Without regulation, crypto won't succeed. Sooner or later it is bound to happen. Especially since most defi or just different startups are scams and created for the sake of stealing other people's money. Now it is becoming clearer that different governments will make different laws about cryptocurrency.
If we want to attract VCs and institutional investors into crypto, regulation would be our only choice. It's unfortunate because it will deviate crypto towards the path of centralization. But there's nothing we can do about it, especially if we want market prices to go all the way to the moon. Despite the alarmimg threat of centralization, we still have a small number of projects that are actually decentralized. The only thing is that they're not as popular as their centralized counterparts. When "De-Fi" gets regulated, the platforms which don't comply with KYC/AML rules will be left out of the game. Only people seeking true privacy/anonymity and freedom will use them. Crypto has come a long way since 2009, so don't expect it to disappear anytime soon. Who knows what other tactics will mainstream governments (especially the US government) come up with in the future? Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
campaign paid, 8 years and counting Payment received! Not many campaigns last this long, you know. Crypto.Games is still going strong after all these years. Cheers, buddy.  |
|
|
|
Quite Interest thread. I have less knowledge about NFTs but i think this technology will be last forever. There are many more exciting things that can be done by the help of NFTs. Rather staking programme, using it in game to earn money and many more options are available. Although NFTs are full of shit and scammers now but real NFTs will be always in demand and will increase in time. So some real Product NFTs should buy if its availvale cheap
The trend itself might last forever. As long as Blockchains exist, don't expect NFTs to go anywhere soon. What I'm deeply concerned about is the data of the NFT itself. Most of the data is stored on centralized servers, making the whole purpose of "owning" an NFT futile. You don't own something if you lose the contents of it. If NFT creators made use of decentralized CDNs, things would've been much better. I guess they will do this when it's too late. For now, the NFT industry will remain speculative. Wait a few more years, and you'll see useful NFTs replacing overhyped ones. Who knows which NFTs will be able to truly stand the test of time? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
I also think Tron is a bad coin, but your arguments are not strong enough and fall into the logic error called begging the question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). Justin is a copy and paste man. He's copying and pasting everything that's done on Ethereum and porting it to Tron, but he hasn't succeeded in anything except gambling dapps. I never hold Tron either, but sometimes I prefer Tron when transferring money between exchanges because its transfer fee is cheaper. I basically agree with you but I don't see this issue from the same perspective as you do. Exactly. But just because Justin Sun is a "copycat", doesn't mean the project itself is garbage. TRON is still useful, even though it's not as innovative as its competitors. The ability to use it for stablecoin transfers at a fraction of the cost, makes it a winner in my book. Transactions are usually free if you hold TRON Power in your wallet. If the community takes full control of the project, I can see TRX rising all the way towards the top ranks in market cap. All TRX needs is a lower supply, ZK-Proofs, and L2 scaling solutions to become a huge ETH contender. The project is open source, so either the original TRON blockchain prevails or a new one (fork) will take its place. As long as decentralization is put first, nothing else matters. Just my opinion  |
|
|
|
The lost of customers' coins in Mt. Gox, FTX or any centralized exchanges aren't entirely lost. The coins can still be accessed and spend, the different is just the person who hold the coins. It's like you get hacked, the coins belong to hacker.
Bitcoin is lost from the circulation supply when no one own the private key or not able to access it anymore.
Some people use to store Bitcoin on a cold storage wallet and forget about it for a long time. You'd think the coins are "lost" because they are no longer circulating across the network. There's really no way to tell whenever Bitcoins are lost or dormant. Assuming they're all lost, market prices should be able to rise exponentially over the coming years. Think of it as added deflation. What's important is that people do the right thing by securing their coins against hacks and/or theft. It's very unlikely to lose funds on a properly-secured Bitcoin wallet. Lost coins or not, Bitcoin will be here to stay for a very long time. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
You can create any DeFi project, but you will not attract investments into it if you are anonymous and do not pass mandatory audits. Most likely, you will be forced to build a fallback shutdown into the smart contract to pause or slow down the project if there is a hack. DeFi projects are no longer decentralized.
That's the saddest part of crypto these days. Investors want developers to reveal their identities before supporting a project. Back in the early days, that wasn't the case. You can see how Bitcoin became successful even when no one knew the true identity of its creator. Unfortunately, those days are over thanks to the increasing number of scams plaguing the industry. Nowadays, it's all about KYC and public appereances to help gather the attention of the masses. I have a feeling the industry is reeling away from its core principles of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Most "De-Fi" platforms aren't as decentralized as they claim to be. Once regulators get into the game, you can say goodbye to Web 3.0 for good. Who knows if "De-Fi" is heading towards a dark future? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
The SEC recently made an appeal regarding the Judge's ruling of XRP not being a security. I guess they're laser-focused on destroying the crypto/Blockchain industry after all. XRP's price may've increased because of the court's decision, but if there's a reversal, everything will go all the way down the drain in an instant. I'd certainly want to see XRP having its own usecases in a highly-competitive crypto space. If smart contracts take off on the XRP Ledger, then the "cryptocurrency" will be able to retain its value for a long time. What I don't like is XRP's centralized design. The company is too tied with the crypto asset. Would you imagine the death of XRP in the future if the company goes bankrupt or the government takes it down to the grave? Many investors will lose money as XRP becomes worthless. That's why I believe XLM is a much better choice. It has a high probability of surviving in the future because of its decentralization. Ultimately, the market will decide which coin stays afloat and which one becomes history. As long as you don't put all of your eggs in one basket, nothing else matters. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
US is already in a deep ditch with no exit and the only way they could go back to gold standard or similar standards is to first bring dollar to its realistic value which is a lot lower than this. The US debt alone is $32.6 trillion, in today's bitcoin exchange rate that is 1.1 billion bitcoins! Obviously with bitcoin's max supply being 21 million even if US regime were to store all the bitcoins in the world (mined and yet to be mined) it still wouldn't be nearly enough to cover that.
The only solution would be a default. But that would create chaos around the world, especially when the USD was relied upon as a stable reserve currency. If the US Presidential candidate is serious about backing the USD with BTC, he should ask the FED to burn money for good. I doubt the FED will do this, especially when inflation is unavoidable. Robert Kennedy Jr. is just taking advantage of Bitcoin/crypto supporters to win the 2024 presidential race. The odds of him winning are very slim, but anything's possible. No matter what happens, we can remain confident BTC won't be going anywhere soon thanks to the way it was designed. Who knows if it lives alongside Fiat for generations? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
I doubt what you say, I don't believe people are waiting for that to happen. People want bitcoin to drop more so they can buy bitcoin cheaply, but no one is expecting to buy bitcoin for $1, I bet you on that. If bitcoin drops to $1 it will be the end of bitcoin, even you and I will leave this market. Because then there will be extreme confusion, not opportunity. If bitcoin drops to $10k it can be seen as a rare opportunity but if it drops to $10 or $1 it is a serious problem. But like you and many others, I don't believe that will happen either.
A $1 market price would be the opportunity of a lifetime to buy BTC at a huge discount. Many think the masses will be buying BTC by the time this happens, but I hardly doubt it. After all, everyone will be in "panic mode". Such a dip in price would mean something terribly wrong happened with BTC. Neither you and I will be alive by the time Bitcoin goes all the way down the drain (if it ever happens). Let's ignore the FUD from mainstream governments and carry on with our lives as usual. Who knows how far BTC will go? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
if you choose an altcoin to invest, then I would suggest ethereum and binance for the first, and the rest leave a little capital to seek luck in trending coins so that we can maximize profits in the future, but if we are not lucky then we only lose some small capital and it doesn't mean much, for example if it is invested in sui, which is currently still a lot of discussion about it so we can choose it. and of course the right time to sell must be considered, where the bullish season is the right choice to sell
There's a lot of buzz surrounding SUI these days. But I haven't seen real price action, compared to other cryptocurrencies on the market. Maybe it's because the bear market is adding some pressure to SUI's price? There's a lot of risk involved with altcoins that I'd want to avoid. You'll never know if prices will keep going down until they hit "rock bottom". It's hard to predict which coin will become a big hit when there are many of them with unique features and number of services supporting them. And I honestly don't think SOL will rise from the dead even with an FTX comeback. I'd invest the $600 into BTC and ETH alone for complete peace of mind. No one can predict the future, so let's hope for the best. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
My impression is that a place where you can more or less live with Bitcoin alone is basically experimental, at least for now. I think an economy that is solely revolving around Bitcoin remains imaginary. At this point in time, Bitcoin's level of adoption is not yet ripe for it.
I went to what is called the Bitcoin island here in my country. Indeed, you can pay your food, drinks, hotel, tattoo, and others with Bitcoin. However, just as probably true in El Salvador, Bitcoin remains an alternative to fiat.
There's a reason why despite Bukele's strong support for Bitcoin, he simply can't replace the USD with it. The best that he could do is to declare Bitcoin as another legal tender, alongside the USD.
I think the main issue is Bitcoin's price volatility. If it wasn't because of that, governments would've ditched Fiat already. Yet again, they'll be losing power/control over people's financial life. Given the circumstances, BTC will remain an alternative to Fiat forever. At least, we won't be left "empty handed". As long as it's possible to spend BTC for food somewhere, nothing else matters. With Bitcoin's ever-rising popularity, I'm pretty sure there will be more merchants and/or businesses accepting it in the future. Who knows if they will use the Lightning Network for cheap and near-instant BTC payments? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Op if not that Miners are getting their percentage from the TX fee I would have said let the transaction should be free like the Fiat Bank. Though Fiat Banks deduct very small amount of fees in every months. Because time is coming that people will be doing transaction with bitcoin every day and each transaction you must pay tx fee which is not really good for the buying and selling of goods and services with bitcoin but it has come to stay so let the tx fee should be very low even in the future. We all see and experienced what happened in the hike of fee in the bitcoin transaction in this year and everyone was complaining. So I prefer the low fee at all time.
Miners will be living well once a satoshi reaches parity with the US Dollar. But average users like you and me will ultimately pay the price as the cost of on-chain TX fees will be too high to bear. I think developers will come up with a solution before this happens. Something like "Fractional Satoshis" would do the trick. We're talking about decades, if not centuries, before BTC goes to the predicted price of $100m per coin (which translates to $1 per satoshi). Never underestimate the power of Bitcoin. With world inflation on the rise, anything's possible. Who knows if the world adopts the "Bitcoin Standard" soon? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
What are you going to do? Save the fiat and spend the Bitcoin? It doesn't make sense. The only way it would make sense is if you get all or most of your income in Bitcoin, to avoid converting to fiat so you can spend but not even 1% of people are in that situation.
That would be the dream. Getting paid in BTC instead of Fiat. But I guess we're "lightyears" away before seeing this become a reality. Governments simply won't abandon Fiat in favor of Bitcoin. If there's only one place where you can buy almost anything with BTC, that would be El Salvador. That's assuming every business and/or merchant accepts the cryptocurrency there. It would be nice to visit El Salvador just to live the dream of living only on Bitcoin. You will get the freedom you deserve without worrying about inflation, or bad decisions from both the central bank and the government. Who knows if future generations will be able to buy food with BTC at a supermarket or restaurant anywhere in the world? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
The bull we will experience in the near future can change many things. For example, there may be states that lead the way for crypto to develop more easily. These states can also change many things in the market.
I think there will be positive innovations in the crypto field. People, companies or governments interested in crypto are questioning the decisions taken by the SEC. I don't think it's right for an institution to affect the crypto world so much. This effect will decrease day by day. I think a lot of different playmakers will emerge with the bull run.
For US citizens, I think things will get even more difficult in terms of crypto. Of course, we do not know what the SEC's moves are aimed at. Because the SEC complicates things. Bitcoin will always go its own way.
I'd certainly like to see the SEC come to its senses by embracing the revolution with open arms. Not destroy it with senseless regulations. The only way all of this mess can be fixed is if SEC Chairman Gary Gensler is removed from office. US Congress has the power to do this. If they don't remove him now, he might be removed after the 2024 elections. That's if people elect a new administration (most definiely a Republican administration). One thing for sure is that Coinbase won't give up without a good fight. Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit turns out to be, we can't deny crypto will here to stay thanks to its decentralized and censorship-resistant design. Who knows which other countries will take advantage of the crypto revolution? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Based on the related article's wording, which is, decentralized finance protocols, I doubt it will only be on the frontend level. Protocol-level implementation means the identity verification system is a gatekeeper that is inherently developed within the smart contract. Although, I did not know whether it is possible, to implement such kind of case, user/IP detection, identity submission, etc. on the protocol, in one way or another, it would simply become a centralized product just like regular services/platform. But that supposes it is truly on the protocol level. Back to the main assumption, I tried to read the bill, but have no luck accessing the file: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2355. I think developers might use something called "Oracles" to obtain personally-identifiable information and transfer the data to smart contracts. It's complex, but not impossible to achieve. That's if we're talking about adding KYC at the protocol level. But doing this will greatly defeat crypto/Blockchain tech's original purpose which is to eliminate the middleman for good. Bitcoin was created on the basis of decentralization in an era where centralized financial institutions (banks) were about to collapse. We should not repeat the same failures of banks by making the whole system centralized. If "De-Fi" complies with KYC/AML, then it wouldn't be decentralized anymore. Hopefully, the US government will understand as it finds no viable way to properly regulate the industry. With greater flexibility in crypto regulations, the industry could grow without limitations. Who knows what the future holds for "De-Fi"? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's price is directly correlated to the public's opinion towards it. Right now it sits at neutral which is why there's no significant price movement. To make it fall into a dollar per bitcoin, we might need to sway 99% of the userbase to stop using bitcoin altogether, which is not going to happen lol unless an asteroid hits the planet with a hallucinogenic virus that makes people hate bitcoin and everything that's tier 2 technology. And even then I say we'll never reach that stupendously low. Banning bitcoin in entire continents will not work as well, people will use it behind the government's back just as what some of our Chinese brothers are doing nowadays. Bitcoin could stoop low especially during bear market but considering the fact that even during massive crashes it never fell from its 20k price point, there's no way it's going to fall to as low as 1 dollar as well.
There's nothing the government or anyone else can do to put negative pressure on BTC's market price until it goes all the way down to $1. It's technically impossible. The cryptocurrency is deep into the mainstream, where many people (especially companies and the wealthy) own a "piece of the pie". Demand is at its highest, even with the global economic downturn since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. For BTC to lose its value overnight, something catastrophic must happen. Something like WW3 (full-scale nuclear war), or a full blanket ban from all of the countries in the world could make Bitcoin worthless in an instant. But the odds of this happening anytime soon are very slim. We're talking about decades, if not centuries before this happens (if it ever does). There's only one way BTC can go. And that's all the way to the moon. Who knows how lucky we'll be once BTC hits the $1m milestone? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
There's some truth to this -- most (probably 99.9%) of all NFTs will trend to zero. However, there's a few brands and types of NFTs that appeal to genuine collectors (not just speculators or flippers). They are people who view these NFTs as collectibles, stuff they want to own for a long time. Now the vast majority of NFTs don't fit this category, but a lot of the ones that do are valued for being part of NFT history. They were made at a time before it was fashionable to do so, out of pure artistry or experimentation, and a lot of early NFT creators had no idea whether or not there would every be any profitability involved in their endeavor. Nowadays a lot of NFTs are pure cashgrabs and yes, those are the ones that will go to zero first, because they have zero appeal to actual collectors. One would hope NFTs become more useful than speculative in the long run. With upcoming scalability upgrades on ETH, I'm certain the industry will mature at a very fast pace. Big names like Pringles, Coca-Cola, and even Mattel are getting into the NFT craze. These companies mean business. We may see a future where physical art, collectibles, and even certications/achievements/diplomas will all transition to the Blockchain. You combine NFTs and SBTs (Soulbound tokens) and the possibilities are endless. This will truly enable a digital era in the long term. I'd say the NFT hype isn't over yet, but it's starting to fade away at a slow and steady pace. If you're smart, you'd take advantage of cheap market prices to snag prominent NFTs before they "explode". Who knows if we'll see more people getting rich out of NFTs over time? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
These regulations work completely against the logic of De-Fi, it has no meaning. Defi's completely transform into Cefi. I believe there should be different regulations besides KYC but KYC/AML rules should be invalid for Defi protocols so people can trade easily. A balance between market centralized and decentralized is essential. I don't think much will come of these suggestions.
What could happen is a mass exodus of developers from the US to other crypto-friendly countries. The government can't stop the revolution no matter how hard it tries. Trying to stop "De-Fi" is like trying to stop people from using the Internet. Adding KYC to a "De-Fi" platform is simply not an option because that would make it centralized. This will introduce the "single points of failure" crypto was meant to avoid in the first place. Either the government doesn't understand how crypto truly works, or it's doing this intentionally to scare away as much people from crypto as possible. We'll see how "De-Fi" developers will respond when regulations come into place. I'm certain governments' efforts will turn into a huge failure. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
It happened on the 2nd of August. I just looked at Coingecko if there's any effect on it's price, but it seems like there wasn't any at all, and in fact it continues to decline like what other coins are doing right now. It seems like in terms of news that's related to halving, only Bitcoin has an effect on it's price. Ohhh wait, Bitcoin's price a few days after the halving have little to no effect as well, and we will only see an increase price a few months after. Is there a chance that it might happen to Litecoin as well? Maybe there will be some investors who will think of the same with Bitcoin thus, they might buy Litecoin a few months after the halving. I know that the popularity of Litecoin has declined significantly because of the lack of developments on the project, but I think it's still one of the best coins out there, and it has been in the top for a very long time though it's ranking in Coingecko, and Coinmarketcap is going down. Overall, I see Litecoin still as a good project, and still hoping for some developments towards the project, but even though I'm still a bit optimistic about the project, I will not hold any of it for mid to long term. Anyway, price of Litecoin will increase in the bull run like what other coins are doing, so maybe it's a good coin to hold, and sell during the bull run.  As I've said before, there's isn't enough momentum to keep LTC's market prices afloat for a long time. The halving hype was short-lived because LTC's lack of development and innovation. It may have added the "Mimblewimble" privacy technique to distinguish itself from Bitcoin, but that's simply not enough to attract serious investors into it. Maybe adding a smart contracts sidechain will help? At least, not all hope is lost. LTC has a lot of trading pairs, compared to newly-fond cryptocurrencies on the market. Not only that, but the Blockchain network is alive and healthy as ever. That's a sign LTC won't be going anywhere soon. Who knows if it outlives many of the altcoins we know and love today? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
