FreeCryptoCurrency.Me

Free stocks and money too!

Author: samwsimpson_lyjt8578

Kill the BitLicense

On Monday, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James announced an order that two crypto lending platforms unregistered with the state cease operations in the state. The companies – their names redacted in a letter published by the James’ office – were ordered to cease all business activities in the state within 10 days.

The announcement calls attention to an austere regulatory framework that has made New York one of the most crypto-hostile states in the nation.

Alex Adelman is CEO and Aubrey Strobel is director of communications of New York-based bitcoin rewards app Lolli. This op-ed is part of CoinDesk’s Policy Week, a forum for discussing how regulators are reckoning with crypto (and vice versa).

As crypto becomes an increasingly profitable and innovative sector, disrupting industries from payments to the arts, states across the U.S. like Wyoming and Florida have moved to entice crypto companies to their borders. Meanwhile, New York, generally regarded as the financial capital of the world, has clung to regulations that make it immensely difficult for crypto companies, especially smaller startups, to operate in the state.

The state has doubled down on a regulatory framework that stifles innovation and prevents crypto startups from growing their operations in one of the world’s premium financial hubs. While New York City has become a buzzing center for the crypto community, the state’s regulatory framework is lethal for most crypto startups.

The pillar of New York’s regulatory approach to crypto is its BitLicense. New York’s BitLicense applies to a wide range of crypto organizations, including those transmitting crypto, buying and selling cryptocurrency as a customer business, providing exchange services to customers and issuing cryptocurrency. The license has staved off grassroots innovation in the city by ensuring that only companies with abundant disposable capital can shoulder its notoriously time and capital-intensive application and compliance measures.

The BitLicense negatively affects both companies and consumers in New York. New York state residents have dramatically limited trading options in crypto. They can only buy and sell coins from money transmitters registered in the state – of the hundreds of organizations offering services in the sector, only 20 have been issued BitLicenses in the last six years. No other state similarly curtails consumer trading options in crypto.

The stated purpose of the BitLicense upon its approval in 2015 by the state’s Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) was to protect consumers and guard against illicit activities like money laundering. However, the BitLicense has gone well beyond ensnaring ne’er-do-wells in crypto. By pouring pesticide on the industry, the BitLicense also zaps new shoots, indiscriminately stemming life in the sector such that only giants such as Square and Coinbase, both of which hold BitLicenses, can survive.

BitLicense holders and applicants have reported that the time allocation, legal fees and other costs drive the total cost of pursuing a BitLicense to more than $100,000, surpassing the means of most early stage startups. These include a 30-page application, $5,000 application fee, thousands of man-hours and the presentation of accounting and records from the last seven years. Of the 20 companies that have been issued BitLicenses, most are multi-billion dollar firms.

Notably, companies applying for a BitLicense are already beholden to both the stringent regulatory oversight and reporting requirements of federal agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the IRS and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The BitLicense is a failed experiment

In 2015, the NYDFS proudly assured the public that other states would soon follow suit in emulating New York’s regulatory standards. Yet, in the six years since, no other state has issued requirements nearly as severe or extensive as those of the BitLicense.

The BitLicense is a failed experiment, widely criticized for crippling New York’s capacity to participate in the crypto sector’s boom and giving rise to more stalemates than solutions.

In 2020, the state revamped some of the license requirements, making it easier for some companies to receive conditional licenses. However, the most arduous parts of the application and adherence processes were largely left untouched.

The crypto industry is still in its relative youth and will undoubtedly experience tremendous growth in the years to come. As crypto continues to be at the nexus of innovation and profit in tech, states hostile to crypto like New York will lose out on revenue, talent and an opportunity to lead the way in effective, innovation-friendly regulatory frameworks.

The BitLicense’s roadblock to growth also places a firm ceiling on the potential of New York’s regional and local economies to grow in the coming years, as economic and technological trends drive us toward a future where information is increasingly decentralized and dependent on blockchain technology for the most secure digital infrastructure. New York’s BitLicense makes it probable that these products and companies, when they are built, will be built elsewhere.

Why, then, does New York continue its commitment to the BitLicense? It certainly helps that the primary source of NYDFS funding comes from institutional banks. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchanges threaten to disrupt the hegemony of the traditional banking system; therefore, one can easily see why the department would beat back companies disrupting traditional finance.

Beyond that, clinging to the BitLicense is irrational. The license is a relic, representing the NYDFS’ failed hopes that it would serve as a model for other states with its “regulation by strangulation” approach.

See also: DeFi Is Like Nothing Regulators Have Seen Before. How Should They Tackle It?

It’s not too late for New York to wise up. New York City is in a position to become a global leader in crypto by implementing smart regulation that gives companies room and resources to grow. Despite the arcane policies of the BitLicense, the city is home to a vibrant crypto scene powered by constant professional and social events.

The rise of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and a booming market for cryptocurrencies have brought together artists, entrepreneurs and financiers in the city to create never-before-seen kinds of products using blockchain technology. The growth of the sector needs to be cultivated thoughtfully, with policies aimed at helping well-intentioned startups already struggling in a competitive industry to grow – the BitLicense isn’t helping.

As other cities and states vie to become the crypto capitals of the world, New York could easily capture this flag, but only if it acts to cultivate innovation rather than destroy it. It’s time for New York to end the BitLicense before it’s too late.

More from Policy Week

David Z. Morris: DeFi Is Like Nothing Regulators Have Seen Before. How Should They Tackle It?

Stablecoins Not CBDCs: An interview with Rep. Tom Emmer

Crypto Learns to Play DC’s Influence Game

Kristin Smith: Crypto Is Too Big for Partisan Politics

Lyn Ulbricht: Put America’s Geeks to Work, Don’t Cage Them

Preston J. Byrne: Decentralization’s Challenge to Policymakers Is Coming

Dan Kuhn: The CFTC Was Proved Right on Bitcoin Futures. What’s Next for the Agency?

Go to Source
Author: Alex Adelman, Aubrey Strobel

Senate Banking Committee Democrats call on Facebook to stop launch of Diem and Novi

In an October 19 letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg, five democratic senators, including Banking Committee leadership, called for the shutdown of Diem and Novi.

Diem is a stablecoin project that has been on the rocks for years. Novi, a crypto wallet originally intended to hold Diem, just this morning announced that it will use Paxos’ stablecoin for its inaugural pilot.

In response, the signatories to the letter wrote: “We urge you to immediately discontinue your Novi pilot and to commit that you will not bring Diem to market.”

Today’s letter comes from the office of Senator Brian Schatz and features the support of Elizabeth Warren, Tina Smith, Richard Blumenthal, and Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown. 

The senators specifically note that Facebook Financial’s leader, David Marcus, had said the firm was not going to launch “without the proper regulatory framework.” A framework for stablecoins, the senators say, is the subject of an ongoing discussion among financial regulators

It’s a discussion that has displeased Brown’s republican counterpart on the Banking Committee, Pat Toomey, who criticized the Treasury Department for lack of transparency in its work on stablecoins. 

Today’s action resembles the call for a moratorium on Libra that came from House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters back in 2019. That call set off a series of congressional hearings that ultimately stopped the project in its tracks.

© 2021 The Block Crypto, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Go to Source
Author: Kollen Post

For $200, You Can Trade Crypto With a Fake ID

For law-abiding cryptocurrency users, getting verified to trade on an exchange is a painstaking process. They must give out a wealth of personal data, including their home addresses, scans of government-issued ID, and photo or video selfies.

For criminals, it’s easier. They can pay as little as $150 on the black market for a ready-to-use, verified account in someone else’s name at Coinbase Pro, Binance.US, Kraken or numerous other exchanges, a CoinDesk investigation found.

To be clear: “verified” in this context does not mean legitimate. Underground vendors create these accounts with other people’s identities or under made-up names, tricking the exchanges into verifying them as valid users. They then advertise these verified accounts for sale on internet forums and on Telegram.

Besides crypto exchanges, the vendors also offer fraudulently created accounts for use with mainstream payment providers such as Square’s Cash App and Transferwise.

“We are producing from 1,500 to 2,000 synthetic verified accounts each month,” an operator of one such service told CoinDesk in an interview via the Telegram messaging app.

This service has multiple employees and even “departments” within the business, said the person, who refused to give a name. And it has no shortage of competitors, CoinDesk’s investigation found.

Screenshot of post advertising accounts for sale on restricted paid forum Ver.sc

A CoinDesk reporter reviewed a sample of crypto and payment accounts that had been purchased from several black-market vendors. The exercise revealed these vendors are, in many cases, trafficking in sensitive information about people who likely have no idea their names are on the accounts.

It also showed how people who, for whatever reason, don’t want to expose their real identities or fear they wouldn’t be approved for an account can skirt the industry’s customer-vetting processes – at least, up to a point.

While it’s difficult to gauge the size of this market – criminals don’t typically publicize their revenue, after all – it appears to be flourishing.

“We’ve observed a staggering amount of threat actors advertising and brokering fraudulent accounts for both crypto exchanges and payment services,” said Andrew Gunn, senior threat intelligence analyst at ZeroFox, a cybersecurity firm based in Baltimore.

Over the past 12 months, ZeroFox found over one million posts on forums and Telegram messaging-app groups advertising accounts for sale, Gunn said.

The fact that you can buy a fake digital identity for around $200 raises fresh questions about the effectiveness of “know your customer” (KYC) policies implemented by crypto businesses around the world. While everyday users often have to submit the same information multiple times for reverification and wait for weeks or months to withdraw their money (even Martha Stewart reportedly waited two weeks to get verified), bad actors can sneak in easily.

In plain sight

Black markets thrive both on the so-called dark web, which is accessible through the anonymizing Tor browser, and on the clear web or surface web – the part of the internet most of us browse every day.

Here, in plain sight, are live forums populated by professional hackers, scammers of all sorts and sellers of illegal goods. To name some, Russian-speaking forums such as Ver.sc (short for “Verified”) and CCCC.sb are focused on illegal identity-related services such as “carding” (trafficking in stolen or counterfeit credit card numbers).

On these platforms, one can easily find for sale accounts for use on a diverse range of crypto exchanges and payment services, from peer-to-peer trading platform Localbitcoins to professional trading venue Coinbase Pro to mainstream payment services CashApp, Transferwise and Revolut.

Prices, ranging from $150 to $500, are disclosed to a prospective buyer in a personal chat or posted on a price list like the one on this web page. To buy an account, one needs to get in touch with a vendor (often via Telegram), pay in crypto (usually bitcoin) and get the requested account data.

Sometimes the accounts originally were registered by legitimate customers and have been hijacked by hackers. (For a buyer of such an account, there is always the risk that its actual owner will notice something weird is going on and flag it to the platform administrator.) Sometimes vendors create accounts from scratch using stolen or fake data. Sometimes users register accounts in their own names and then turn them over to vendors to sell.

According to posts on the forums and conversations with some of the vendors, they go through the exchanges’ verification process to open accounts, and control the accounts until they are sold. People whose information is used for registering with the services might not even know the accounts exist.

On the same forums where some vendors offer these fraudulent accounts, others look to hire “drops,” or individuals willing to lend their identities for account registration. Meanwhile, people willing to fill this role search for “job postings.” There are also multiple offerings of counterfeit IDs.

Lend me your face

The job of a drop is well explained by a recent dialogue on the CCCC.sb forum (the posts are translated from Russian).

“Looking for a job as a money launderer. Send offers to my DM,” one user wrote in July.

“Of a drop,” corrected another user in a reply before describing the role: “Only your face is needed. To pass video verification via WhatsApp. From 1,500 to 2,000 rubles [$20-$28] for a pass, you can do several passes a day.”

“The task is to pass verification on an exchange in real time. You can use your passport/driver’s license/foreign passport. Also gonna need to take a selfie. You get 500 rubles [around $7], after the successful verification,” says another post on the Bhf.im forum, adding that a “job seeker” will just need to give a full name and date of birth and then click on a link. The poster used a photo of the rapper Lil’ Pump as their profile picture.

More often, vendors do not advertise exact prices for such services in the postings but convey them one-on-one via chat.

Some vendors act as middlemen, offering to connect users with drops, much as a ridesharing app matches passengers with drivers. One ad boasts that the drops are available to work at any time.

But sometimes you don’t even need anyone’s real personal data to verify an account, the vendor who spoke to ConDesk said: You can make things up.

“It’s a vulnerability KYC systems have. If you know how to generate [synthetic] data, you use it. KYC systems are not a customs checkpoint with a shared database and verified information about any potential user,” they said.

The ‘fullz’

Buyers can buy accounts registered under whatever names vendors have in hand or order custom accounts based on personal data (“fullz”) they themselves, by whatever means, have obtained.

Some vendors promise they will do all the necessary research on the real people whose data is being used, including credit and background checks.

If nothing works, they stand ready to search for people with the same names, even when a person whose name is being used is older than 90, vendors say in advertising posts.

A post advertising accounts for sale on a public Telegram channel

“Working with us means we’ll do our best to verify accounts: selecting a model of suitable age, searching for namesakes and trying to achieve results,” one vendor wrote in a Telegram post illustrated with a cheeky meme.

A post advertising accounts for sale on a public Telegram channel

In another post, the vendor describes software that allows the creation of fake selfies, including video.

“We do live selfies. 3D biometric is possible for us. take photos with id cards. print any docs. we can be anyone you need,” the same vendor advertised on the paid forum Ver.sc.

Some of these vendors just post from time to time that they have a good account for sale or are looking to buy some. Others run regular shops, with dedicated teams and customer support done via Telegram. Their posts are followed by testimonials from satisfied customers.

The sample

CoinDesk reviewed a sample of accounts at exchanges Binance.US, Coinbase Pro and Kraken and payment services Cash App and Wirex that were available for purchase on the black market. The accounts had been put up for sale by several different vendors. The prices of these accounts ranged from $170 to $250, all paid in bitcoin.

Along with login credentials, these accounts came with private data of the purported account owners, all of whom appeared to be genuine U.S. or European Union residents. The data included dates of birth, street addresses and, in the case of the U.S. residents, Social Security numbers.

Most of the accounts came with instructions for using a virtual private network (VPN) to disguise an IP address so an exchange would think a user was logging in from, say, Miami instead of Moscow. In some cases, vendors included credentials for a Gmail account (with Google Voice phone number), presumably for multi-factor authentication (MFA) when logging into the financial service – and a recovery email address in case Google asks for verification, too.

After reviewing the accounts, CoinDesk contacted the crypto exchanges and payment services to check their authenticity. None of the companies would say whether the accounts were genuine, explaining they can’t comment on individual accounts.

Binance.US sent CoinDesk an email signed by “Binance U.S. PR,” saying the company “believes this to be a fake account.” The exchange did not respond to a follow-up question asking whether by “fake” the representative meant it was nonexistent or fraudulently created.

CoinDesk searched online databases such as Spokeo, SearchPeopleFree and ClustrMaps and found four people whose names, years of birth and cities matched those on the black-market accounts. Two of those people had matching street addresses as well.

Attempts to contact these and other individuals whose names were on the reviewed accounts by phone, email and social media were unsuccessful, and CoinDesk has mailed them letters to alert them their data is potentially being abused.

We also called the phone numbers used to register the accounts – all of them except one turned out to be Google Voice numbers, meaning they are virtual numbers generated by Google. Users can register virtual phone numbers without getting contracts with a mobile provider. This has made Google Voice numbers a handy tool for scammers.

The email addresses associated with the accounts did not match the names under which the accounts were registered, and instead contained random-seeming combinations of names and numbers.

Made to order

“It’s quite hard to evaluate the total volume of this market, as we are probably the only public example of such a business with departments and streamlined processes,” the vendor who spoke to CoinDesk said.

“Our colleagues who are running similar businesses are either running very small enterprises or selling accounts of real people, who are either going through some hard times or have been deceived,” they added.

But ZeroFox’s Gunn said the market for these accounts for sale is vast, with some Telegram channels counting thousands of members.

“The sheer amount of threat actors specializing in this has even driven prices down to very reasonable levels (anywhere from $50 to $300 per account, depending on the exchange or service in question),” Gunn said.

While Gunn’s research focuses on Eastern Europe, he said stolen, hacked or artificially created accounts at payment services or crypto exchanges are sold all over the world and advertised in multiple languages.

In addition to ready-to-use accounts, the black-market vendors offer “on-demand, almost a la carte services, based on customer needs,” Gunn said.

They can help their “clients” register fraudulent accounts by selling compromised personal data or “offering support during any step of the verification process,” including digital rendering of faces to pass photo and video verification, which major crypto exchanges often require.

A post advertising accounts for sale on a Telegram group (Courtesy of ZeroFox)

‘Go here, click this’

ZeroFox identified at least one case when a group was hiring individuals on a freelance job platform to do account creation and verification, and then hand those accounts over, for as little as $5-$10 for each pass, Gunn said. The group was giving precise instructions to the people willing to do the job: “go here, click this, use this ID,” Gunn said.

Further investigation showed the group managed to create and sell “thousands of verified accounts” on a single platform, he said. Gunn would not name that platform.

Getting fraudulent accounts is a slam dunk for criminal groups, Gunn said. “These accounts are very easy to come by, relatively cheap and disposable, so in the criminal underground it’s very trivial to buy as many as you want. And if you lose one account you just buy another one,” he said.

For services, finding and shutting down fraudulent accounts can get extremely tricky, Gunn said.

“Some of these accounts are dormant until money moves through them, and if a real person verified them how would they know?” he said. “Security measures [implemented by the platforms] are pretty good, but there is always a way around.”

It’s unclear how long such accounts remain operational until a service notices something suspicious and shuts them down. The lifespan of an account depends on the way it’s being used, the black-market vendor told CoinDesk.

“We are providing an account that essentially looks no different from the one you or your friend would register. They are fully compliant with the KYC requirements, except they are fully synthetic,” the person said, adding that users’ own reckless behavior, rather than the quality of the account, can trigger exchanges’ fraud alerts.

Gunn agreed that it’s possible for the buyer of a synthetic account to fly under the radar. “If they took precautions to blend in with normal behavior (not exceeding transaction amounts, etc.), leveraged residential proxies matching the information and geolocation of the victim, to name a couple of items, the accounts might last indefinitely,” he said.

The trade in crypto exchange accounts is just a subset of a larger global black ID market. According to a 2020 report by the cybersecurity firm Digital Shadows, there are more than 15 billion credentials in the world for sale, and the most valuable are “bank and other financial accounts,” which sell for $70.91 each, on average. This is dwarfed only by the prices of domain administrator access to corporate systems, where the price tag can go up to $140,000, Digital Shadows said.

Apparently, illegal access to cryptocurrency services is valued somewhere in the middle, with some accounts sold for as high as $500 each.

Countermeasures

Some platforms CoinDesk contacted confirmed they were aware of the black market for their accounts.

“We have team members dedicated to monitoring the dark web for accounts stolen through malware or phishing, as well as ‘mule accounts,’ which are put up for sale as fronts for criminals to launder funds,” a spokesperson for Kraken told CoinDesk via email. “Depending on the situation, we can either restore the account back to the rightful owner or disable it with immediate effect and take appropriate action as necessary.”

At Coinbase, a threat intelligence team “monitors darknet markets and other cybercriminal forums,” the Nasdaq-listed exchange’s head of communications, Jaclyn Sales, told CoinDesk.

“Like any other financial institution, Coinbase implements measures to protect accounts from fraudulent actors. For security reasons we do not disclose specifics of those measures, as we do not want to provide fraudsters with information that could be used to bypass those controls.”

Binance.US’s press representative told CoinDesk via email that the company is closely watching how users are logging into their accounts each time they use them.

“Our risk management system collects a wide array of signals during account opening, subsequent logins and during each account interaction, and we monitor these signals to identify potentially high-risk accounts or related activity and prevent malicious behavior,” the spokesperson told CoinDesk.

A CashApp spokesperson said the company is also monitoring users’ behavior to detect potential fraud.”In addition to our standard customer information and verification programs, we use various behavioral signals, information provided by our customers and various vendors, as well as transactional patterns to analyze and detect when accounts may be suspicious for various bad activity, including fraud and identity theft,” the company said in a written statement to CoinDesk.

Gunn’s firm ZeroFox is helping payment app company Wirex to “track and take down impersonations of Wirex, and those malicious actors claiming to sell Wirex accounts on the dark web,” Wirex Communications Manager Lottie Wells told CoinDesk via email.

The offerings, according to her, are abundant.

“Between the beginning of June and [September], we have monitored nearly 400,000 links, accounts and posts, we identified and remediated (blocked, took down, deleted, etc.) over 1,500 pieces of content. In fact, 32% of this was specifically from the dark web,” Wells said.

To prevent fraud, Wirex employs “a range of compliance, tech and security measures,” depending “on the risk profile of a user, the nature of transactions and our third-party partners who support us on evaluating external conditions,” Wells said.

“We also work closely with regulators to mitigate account takeover risks, and report them where necessary,” she added. “Any customer accounts that may be compromised are quickly blocked and protected, while our customer support team works with our customers to protect their accounts.”

CoinDesk also asked cryptocurrency exchange Huobi as well as payment services Transferwise and Revolut, for comment. All of them are mentioned in the ads posted by fraudulent-account vendors.

TransferWise spokesperson Chris Monteiro said that the company works with law enforcement “to help prevent further illegal activity” when it learns about “specific organized fraud cases.”

“For our customers, if they feel they have been a victim of fraud they should report it to the police immediately, and we encourage them to get in touch with us straight away,” Monteiro added.

Huobi declined to comment. Revolut did not respond by press time.

Bitter pill

The target audience for these accounts for sale are people involved in other criminal activities, Gunn said.

“Threat actors that are purchasing the created and verified accounts are leveraging them for whatever criminal activity they do, whether it’s a carding operation or selling malware or gift card scam,” he said. “This is one part of the process that helps them to stay anonymous rather than having crypto accounts on their names on those exchanges.”

The vendor who spoke to CoinDesk used more delicate language, saying users avail themselves of its services to avoid “taxation risks.”

As law enforcement agencies around the world adopt blockchain-sleuthing software, it makes even more sense for criminals to cover their tracks by buying and selling crypto through accounts registered in others’ names, Gunn said.

Sergey Mendeleev, founder of Estonia-registered crypto exchange Garantex and CEO of investment platform InDeFi, explained to CoinDesk how these “mule” accounts might be used to obscure the connection between crypto and its actual owner.

“If you buy monero for fiat, then withdraw it and then deposit via another account, you can sell it for bitcoin and get clean, exchange-originated bitcoin, not connected to the previous transactions. This scheme is quite popular, and there are tens of others,” Mendeleev said.

Another reason there is demand for synthetic accounts can be as simple as this: People living in countries sanctioned by the U.S. and EU or with prohibitive anti-crypto regulations can’t register under their real names on the major crypto exchanges.

Sergey Zhdanov, chief operating officer of London-registered crypto exchange EXMO, told CoinDesk his company has caught some users faking their KYC data. The users explained they were based in territories under international sanctions, so they wouldn’t be able to register with their real IDs, he said.

“Some users just honestly admitted that they were based in the DNR [Donetsk People’s Republic, a disputed area in southeastern Ukraine] or North Korea, so they bought their documents [to register]. We block such accounts,” Zhdanov said.

China, which has been aggressively pushing crypto out of the country, appears to be a new growth market for the bogus ID business. Dovey Wan, founder of the Primitive Ventures crypto fund, told CoinDesk the market for verified accounts for Chinese users is “vibrant.”

The vendors “advertise in Telegram groups as ‘KYC service,’” Wan said, adding that “you simply ask in the Telegram groups (mostly in Chinese ones) that ‘I want a KYC service’ [and] people will pop up.”

The vendor CoinDesk spoke to confirmed their service is becoming popular in China: “At the moment, we’re seeing interest in our services from Chinese people. No need to explain, I guess. 🙂 “

Marc Hochstein, Danny Nelson and Daniel Kuhn contributed reporting

Go to Source
Author: Anna Baydakova

Bitcoin’s price at $63,450 breaks April’s all-time high

The price of Bitcoin has reached a new all-time high according to data from TradingView. The cryptocurrency was changing hands around $63,450 at time of publication.

TradingView

The surge comes in the wake of the allowance of the first crypto exchange traded fund (ETF) in the U.S. The ProShares bitcoin futures ETF listed today. When it seemed ProShares was nearing the finish line, the price of bitcoin broke above the $60,0000 mark. That run also saw the global cryptocurrency market cap return to its all-time high of $2.6 trillion. 

Today’s bitcoin price eclipses previous highs seen in April of this year, when bitcoin traded around 62,400 on Coinbase. It first crossed the $60,000 mark in March of 2021.

 

© 2021 The Block Crypto, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Go to Source
Author: Aislinn Keely

Coinbase announces multiyear sponsorship deal with NBA, WNBA

Coinbase has entered into a multi-year partnership with the National Basketball Association (NBA) and Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) to serve as their exclusive cryptocurrency sponsor, the company announced Tuesday. 

Coinbase’s logo and branding will appear during televised games for the aforementioned leagues. It will be the leagues first crypto platform partnership. The exchange will also be a partner of the NBA G League, NBA 2k League, and USA Basketball. 

“The freedom to participate and benefit from the things you believe in is at the heart of Coinbase’s mission. Nobody believes this more than NBA and WNBA fans.  We’re proud to become the Leagues’ official cryptocurrency partner,” said Kate Rouch, chief marketing officer of Coinbase. “As part of the partnership, we will create interactive experiences to engage with the NBA and WNBA’s incredible community and athletes around the world.”

Crypto sport partnerships are becoming more common. FTX is a sponsor for Major League Baseball and owns the naming rights to the Miami Heat basketball team’s stadium. 

© 2021 The Block Crypto, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Go to Source
Author: Frank Chaparro

Coinbase and NBA Sign Partnership Deal

Coinbase and the National Basketball Association (NBA) are teaming up on a multi-year partnership, the publicly traded crypto exchange said Tuesday.

The deal extends to the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), NBA G League, NBA 2K League and USA Basketball.

“As part of the partnership, we will create interactive experiences to engage with the NBA and WNBA’s incredible community and athletes around the world,” Coinbase Chief Marketing Officer Kate Rouch said in a statement.

It’s another step into the crypto universe for the North American basketball league. A partnership deal with Dapper Labs on NBA Top Shot kicked off non-fungible token (NFT) mania earlier this year.

The NBA’s tie-up with Coinbase is reminiscent of Major League Baseball (MLB) inking a deal with crypto exchange FTX that went live in July.

A Coinbase spokesman said the exchange isn’t commenting beyond what’s in the release.

The news comes just a week after Coinbase announced the release of its own NFT marketplace, which currently has more than two million users on its waitlist.

Go to Source
Author: Zack Seward

Midwest Tungsten to accept bitcoin through OpenNode partnership

Good news for folks looking to swap coins for cubes.

Midwest Tungsten, the metals supplier that’s become an on-ramp to the tungsten market for the growing community of tungsten cube-crazed cryptocurrency enthusiasts, is planning to accept cryptocurrency, The Block has learned.

Last week, CoinDesk reported that Midwest Tungsten had seen prices for retail cube sales increase by 300% over the course of a week. At the time, the firm said it was considering accepting crypto. Now it says it will take bitcoin through a partnership with bitcoin payments processor OpenNode.

Tungsten — a typically cube-shaped metal known for its sleek look and density — has become a sort of meme commodity as of late, seeing a surge in interest particularly among crypto traders and other market participants, as Bloomberg recently pointed out. CMS Holdings and Castle Island’s Nic Carter are among the crypto market fixtures that have recently jumped on the tungsten bandwagon (although Carter claims to be a longtime advocate). 

“Crypto just has a propensity for the density,” CMS’ Dan Matuszewski told The Block, referring to the rally in interest. 

In Carter’s view, the craze could be a “passing fancy.” 

“But the cubes will be forever (tungsten is a  very chemically stable element).”

© 2021 The Block Crypto, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Go to Source
Author: Frank Chaparro

Bank of America Adds 23 More Firms to Its Crypto Research List

Bank of America has added 23 more stocks to its equities research coverage “that may see market value expansion due to digital asset exposure,” according to a research note dated Oct. 18.

BofA analysts flagged firms ranging from credit card companies to social media giants, revealing crypto’s growing reach into the world of Wall Street.

The additions are: Accenture, Advanced Micro Devices, American Express, Applied Materials, Avery Dennison, Facebook, FedEx, HDFC Bank, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, IBM, Infosys, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Mastercard, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Oracle, Procter & Gamble, Tesla, Taiwan Semiconductor, Twitter, Visa, Viacom and Workday.

Read more: Bank of America Launches Research for ‘Too Large to Ignore’ Digital Assets

The U.S. bank launched its digital asset research team on Oct. 4 with a report listing 20 companies, and said that its “research aims to explore the implications across industries including finance, technology, supply chains, social media and gaming.”

Its analysts reiterated in the latest report that with $2.5 trillion in market value and more than 200 million users the “digital asset universe is too large to ignore.”

Go to Source
Author: Will Canny

Gensler for a Day: How Rohan Grey Would Regulate Stablecoins

On paper, the concept of a “stablecoin” is relatively simple. Cryptocurrencies are notoriously volatile, and traders like being able to cash out quickly. Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies that allow for just that. Tied 1:1 to the price of a particular fiat currency (usually the U.S. dollar), they’re a way for traders to turn volatile crypto into highly liquid digital cash. The value of a dollar-pegged stablecoin is always just about a dollar – hence, “stable.”

At least in theory. A chorus of regulators, politicians and academics has been raising the alarm about the potential instability and risk stablecoins represent to the broader crypto market. Chief among those voices is Rohan Grey, an Australia-born, Columbia University-educated attorney who’s now an assistant professor at Willamette University College of Law.

This interview is part of a series called “Gensler for a Day,” where we ask industry leaders in a position to set or influence law about concrete policies they would implement. Check here for more “Policy Week” coverage.

Grey described the role of stablecoins in crypto trading with a metaphor that feels very “Scooby Doo”:

“It’s the slices of bread in between a 12-foot-high sandwich. You’ve got the sandwich, then the meat, then bread, then the meat, then the bread, then the meat. It’s the stuff in between every layer.”

In other words, stablecoins are infrastructure. The issue is that they’re virtually unregulated; most stablecoins claim to be “backed” by cash and cash equivalents, but there’s no requirement that they prove it. A two-year investigation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office found that the shadowy array of companies behind tether stablecoin issuer Tether, with a market capitalization of $69 billion – didn’t even have a bank for most of 2017. Just last week, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) determined Tether was only fully backed about 26% of the time between 2016 and 2018. Where was the money? And who’s running the show?

Late last year, Grey worked with U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on a bill called the STABLE Act – short for “Stablecoin Tethering and Bank Licensing Enforcement” – which proposed that stablecoin issuers be subject to greater regulatory scrutiny. To hear him tell it, the shady tactics of stablecoin issuers are a threat not just to crypto, but also to the traditional financial system.

Here’s my conversation with Grey, edited and condensed for clarity.

More from Policy Week: David Z. Morris: DeFi Is Like Nothing Regulators Have Seen Before. How Should They Tackle It?

So, the name of this series is “Gensler for a Day” – how would you approach Gensler’s role, specifically?

I would tell him to have a phone call with all of the banking regulators and tell them to do their jobs, because it shouldn’t be his job to fix the stablecoin industry.

I think the securities regulation framework is already losing a framework. If you start at that point, you’re at best getting a half loaf, or putting it within a framework that is not actually able to deal with the major problems of the industry, which is that it’s fueled by shadow money.

Say more about “shadow money.”

The industry relies on liquidity at the off-ramp/on-ramp margins. And that liquidity is being provided right now by shadow banking institutions like the stablecoin issuers. It’s that liquidity, and those stablecoin issuers that allow the rest of the market to work the way that it does.

But the reason that those stablecoin issuers are able to do that is they’re not being regulated like banks, which have quite strict requirements on the kinds of instruments and actors that they can engage with. So if you’re engaging with stuff that isn’t allowed, or is an unregistered security – or could be – or even just is a not particularly reputable industry, then banks will often say, “We don’t want to let you do business.”

Imagine if everybody had to put in all of their crypto trading through their bank account. Would the crypto market look the way that it does right now? No, because all of those actors would be held accountable as fiduciaries for facilitating that kind of activity.

How did we arrive at this point where Tether is doing $70 billion a day in volume and the companies behind it have never been audited?

Historically speaking, the SEC has done a pretty [awful] job of navigating the margins of the “Wild West” of securities regulation. But the banking industry, at least since the 1930s [when the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was established], has done a pretty good job of keeping most people’s money safe.

The biggest reason that stablecoins haven’t already been dealt with is because there has been a loophole – a kind of carveout at the center of banking law that has been a serious problem, and in part led to the rise of the money market fund industry and some of the problems with shadow banking in 2008.

The law defines the concept of deposits in a very circular fashion. It says, “No one can issue a deposit unless you’re a bank,” but then it defines a deposit as “that which is issued by a bank” rather than functionally. [Per Grey: Banks “issue” demand deposits when they “accept” currency from a depositor.] So you have actors that issue something that by all accounts looks like a deposit, and by all definitions is functionally a deposit. But because it isn’t issued by a bank, they say, “Oh, it can’t be a deposit.”

This happened with money market funds. When money market funds first rose to prominence in the 1970s, there was a debate at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and elsewhere about whether or not they should be considered depository institutions. And [the funds] lobbied extremely hard, and finance-friendly actors gave them an exemption. So they became this sort of parallel, separate category even though everybody was using their money market fund accounts as equivalent to a bank account.

Liquidity from the money market fund industry is the thing that’s still today driving a huge amount of the hedge fund industry. Because it would be very difficult to do all the [stuff] that they do if they had to do it through a regular bank account. This isn’t even just a unique problem with crypto, it’s just the next iteration of this longstanding problem. And of course, what happened? The money market fund industry needed a massive bailout in 2008.

I was surprised to see Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who’s been such a friend to the crypto industry, say that stablecoins should be regulated.

I think they’re skating to where the puck is going, and they see the writing on the wall.

So what can securities regulators do about all this? If you’re Gensler, how are you beginning to chip away at the problem?

I would be very clear that some of these things are securities, I would launch a series of high-profile investigations on some of the worst actors and I would put pressure on other agencies.

Everybody assumes that everything can be done through securities regulation, which is the product of an extremely successful, decades-long strategy of lobbying, because it’s the weakest of all the financial regulatory frameworks. Everybody who doesn’t want any regulatory scrutiny or accountability says, “First, I don’t want any. Second, if I have to have some, I want it to be securities law.”

Who are the worst actors, in your opinion?

The exchanges. And I would say the stablecoin issuers, but I would make a really big point and shame the other banking regulators that they should be doing this.

When you say “the exchanges” and “the stablecoin issuers,” do you mean all the major crypto exchanges and all the major stablecoin issuers?

Yeah. Is there a single one that we can honestly say is not trading unregistered securities?

I think Gensler has even said that.

Exactly.

What do you say to the argument that regulators have bigger fish to fry than these somewhat arcane crypto concepts?

My view has always been that as technology evolves, existing categories and existing practices get refracted through those technologies. When the first STABLE Act came out I said, “I think 50 years from now, there’s a good chance that people will be saying, ‘What’s a bank deposit?’ And we’ll say, ‘It’s the thing that we used to call stablecoins.’ And they’ll say, ‘What’s the stock exchange?’ ‘Well, it’s a thing that existed that was sort of a primitive version of the crypto exchanges we have now.’”

I’m not saying that because I think all of these new things are amazing new solutions or doing innovative new things. I think it’s because our language and our legal categories evolve with our technology. And for better or worse, this is the new digital native language, a new digital native technology.

It’s not just Tether, it’s not even just [USDC issuer] Circle, it’s literally every bank out there that will go, “Oh, we can issue something called a different name and suddenly we get to exempt ourselves from all those deposit laws that we’ve been hamstrung by for decades? Sweet! Let’s do that.” JPMorgan is issuing its own stablecoin; do they want that to be classified as a deposit? Of course not.

More from Policy Week

David Z. Morris: DeFi Is Like Nothing Regulators Have Seen Before. How Should They Tackle It?

Stablecoins Not CBDCs: An interview with Rep. Tom Emmer

Crypto Learns to Play DC’s Influence Game

Kristin Smith: Crypto Is Too Big for Partisan Politics

Lyn Ulbricht: Put America’s Geeks to Work, Don’t Cage Them

Preston J. Byrne: Decentralization’s Challenge to Policymakers Is Coming

Go to Source
Author: Will Gottsegen

De-Fi Insurance Protocol Solace Goes Live

Decentralized finance (DeFi) insurance protocol Solace, which provides coverage policies for Aave, Compound and Uniswap among others, has gone live after eight months of development and four months on the Ethereum Rinkeby and Kovan testnets.

The protocol provides compensation for losses by managing risk using assessment based on analytics instead of voting or staking. The protocol helps liquidity providers hedge their risk when there is potential of smart contract exploits.

“As a user I don’t trust the current mechanisms like voting, staking or market forces, in other words ‘wisdom of the crowd’, to accurately evaluate risk exposures and predict losses,” said Solace founder Nikita Buzov.

Solace said insurance claims will be automatically validated and requested within the network, and payouts will be made in a single transaction. The protocol describes itself as “censorship-resistant” and does not feature a know-your-customer (KYC) method.

Read more: Polygon Flips Ethereum on Active User Addresses

Go to Source
Author: Tanzeel Akhtar


Follow by Email
Facebook20
Pinterest20
fb-share-icon
LinkedIn20
Share