively taking circulating BTC out of the market into a permanent HODL.
submitted by Aggravating_Boss_515 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

$1,000 invested in Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 now worth $1,260 (UP +26%)

$1,000 invested in Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 now worth $1,260 (UP +26%)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 - Month Eighteen - UP +26%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr - Tether (as it's designed to do) holds its ground, all others finish the month in negative territory. Tron finishes June in second place, down -2%. BSV loses nearly 25% of value in June. Overall, since January 2019, BTC in lead, ETH takes over second place, XRP still worst performing. The 2019 Top 10 is up +26% almost equal to the the gains of the S&P 500 over the same time period (+24%).

Month Eighteen – UP 26%

Not a great month for the 2019 Top Ten
After a strong April and a mixed May, June was bloody for the 2019 Top Ten Cryptos. Stablecoin Tether was the only crypto to hold its ground, as it was designed to do.

Question of the month:

According to a June article citing unnamed sources, which two FinTech companies are planning to allow their users to buy and sell crypto directly?

A) Paypal and Venmo B) Square and Cashapp C) Robinhood and Revolut D) Sofi and Coinbase
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and June Winners and Losers

XRP and Stellar slipped one place each in the rankings in June, now at #4 and #14 respectively. EOS fell two spots to #11 and joins Stellar and Tron as the only three cryptos to have dropped out of the 2019 Top Ten since January 1st, 2019. They have been replaced by Binance Coin, Cardano, and newcomer CRO.
Tether was the only crypto to move up in rank in June.
Not a good sign when Tether is the only crypto to move up.
Not a good sign when Tether enters the Top 3.
June WinnersTether. Second comes Tron, which basically held its ground at -2%.
June LosersBSV lost -23% of its value in June making it the worst performing of the 2019 Top Ten portfolio. EOS had a rough month as well, down -17%, dropping two spots in the rankings, and falling out of the Top Ten.
If you’re keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 18 months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment: Tether is still in the lead with six monthly victories followed by BSV in second place with three. BSV also holds the most monthly losses, finishing last in seven out of eighteen months. The only crypto not to win a month so far? XRP. (In fairness, XRP has also not lost any month yet).

Overall update – BTC in lead, ETH takes over second place, XRP still worst performing

BTC is out front for the second straight month and ETH has taken over second place from BSV. Ahead until April, BSV has simply not keep up with the pack over the last two months. Bitcoin is up +144% since January 2019. The initial $100 investment in BTC is currently worth $249.
Eighteen months in, 50% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are in the green since the beginning of the experiment. The other five cryptos are either flat or in negative territory, including last place XRP (down -50% since January 2019).

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market as a whole is down about $20B in June, but still up +106% since January 2019.

Bitcoin dominance:

BitDom finally wobbled in June, but not by much – it’s been in a very familiar zone for months now, indicating a lack of excitement (or at least a low risk tolerance) for altcoins. Taking a wider view, the Bitcoin Dominance range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has ranged between 50%-70%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:

The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio lost almost $175 in June. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 group of Top Ten cryptos is worth $1,259. That’s up about +26%.
Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first 18 months of the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund experiment, month by month:
18 months of ROI, mostly green
Unlike the completely red table you’ll see in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, the 2019 crypto table is almost all green. The first month was the lowest point (-9%), and the highest point (+114%) was May 2019.
How does the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Portfolio compare to the parallel projects?
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, the combined portfolios are worth $2,710‬.
That’s down about -10% for the three combined portfolios. Last month that figure was +4%. Better than a few months ago (aka the zombie apocalypse) where it was down -24%, but not yet back at January (+13%) or February (+6%) levels.
Here’s a new table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios:
ROI of all three combined portfolios - not exactly inspiring
How do crypto returns compare to traditional markets?

Comparison to S&P 500:

Good thing I’m tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. Even with unemployment, protests, and COVID, the US market continued to rebound in June. It’s now up +24% in the last 18 months.
The initial $1k investment I put into crypto would be worth $1,240 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019.
As a reminder (or just scroll up) the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning +26% over last 18 months, just about equal to the return of the S&P 500 over the same time period. Just last month the ROI of the 2019 Top Ten crypto portfolio was nearly double the S&P 500 since January 1st, 2019.
But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging/$1,000-per-year-in-January approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$170
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$240
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$40
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,370.
That $3,370 is up over+12% since January 2018, compared to the $2,710 value (-10%) of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios. Here’s another new table that compares the ROI of the combined crypto portfolios to a hypothetical similar approach with the S&P 500:
We see in June the largest difference in favor of the S&P since the beginning of 2020: a 22% gap. Compare that February, when there was only a 1% difference in ROI.

Implications/Observations:

Since January 2019, the crypto market as a whole has gained +106% compared to the 2019 Top Ten Crypto Portfolio which has gained +26%. That’s an 80% gap.
At this point in the 2019 Experiment, an investor would have done much better picking different cryptos or investing in the entire market instead of focusing only on the 2019 Top Ten. Over the course of the first 18 months of tracking the 2019 Top Ten, there have been instances this was a winning strategy, but the cases have been few and far between.
The 2018 Top Ten portfolio, on the other hand, has never outperformed the overall market, at least not in the first thirty months of that Experiment.
And for the most recent 2020 Top Ten group? The opposite had been true: the 2020 Top Ten had easily outperformed the overall market 100% of the time…up until the last two months.

Conclusion:

As the world continues to battle COVID, traditional markets seem to be recovering. Will crypto make a significant move in the second half of 2020?
Final word: Stay safe and take care of each other.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the recently launched 2020 Top Ten Experiment.

And the Answer is…

A) Paypal and Venmo
According to a Coindesk report in June, three sources familiar with the matter say that Paypal and Paypal-owned Venmo are planning to allow their users to buy and sell crypto. Paypal has declined to comment.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [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]

5 Free Stocks and $500 Free Cash/Bitcoin - Sign Up for Webull, Public, Moomoo, M1 Finance, SoFi Invest, Robinhood, BlockFi, Voyager, BlockFi, Gemini, Celsius Network, Crypto.com, Coinbase, Crypterium - Commission Free Stock Trading + Cryptocurrency Apps

5 Free Stocks and $500 Free Cash/Bitcoin - Sign Up for Webull, Public, Moomoo, M1 Finance, SoFi Invest, Robinhood, BlockFi, Voyager, BlockFi, Gemini, Celsius Network, Crypto.com, Coinbase, Crypterium - Commission Free Stock Trading + Cryptocurrency Apps
Get up to five (5) free stocks (valued up to $2450 total) plus a $85 cash bonus when you sign up for any commission free stock trading app with no deposit required like Public, Robinhood and Webull or a small deposit like SoFi Invest, Moomoo, and M1 Finance. You can buy stocks like Tesla and Google for as low as $1 with fractional shares at M1 Finance, Robinhood, Public, and SoFi Invest! Free stocks are available to US residents only.
Plus enjoy a minimum of $200 (up to $400) in free cash/Bitcoin bonuses from Crypto.com ($50 Cash), Voyager ($25 Bitcoin), BlockFi ($10 Bitcoin), Celsius Network ($120 Bitcoin Bonus), Gemini ($10 Bitcoin), Coinbase ($10 Bitcoin + $171 Bonus), and Crypterium ($5 Cash) by signing up and making a small deposits/transactions! All companies are regulated and licensed. Crypto.com, Celsius Network, BlockFi, Gemini, Coinbase, and Crypterium are open to users globally, but Voyager and Binance.US are available to US customers only.
More details below! Be sure to use each referral link or promo code to get your free stock, cash, and Bitcoin bonuses and thank you!

Webull (2 Free Stocks up to $1600)

Sign up for Webull (https://act.webull.com/i/Vofifd5bibi6/3jx/us_na_invite_year02) and receive two free stocks (valued between $8 to $1600) when you open a stock brokerage account (within 24 hours) and make an initial deposit of $100 or more!
You do not need to invest the money deposited and simply transfer the money back to your bank after receiving the two free stock bonuses.
That's two free stocks! Webull is available on Android and iOS!
Webull is registered and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). It is also a member of the SIPC which protects securities customers of its members up to $500,000 (including $250,000 for claims for cash).
Remember to sign up and get your two free stocks after $100+ deposit at https://act.webull.com/i/Vofifd5bibi6/3jx/us_na_invite_year02
Thank you!

Public (1 Free Stock up to $50, No Deposit Required)

Sign up for Public (https://share.public.com/domaindave), a commission-free stock trading app for iOS and Android, and receive a free stock slice worth up to $50 when you open a new trading account. No deposit required to receive your free stock!
It takes about 5 minutes to sign up! Please visit the link using your iOS or Android phone to download the app. Within 24 hours, I received a $25 slice of Apple stock when I opened a Public account!
Public allows you to buy a slice of any stock like Apple, Tesla, and Google for as low as $5 with no trading fees and your Public stock trading account is SIPC insured up to $500,000.
Be sure to use my Public signup link on your mobile phone to get your free stock with no deposit required - https://share.public.com/domaindave
Thank you!

SoFi Invest ($75 Cash Bonus)

Open a SoFi Invest Account (https://www.sofi.com/share/invest/1919989) today and get a $50 cash bonus to invest in ANY stock or ETF with no trading fees!
Just open a SoFi Invest Account with an initial deposit of $1000 or more and SoFi will instantly give you a $50 cash bonus to invest in any stock which you can sell and cash out the money back to your bank account.
Plus get another $25 cash bonus when you buy $10 or more of crypto like Bitcoin, Litecoin or Ethereum. That's a total of $75 cash bonuses with SoFi Invest!
I love SoFi Invest because you can invest in any stock or ETF like Apple, Amazon or Google for as low as $1 with fractional share investing and no fees to buy or sell! Be sure to signup at https://www.sofi.com/share/invest/1919989
Thank you!

M1 Finance ($10 Cash Bonus)

Sign up for a free M1 Finance stock trading account (https://m1.finance/wG5ouGBolHyU) and you'll get a $10 cash bonus after you make an initial deposit of $100 or more when you open a taxable (non-retirement) account. You can choose to invest the cash bonus or withdrawal the money to your bank!
If you open a taxable (non-retirement) account, then you must make initial deposit of $100 or more to get $10 cash bonus. If you open an IRA account, then you must make initial deposit of $500 or more to get bonus and open a taxable (non-retirement) account.
M1 Finance allows you to buy fractional shares as low as $0.01 on stocks and ETFs like Tesla, Amazon, and Google with no trading/commission fees plus there are no monthly fees or account minimums. You can open a regular investment, IRA, and/or Roth IRA account plus your accounts are SIPC and FDIC insured!
Be sure to use my M1 Finance signup link - https://m1.finance/wG5ouGBolHyU
Thank you!

Moomoo (1 Free Stock up to $1000)

Sign up for Moomoo Commission Free Stock Trading App (https://j.moomoo.com/001zFH) and open a trading account and you're guaranteed to receive a free stock (valued between $10-$1000) when you make an initial deposit of $500 or more.
You'll have a 1 in 250 chance to win a free stock in Tesla, Netflix, Apple or Facebook and 1 in 100 chance to win a free stock in Microsoft, Disney, Starbucks or IBM.
You don't need to buy stocks with your deposit. You can simply get your free stocks, sell it and cash out back to your bank. It took me about 20 minutes for my account to get verified and receive my free stock within 3 days after my initial deposit cleared.
Moomoo (Futu Inc.) is a member of FINRA and SIPC so your account is protected up to $500,000. Moomoo app is available for iOS and Android!
Be sure to signup with my referral link to get your free stocks! - https://j.moomoo.com/001zFH
Thank you!

Robinhood (1 Free Stock up to $200)

Sign up for a free Robinhood stock trading account (http://invite.robinhood.com/davids2005) and you'll get a free stock valued up to $200 instantly (like Ford, Apple or Facebook) with no deposit required! Its free money just for signing up!
Plus you can buy any stock or ETF like SPY and Tesla for as low as $1 with fractional share investing.
Robinhood offers commission-free trading on stocks and ETFs via web and mobile plus your account is SIPC insured! Plus you can signup for a free Cash Management Account with 0.30% APY interest on cash (FDIC insured up to $1.25 million), free Mastercard debit card, no foreign transaction fees, no account minimums and no fee 75,000+ ATMs.
Be sure to use my Robinhood signup link and thanks! - http://invite.robinhood.com/davids2005
Thank you!

Voyager ($25 in Free Bitcoin + Up to 9% APY Interest)

Get $25 in free Bitcoin (BTC) when you download and signup for the Voyager Crypto Trading App with code O6E5JJ and trade at least $100 or more in crypto (buy and/or sell). Only available to US residents.
To get your $25 in free Bitcoin after trading (buy/sell) $100 or more in crypto, use reward/referral code O6E5JJ during registration:
Voyager App allows you to connect a bank account and deposit cash directly. The easiest way to get the bonus is depositing at least $100 into your account to buy at least $100 of Bitcoin or Ethereum. Then sell the Bitcoin/Ethereum immediately. You'll receive your $25 in free Bitcoin bonus and can transfer the money back to your bank.
Voyager App offers commission-free cryptocurrency trading for over 20 cryptos and its currently available to residents in all U.S. states (excluding New York state).
Plus, you can earn monthly interest on your crypto holdings up to 9% APY interest annually on Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, USDC, and USDT!
Please use my referral code by downloading the iOS app or Android app and use reward/referral code O6E5JJ during registration. Its an easy way to earn a $25 worth of free Bitcoin after you buy $100 or more in crypto and cash out the profit back to your bank!
Thank you!

Crypto.com ($50 Cash Bonus + Up to 12% APY Interest)

Get $50 free cash bonus when you signup and open a Crypto.com account (https://platinum.crypto.com/bcsbb2r465) or use referral code bcsbb2r465 during registration by 31 October 2020. After you buy and hold 1000 CRO (Crypto.com) tokens, the $50 cash bonus is unlocked to your wallet to spend with your free MCO Visa prepaid card which earns up to 5% cashback on all purchases with free Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Prime membership! This offer is available to all users globally! You must sign up by 31 October 2020 to get the $50 cash bonus!
Crypto.com is the best place to buy and sell cryptocurrency with fees as low as 0.10%. Plus you'll earn up to 8% interest per year on the cryptos you deposit into your Crypto.com account like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Binance Coin, and PAX Gold. You'll earn up to 12% interest per year on stablecoin deposits like USDT, USDC, DAI, PAX, GUSD and TGBP. Interest is paid weekly!
You can buy 1000 MCO (Crypto.com) tokens via the Crypto.com app with bank transfer, credit card or crypto like Bitcoin. 1000 CRO will cost between $140 to $180 depending on the price of CRO tokens. The 1000 CRO tokens will be locked up for 6 months.
Visit https://platinum.crypto.com/bcsbb2r465 or download the Crypto.com app for iOS or Android and use my referral code bcsbb2r465 during registration to get your instant $50 cash bonus. You must register by 31 October 2020 to get the $50 bonus! Starting 1 November 2020, the bonus is reduced to $25!

Celsius Network ($120 in Free Bitcoin + Up to 22% APY Interest)

Sign up on Celsius Network (https://celsiusnetwork.app.link/1891962be1) and you'll get $20 in free Bitcoin (BTC) after first deposit of $200 or more in crypto (like Bitcoin, Ripple, Ethereum, USDT, USDC) within 30 days! Just complete the registration and KYC process to earn your free Bitcoin after qualifying deposit!
Plus there is an additional October promotion (see below) to receive an additional $50 or $100 in free Bitcoin/Celsius when you apply for a new loan as low as $500 by 31 October 2020.
You'll also earn up to 22% APY interest on all the cryptos you deposit including BTC, ETH, BCH, LTC, XRP, XLM, Tether Gold, and USD stablecoin (like USDC, USDT, DAI, PAX) with no fees to deposit or withdrawal!
I love Celsius because interest is paid out every Monday! Your free Bitcoin is locked for 30 days after your initial deposit and available to withdrawal after 30 days. You cannot withdraw any funds deposited for 30 days or else you will lose the Bitcoin bonus!
Here's the process to claim your free $120 in Bitcoin/Celsius bonuses:
  1. Sign up for Celsius Network at https://celsiusnetwork.app.link/1891962be1 (or use promo code 1891962be1 during registration at https://celsius.network/ to secure the Bitcoin bonus)
  2. Complete the KYC process including ID verification
  3. Deposit $200 or more in crypto to receive your $20 in free Bitcoin bonus like Bitcoin, Ethereum and USD stablecoin. Bitcoin bonus is locked for 30 days after qualifying deposit and after 30 days you can keep or withdraw it. DO NOT WITHDRAW any crypto from your account during the 30 days after qualifying deposit OR YOU WILL LOSE the bonus. Wait until the bonus is unlocked.
  4. To earn an extra $50 or $100 in free Bitcoin/Celsius for a new loan, go to 'Profile' -> 'Enter a promo code'. Enter the promo code TREAT then apply for a new loan via the app by Saturday 31 October 2020.
  5. You'll receive $50 in free Bitcoin/Celsius if you borrow less than $3000 and you'll receive $100 in free Bitcoin/Celsius if you borrow $3000 or more. The bonus will be deposit by Sunday 15 November 2020. For more information regarding the loan bonus, check out here.
At the moment you can't link a bank account to deposit cash to your Celsius Network account so you'll need to use Coinbase, Binance US, Crypto.com or Gemini to buy crypto like Bitcoin or USDC and transfer to your Celsius account. Then transfer back to cash out and back to your bank.
Remember to use my Celsius Network referral link - https://celsiusnetwork.app.link/1891962be1 or use promo code 1891962be1 during registration.
In summary, you will earn a total of $20 in free Bitcoin after depositing at least $200+ in crypto into your Celsius Network account within 30 days plus another $50 or $100 in Bitcoin/Celsius if you apply for a loan.
Thank you!

BlockFi ($10 in Free Bitcoin + Earn up to 8.6% Per Year on Crypto Deposits)

Sign up for BlockFi (https://blockfi.com/?ref=c316afd8) and receive $10 in free Bitcoin bonus when you deposit $100 or more in crypto and maintain the qualifying balance until the following interest payment day. The bonus is deposited on your first monthly interest payment. Do not withdraw from your balance or you WILL LOSE the Bitcoin bonus payment. Just wait until you receive your Bitcoin bonus then you can withdraw from your account.
This promotional $10 Bitcoin bonus is available to all customers globally!
Plus you'll earn up to 8.6% per year on the cryptos you deposit into your BlockFi account like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, PAX, GUSD and USDC. Interest is compounded monthly and paid out on the 1st of every month.
You can download the iOS app (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blockfi/id1506274532) or Android app (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blockfi.mobile). Be sure to use referral code c316afd8 during signup to get your $10 Bitcoin bonus after initial $100 or more deposit.
BlockFi supports bank wire transfers and deposits via crypto. If you want to buy crypto and deposit on BlockFi, you will need to use Coinbase, Gemini, or Binance US to link your bank account to buy crypto and transfer to BlockFi.
In addition to earning interest on your crypto deposits, BlockFi allows you to exchange cryptos like BTC for Ethereum and take out a loan without selling your crypto.
BlockFi is available to all customers globally including in all 50 US states! BlockFi is a licensed and regulated company in the United States.
Remember to sign up at https://blockfi.com/?ref=c316afd8 to get your $10 in free Bitcoin bonus.
Thank you!

Gemini ($10 in Free Bitcoin)

Get $10 in free Bitcoin when you signup for Gemini, a US-based regulated and licensed cryptocurrency exchange. This offer is available to NEW USERS ONLY residing in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea.
Follow these steps:
  1. Sign up for a Gemini account with my referral link at https://gemini.com/share/mllyldt7 (new users only)
  2. Verify your identity
  3. Link your bank account and deposit $100 or more
  4. Buy or Sell 100 USD of any crypto within 30 days of opening an account and Gemini will deposit your bonus of $10 worth of Bitcoin within a day.
After you receive your free $10 of Bitcoin, you can sell your cryptos and transfer the cash back to your bank! Gemini also allows you to transfer any crypto to an external wallet for free with no withdrawal fees.
Gemini is regulated by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS) and was founded in 2014 by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss.
Thank you!

Coinbase ($10 in Free Bitcoin + $171 in Bonus Crypto)

Sign up for a Coinbase cryptocurrency account (https://www.coinbase.com/join/5a29d6adad50d7010b47bac0) and get $10 of free Bitcoin (BTC) after you buy or sell $100 or more in cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Bitcoin Cash. You will also need to verify your identity. This offer is available to all customers globally!
In addition, visit Coinbase Earn (https://coinbase.com/earn/comp/invite/fqns7918) and get up to $171 in free cryptocurrency by learning, watching videos, and answering simple questions about other cryptocurrencies like EOS (up to $50 bonus), Stellar Lumens (up to $50 bonus), and Compound (up to $59 bonus) without any deposit or trading required. You can easily make up to $160 in free cryptocurrency and cash out the money back to your bank!
You can also earn 0.15% annual interest holding USDC tokens (for US customers) and 4% annual interest staking Tezos tokens (for US, UK, and EU customers)!
Coinbase is one of the most trusted and easiest place to buy, sell, and manage your digital currency portfolio and its available in 100+ countries around the world! Coinbase allows you to deposit/withdrawal funds via free bank transfer, credit/debit card or bank wire.
Remember to use my referral link to get your $10 of free Bitcoin after trading $100 or more in crypto plus another $171 in free crypto bonuses - https://www.coinbase.com/join/5a29d6adad50d7010b47bac0
Thank you!

Crypterium ($5 Cash Bonus)

Have you tried the Crypterium Crypto Wallet App for iOS and Android? Sign up for Crypterium at https://crypterium.app.link/DU5iX9vsDY (or use referral code cdgy4 during signup) and get a $5 cash bonus by verifying your identity and make a transaction worth €50/$60 or more (like buy or sell crypto) via the Crypterium Wallet app. The bonus is deposited within 72 hours.
Crypterium lets you buy, send, exchange or cash out crypto, and even get the first global crypto card! The Crypterium Wallet is regarded as one of the most promising fintech solutions by KPMG and H2 Ventures. Making crypto as easy to spend as cash!
Plus for a limited time, get a Crypto Loan in USDT from Crypterium for 0% interest for up to 12 months by using Bitcoin or Ethereum as collateral. Get approved in as little as 30 seconds without credit checks!
The Crypterium App supports cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, CRPT, XRP, LINK, MKR, QASH, BAT, ZRX, REP, OMG, USDC, USDT, DAI, and EURS.
Register at https://crypterium.app.link/DU5iX9vsDY to receive a link to download the app or use my referral code cdgy4 during signup at https://crypterium.com and get your $5 cash bonus!
Thank you!

https://preview.redd.it/ldfuipa9qqv51.png?width=1938&format=png&auto=webp&s=2dd63a7ace43356e7f0609c22d9dcd0299f0bedc
submitted by cryptomiles to referralcodes [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Price CRASHED more than $1000... Why? Bitcoin Price Unmoved by Satoshi Era BTC 1000 Move - YouTube $1,000 LITECOIN BY END OF 2019 Make Money 10000$ Per Day With Bitcoin  Without ... How One week of Investing 1000 dollars into Bitcoin Went ...

Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. Bitcoin Satoshi => USD. You can now select between which ticker to use above- Coindesk or BitcoinAverage Satoshi = USD $ 0 *Click the Satoshi value or USD value to change it* $ USD = x Satoshi = x BTC. BTC ฿1 = $ x USD. Refresh ↻ - occurs every 100 seconds. Bitcoin information (FAQ) Predefined Values: Click the Satoshi value below to use that value above. 1 Satoshi = 0.00000001 ฿ 10 ... Bitcoin USD price, real-time (live) charts, bitcoin news and videos. Learn about BTC value, bitcoin cryptocurrency, crypto trading, and more. bitcoin mining free bitcoin mining free bitcoin pool cryptocurrency mining crypto mining cloud mining asic miner honeyminer btc miner bitminer bitcoin mining machine bitcoin mining rig bitcoin mining hardware bitcoin cloud mining gpu mining btc pool bitcoin mining pool bitcoin cloud pi cryptocurrency antminer s15 best bitcoin miner asic miner value free cloud mining bitcoin pool best gpu for ... While the value of one bitcoin hit highs of around $1,000 and lows below $600 during December 2013, when the cryptocurrency began to go mainstream, it hovered around $1,000 early in the month.A ...

[index] [30753] [46827] [28249] [11482] [23450] [49487] [40647] [40443] [20682] [3669]

Bitcoin Price CRASHED more than $1000... Why?

Dont waste time and start your passive income with Mind Capital now: https://t.me/mindcapitalrobot?start=Mindcapital2020 You can join our official Channel he... Last week I invested 500 dollars into bitcoin and 1000 dollars into my normal portfolio with ETFs in acorn. 🎁 Free Stock🎁: https://invite.robinhood.com/tommy... check the browser and join my team here: https://cryptotabbrowser.com/16063214 hey folks ,in this video I will show you how you can earn money by browsing on... Number one recommendation use this link https://bit.ly/31zKG3X Making up to $100 daily https://bit.ly/31AKMbp 21 ways to make money online fast https://bit.l... Free Bitcoin HACK Mining Site How To Make $1000 Per Day In Bitcoin With $1 Investment Website Link In Video ($1 INVESTMENT PLAN): https://bit.ly/2Hq9l3N #...

#