As far as I can see, most of offers for crypto on prominent sites (cryptojobslist, crypto. jobs, cryptocurrencyjobs, blockew, angel. co and many others) mostly focus on tech specialists: developers, moderators, etc. Such specialists are a core need for any crypto project, and much less offers are dedicated to, say, public communications, marketing, but even less on legal advise and monitoring. The latter seems to be understandable, since many crypto exchanges prefer not to work with fiat and be as little regulated as possible, or even decentralized at all. However, the seeming relative lack of demand is a bit confusing.

Some work seems to be outsourced on freelancers. Maybe such specialists are hired through personal contacts mostly. It also seems that several programs / products offered by AML/KYC services providers are generally getting the job done. Also, as far as I can see, there are several courses on crypto for AML specialists, which makes you think if they can offer some advise for crypto projects. However, I would not be surprised if those offer only general info on cryptocurrency and some specifics fit for more traditional financial institutions... you never know.

Which brings up the question: is hiring an AML specialist on permanent basis even a thing among centralized exchanges?

Maybe, there are some people out there who work with regulated crypto exchanges, who face the same problem. What would you recommend?

Disclaimer: this is not a job offer (not yet at least), just asking about your experience, which solutions / sites / services proved best for you.

[The NSA published SHA-256 in 2001. So non-CIA coders could have taken it up and used it to make Bitcoin. But after Crypto AG, it does make one wonder if there’s some kind of back door into SHA-256]

Hi, fellow enthusiasts. Ran into this op-ed today, and I found it pretty interesting.

https://cryptopotato.com/the-cia-secretly-owned-crypto-ag-did-they-secretly-create-bitcoin-opinion/

I did see the OP earlier, although I didn't read WaPo article in details because it looks to be demanding paid subscription from everyone now & no way am I paying for this establishment propaganda mouthpiece with rare sparks of good content (he-he)  . However, the main revelation is clear: Crypto AG was secretly owned by CIA & sold equipment to various state actors (who were naive enough to fall for it), keeping lags allowing US & German govts to spy on the supposedly encrypted communications. * imagine our collective shock *   

(Here is some other article on topic; not like Guardian is pure & bright, but at least not paywalled. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/11/crypto-ag-cia-bnd-germany-intelligence-report).

Of course, encryption is pretty broad topic in general. Moreover, lots of tech products were developed or backed by intelligence (look no further than Tor, damn, even Internet in its initial form was an US intelligence product!). However, it's neither unrealistic nor surprising at this point to assume that if intelligence gives out smth to the world, it's not done out of generosity; or that intelligence offices are forwarding the technology to use in their respective states' geopolitical purposes & are okay with the fact this tech might be used against them in the future. Therefore, the math is above "all that", the product must be safe and no way any breaches are left for intl to at least try to control it. (If Edward Snowden's revelations in particular are any indicator).

Here are some particular highlights of the aforementioned op-ed that grabbed my attention (sorry if I'm unwillingly repeating some gospel):

Bitcoin is based on technology created by the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA’s Secure Hashing Algorithm 256 (SHA-256) is a lynchpin of Bitcoin Core, the software that turns a computer into a Bitcoin node. SHA-256 is a one-way hashing function that compresses and encrypts a string of any length into a unique 256-bit signature or hash. The original string cannot be determined from the hash. And it’s impossible to guess what SHA-256’s output will be for any given input. So it’s functionally random. You can enter Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address into it and get one hash, then change a single letter and enter it again and get an entirely different hash.

None of this proves the CIA created Bitcoin. The NSA published SHA-256 in 2001. So non-CIA coders could have taken it up and used it to make Bitcoin. But after Crypto AG, it does make one wonder if there’s some kind of back door into SHA-256. Perhaps more incriminating is the meaning of the name Satoshi Nakamoto in Japanese. Nakamoto actually means “Central” or “Middle.” Satoshi means “Enlightened,” “Wise,” or “Intelligent.” These are facts. Satoshi Nakamoto means Central Intelligence. That could be a joke by its non-CIA creators, or it could be the CIA’s calling card.

_{(can anyone who speaks Japanese confirm please?.. Because... if so, it's one of the greatest levels of unabashed bait/open trolling I saw)}

What do you think?

And, if the assumption is legit, what would be the purpose?

p.s. I am not sure if this thread fits in Economic/Speculations thread, although economic consequences of cryptocurrency projects being state-backed from the start, are pretty broad to even imagine - still, it's rather vague subject. I don't think it fits into "Politics" or "News" section either. If anything, mods, feel free to move this thread to another section.

Recent logarithmic analysis by analyst Benjamin Cowen suggests that, by 2023, the capitalization of the cryptocurrency market could exceed $11 trillion.

This is "medium case" scenario, while "extreme case" scenario offers the total capitalization of $32 trillion, with prices boost up to 150 times. While Bitcoin exchange rate at this scenario is at ~ $141K for 1 BTC, its total market share will drop to 23%, leaving space for "altcoin bubble" (which is plausible in both scenarios).

The analysis is performed based on weekly data on the price movements of Bitcoin and altcoins.

Source: https://icolink.com/ico-news/benjamin-cowen-predicts-a-cryptocurrency-bubble.html

What do you think? Will altcoins be the future of the cryptocurrency market, or is it too distant and insignificant future to consider? Is the market too volatile for any sort of longterm predictions, or does it sound plausible to take into account such researches while investing?