Autor Cointelegraph By Tatiana Revoredo

Talking with Eva Kaili, VP of the European Parliament, on MiCA regulation

Talking with Eva Kaili, VP of the European Parliament, on MiCA regulation

Uverejnil používateľ | aug 13, 2022 |

In an article I wrote for Cointelegraph, I commented on how the European Union has moved forward to regulate the crypto-asset market through Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) and Transfer of Funds Regulation (ToFR). With this subject as a background, I had the privilege of interviewing one of the people who knows the most about regulating new technologies: Eva Kaili, vice president of the European Parliament. She has been working hard on promoting innovation as a driving force for the establishment of the European Digital Single Market. Check out the interview below, which covered key points about MiCA, some proposed legislative provisions proving to be more controversial than others, such as decentralized finance (DeFi) remaining out of scope, rules administered through self-executing smart contracts (Lex Cryptographia), decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and more.1 — Your work in promoting innovation as a driving force for the establishment of the European Digital Single Market has been intense. You have been a rapporteur for several bills in the areas of blockchain technology, online platforms, Big Data, fintech, AI and cybersecurity. What are the main challenges legislators face when introducing bills involving new technologies? Technology develops rapidly, and innovative solutions need some space to be tested and developed. Then, policymakers need some time to understand how these technologies have been shaped, consult with stakeholders, and measure the expected impact on traditional markets. So, the optimal way forward is not to immediately respond to any technological development with a legislative initiative but rather to provide time to the technology to develop and to the policymakers to educate themselves, comprehend the benefits and challenges of innovative technologies, digest how they are supposed to affect the current market architecture and, then, suggest a balanced, tech-neutral and forward-looking legislative framework. To this end, in Europe, we adopt a “wait and see” approach, which leads us to safely proceed by answering three fundamental questions: (1) how early should the technological development be regulated? (2) how much detail should the proposed regulation include? and (3) how broad should the scope be? In this context, new challenges may arise, amongst which to decide whether to use old rules to new instruments or to create new rules to new instruments. The former is not always viable and may have unintended consequences to legal certainty as amendments or modifications may capture a complex legislative framework. On the other hand, the latter needs time, consultation with stakeholders, interinstitutional scrutiny and more. In any case, it should be duly considered that the answers to these questions determine the growth of the market, the time to reach this growth and the impact of the said regulation to other markets, as there is also a geopolitical dimension to be considered while regulating new technologies. 2 — In 2020, the European Commission launched a Digital Financial Package that has as its main objective to facilitate the competitiveness and innovation of the financial sector in the European Union (EU), establish Europe as a global standard setter, and provide consumer protection for digital finance and modern payments. What does a regulatory framework need to consider to be a competitive advantage in a given jurisdiction? As I mentioned, today, it is more critical than ever to consider the global geopolitical dimension and effect of a prospective regulatory regime regarding new technologies. You see, in the new global digital economy, the concentration of technological capacity increases the competition between jurisdictions. For example, technological inter-dependences and dependences between the dominant market players, and the geographic regions they control, are evident in Asia, Europe and America. In this context, digital products and services translate to power, have strong geo-economic implications, and facilitate “digital imperialism” or “techno-nationalism.” Thus, any prospective regulatory framework should be seen as a source of national or jurisdictional competitive advantage, generating robust, innovation-friendly, risk-immune markets. It may attract human capital to sustain innovation and financial capital to fund innovation over time. These principles were the main driving forces for the DLT Pilot Regime and the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulations, as we succeeded two milestones: creating a first-ever pan- European sandbox to test DLT in traditional financial market infrastructures and the first concrete set of rules regarding crypto, spanning from crypto assets, including stablecoins, to issuers, market manipulation and beyond, setting the standards of what a crypto market regulatory approach should look like and creating a competitive advantage for the European single market. 3 — Blockchain’s initial reputation as an “enabling” technology for fraud, illicit payments from drug dealers and terrorists on the “dark web,” as well as “environmentally irresponsible,” has created many obstacles to any regulatory treatment of the technology. In 2018, when you participated on a panel on regulation at Blockchain Week in New York, only small jurisdictions such as Malta and Cyprus were experimenting with the technology and had legislative proposals to regulate the industry. At that time, ignorance of the technology led to many regulators claiming time and again that blockchain was just a trend. What made you realize that blockchain was much more than just the enabling technology for crypto-assets and crowdfunding tokens?Early on, I realized that blockchain was the infrastructure for a wide range of applications that would transform market structures, business and operational models, and it would have strong macroeconomic effects. Today, while the technology is still evolving, it has already been perceived to be the backbone and the infrastructure of any IoT [Internet of Things] environment leveraging human-to-machine and machine-to-machine interactions. Its impact on the real economy is expected to be decisive, although it is not yet easy to predict in which way and under which conditions. Nonetheless, the rapid blockchain development has already forced both businesses and government leaders to reflect on (1) how the new marketplaces will look like in the coming years, (2) what would be the appropriate organizational setting in the New Economy, and (3) what kind of market structures should be formed in order, not only to survive the economic competition and stay technologically relevant but also to generate and sustain rates of inclusive growth proportional to the expectations of society. Critical to this end are both the European Blockchain Services Infrastructure projects and the European Blockchain Observatory and Forum initiative, which aim to give the EU a considerable first-mover advantage in the new digital economy by facilitating technological advancements and testing the blockchain convergence with other exponential technologies. 4 — On June 30, the European Union reached a tentative agreement on how to regulate the crypto industry in the bloc, giving the green light to MiCA, its main legislative proposal to regulate the crypto asset market. First introduced in 2020, MiCA has gone through several iterations, with some proposed legislative provisions proving more controversial than others, such as decentralized finance (DeFi) remaining out of scope. DeFi platforms, such as decentralized exchanges, by their nature, appear to be contrary to the fundamental principles of regulation. Is it possible to regulate DeFi at its current stage of development? Indeed, the preliminary critique received from market participants, when the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation was presented back in September 2020, was that it excluded decentralized finance, which aims to decentralize financial services, making them independent from centralized financial institutions. However, as DeFi, ideally, runs with smart contracts in decentralized autonomous organizational architectures leveraging decentralized applications (DApps) with no entity to be identified, it could not be appropriately accommodated in the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, which is explicitly addressing blockchain financial services providers that are, or need to be, legally established entities, supervised on whether they comply with specific requirements as regards to risk management, investor protection and market integrity, thus liable in case of failure, within a clear and transparent legal context. DeFi, by design, lacks the characteristics of an “entity” at least in the way we are used to. Hence, in this decentralized environment, we need to rethink our approach as regards to what would constitute “the entity” that would bear the liability in case of misconduct. Could it be replaced with a network of pseudonymous actors? Why not? However, pseudonymity is not compatible with our legal and regulatory tradition. At least not so far. No matter what is the architecture, the design, the process and the characteristics of a product or service, everything and always should end up to a responsible person(or persons). I would say that the DeFi case reflects exactly the problem of lacking who to blame. So, decentralization seems much more challenging for policymakers.5 — The European Union’s movement to regulate the crypto and blockchain industry started long before MiCA. On Oct. 3, 2018, the European Parliament voted, with an unprecedented majority and the support of all European parties, its “Blockchain Resolution.” How important is this resolution from a political economy perspective? How was the passing of the Blockchain Resolution instrumental in leading the European Union to take a regulatory lead? The European Parliament’s Blockchain Resolution of 2018 reflected the views of how to approach, from a regulatory point of view, a technology which was (and is) still evolving. The main argument for the resolution was that blockchain is not just the enabling technology for cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding tokens but the infrastructure for a wide range of applications necessary for Europe to stay competitive in the New Economy. Based on this, the Committee of Industry (ITRE) of the European Parliament authorized the drafting of the resolution: “Distributed Ledger Technologies and Blockchain: Building Trust With Disintermediation.” And this was my part of political entrepreneurship that I felt I had to take on to unlock the demand for a regulation and trigger EU institutions to think of the prospect of regulating the uses of blockchain technology. So, when drafting the resolution, I was not merely aiming to create a basis of legal certainty but rather institutional certainty that would allow blockchain to flourish within the EU single market, facilitate the creation of blockchain marketplaces, make Europe the best place in the world for blockchain businesses, and make the EU legislation a role model for other jurisdictions. Indeed, the Blockchain Resolution triggered the European Commission to draft the DLT Pilot Regime and the Markets in Crypto-Assets proposals, reflecting the principles of technological neutrality and the associated concept of business model neutrality necessary to facilitate the uptake of a digital technology of critical strategic importance. 6 — There are different blockchain architectures, especially those based on permissionless blockchains, which provide not only disintermediation but also decentralized governance structures with automation properties. As these structures advance, do you believe that in the future, there will be room for “Lex Cryptographia” — rules administered through self-executing smart contracts and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs)? And if so, what principles or guidelines should regulators take into consideration in this case? The continuing technological advancements and the prospect of a decentralized global economy operating in real-time utilizing quantum technology, artificial intelligence and machine learning along with blockchain technology will soon lead to the development of “Lex Cryptographia,” as code-based systems will seem to be the most appropriate way forward to enact law effectively in this new environment. However, this would not be an easy task for politicians, policymakers and society at large. Critical questions would need to be answered at the code level while navigating the “Lex Cryptographia” space: What would such a system be programmed to do? What kinds of information will it receive and verify and how? How frequently? How will those who maintain the network be rewarded for their efforts? Who will guarantee that the system would operate as planned when the regulation will be baked into the architecture of such a system? The prospect of “Lex Cryptographia” requires us to widen our understanding of what would actually constitute a “good regulation” in this case. And this is a challenge for every jurisdiction in the world. I would say that a way forward would be to leverage, once more, on “sandboxing” — as we did with the DLT Pilot Regime — and create a solid yet agile space that will allow both innovators and regulators to share knowledge and gain the necessary understanding that will inform the future legal framework. This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the authors’ alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.Tatiana Revoredo is a founding member of the Oxford Blockchain Foundation and is a strategist in blockchain at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. Additionally, she is an expert in blockchain business applications at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the chief strategy officer of The Global Strategy. Tatiana has been invited by the European Parliament to the Intercontinental Blockchain Conference and was invited by the Brazilian parliament to the public hearing on Bill 2303/2015. She is the author of two books: Blockchain: Tudo O Que Você Precisa Saber and Cryptocurrencies in the International Scenario: What Is the Position of Central Banks, Governments and Authorities About Cryptocurrencies?

Čítaj viac
MiCA and ToFR: The EU moves to regulate the crypto-asset market

MiCA and ToFR: The EU moves to regulate the crypto-asset market

Uverejnil používateľ | júl 16, 2022 |

On the last day of June, the European Union reached an agreement on how to regulate the crypto-asset industry, giving the green light to Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), the EU’s main legislative proposal to oversee the industry in its 27 member countries. A day earlier, on June 29, lawmakers in the member states of the European Parliament had already passed the Transfer of Funds Regulation (ToFR), which imposes compliance standards on crypto assets to crack down on money laundering risks in the sector. Given this scenario, today we will further explore these two legislations that, due to their broad scope, can serve as a parameter for the other Financial Action Task Force (FATF) members outside of the 27 countries of the EU. As it’s always good to understand not only the results but also the events that led us to the current moment, let’s go back a few years.The relation between the FATF and the newly enacted EU legislationThe Financial Action Task Force is a global intergovernmental organization. Its members include most major nation-states and the EU. The FATF is not a democratically elected body; it is made up of country-appointed representatives. These representatives work to develop recommendations (guidelines) on how countries should formulate Anti-Money Laundering and other financial watchdog policies. Although these so-called recommendations are non-binding, if a member country refuses to implement them, there can be serious diplomatic and financial consequences.Along these lines, the FATF released its first guidelines on crypto assets in a document published in 2015, the same year when countries like Brazil started debating the first bills on cryptocurrencies. This first document from 2015, which mirrored the existing policies of the United States regulator the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, was reassessed in 2019, and on October 28, 2021, a new document titled “Updated Guidance for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and VASPs” came out containing the current FATF guidelines on virtual assets.Related: FATF includes DeFi in guidance for crypto service providersThis is one of the reasons why the EU, the U.S. and other FATF members are working hard to regulate the crypto market, in addition to the already known reasons such as consumer protection, etc.If we look, for example, at the 29 of 98 jurisdictions whose parliaments have already legislated on the “travel rule,” all have followed the FATF’s recommendations to ensure that service providers involving crypto assets verify and report who their customers are to the monetary authorities.The European digital financial packageMiCA is one of the legislative proposals developed within the framework of the digital finance package launched by the European Commission in 2020. This digital finance package has as its main objective to facilitate the competitiveness and innovation of the financial sector in the European Union, to establish Europe as a global standard setter and to provide consumer protection for digital finance and modern payments.In this context, two legislative proposals — the DLT Pilot Regime and the Markets in Crypto- Assets proposal — were the first tangible actions undertaken within the framework of the European digital finance package. In September 2020, the proposals were adopted by the European Commission, as was the Transfer of Funds Regulation.Related: European ‘MiCA’ regulation on digital assetsSuch legislative initiatives were created in line with the Capital Markets Union, a 2014 initiative that aims to establish a single capital market across the EU in an effort to reduce barriers to macroeconomic benefits. It should be noted that each proposal is only a draft bill that, to come into force, needs to be considered by the 27 member countries of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.For this reason, on June 29 and June 30, two “interim” agreements on ToFR and MiCA, respectively, were signed by the political negotiation teams of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Such agreements are still provisional, as they need to pass through the EU’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, followed by a plenary vote, before they can enter into force.So, let’s take a look at the main provisions agreed to by the political negotiation teams of the European Parliament and the European Council for the crypto market (cryptocurrencies and asset-backed tokens such as stablecoins).Main “approved” topics of the Transfer of Funds RegulationOn June 29, the political negotiation teams of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union agreed on provisions of the ToFR on the European continent, also known as the “travel rules.” Such rules detailed specific requirements for crypto asset transfers to be observed between providers such as exchanges, unhosted wallets (such as Ledger and Trezor) and self-hosted wallets (such as MetaMask), filling a major gap in the existing European legislative framework on money laundering.Related: Authorities are looking to close the gap on unhosted walletsAmong what has been approved, following the FATF recommendation line, the main topics are as follows: 1) All crypto asset transfers will have to be linked to a real identity, regardless of value (zero-threshold traceability); 2) service providers involving crypto assets — which the European legislation call Virtual Asset Service Providers, or VASPs — will have to collect information about the issuer and the beneficiary of the transfers they execute; 3) all companies providing crypto-related services in any EU member state will become obliged entities under the existing AML directive; 4) unhosted wallets (i.e., wallets not held in custody by a third party) will be impacted by the rules because VASPs will be required to collect and store information about their customers’ transfers; 5) enhanced compliance measures will also apply when EU crypto asset service providers interact with non-EU entities; 6) regarding data protection, travel rules data will be subject to the robust requirements of the European data protection law, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); 7) the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) will be in charge of defining the technical specifications of how GDPR requirements should be applied to the transmission of travel rules data for cryptographic transfers; 8) intermediary VASPs that perform a transfer on behalf of another VASP will be included in the scope and will be required to collect and transmit the information about the initial originator and the beneficiary along the chain.Here, it is important to note that European ToFR seems to have fully followed the recommendation enshrined in FATF Recommendation 16. That is, it is not enough for Virtual Asset Service Providers to share customer data with each other. Due diligence must be performed on the other VASPs with which their customers transact, such as checking whether other VASPs perform Know Your Customer checks and have an Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) policy, or facilitate transactions with high-risk counterparties.Related: European ‘MiCA’ regulation on digital assets: Where do we stand?In addition, this agreement on the ToFR must be approved in parallel by the European Parliament and Council prior to publication in the Official Journal of the EU, and will commence no later than 18 months after it enters into force — without having to wait for the ongoing reform of the AML and counter terrorism directives.Main “approved” points of the Markets in Crypto-AssetsMiCA is the key legislative proposal regulating the crypto sector in Europe, although it is not the only one within the European digital finance package. It is the first regulatory framework for the crypto-active industry on a global scale, as its approval imposes rules to be followed by all 27 member countries of the bloc.Ich bin mir sicher, MiCA ist ein europäischer Erfolg und globaler Standardsetzer. Danke an das Verhandlungsteam @McGuinnessEU /3 pic.twitter.com/bSJh10OY61— Stefan Berger (@DrStefanBerger) June 30, 2022As already mentioned, negotiators from the EU Council, the Commission and the European Parliament, under the French presidency, reached an agreement on the supervision of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) proposal during the June 30 political trialogue.The key points approved in this agreement are as follows:Both the European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) and the European Bank Authority (EBA) will have intervention powers to prohibit or restrict the provision of Virtual Asset Service Providers, as well as the marketing, distribution or sale of crypto assets, in case of a threat to investor protection, market integrity or financial stability.ESMA will also have a significant coordination role to ensure a consistent approach to the supervision of the largest VASPs with a customer base above 15 million.ESMA will be tasked with developing a methodology and sustainability indicators to measure the impact of crypto assets on the climate, as well as classifying the consensus mechanisms used to issue crypto assets, analyzing their energy use and incentive structures. Here, it is important to note that recently, the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs decided to exclude from the MiCA (by 32 votes to 24) proposed legal provision that sought to prohibit, in the 27 EU member countries, the use of cryptocurrencies powered by the “proof-of-work” algorithm.Registration of entities based in third countries, operating in the EU without authorization, will be established by ESMA based on information submitted by competent authorities, third country supervisors or identified by ESMA. Competent authorities will have far-reaching powers against listed entities.Virtual Asset Service Providers will be subject to robust Anti-Money Laundering safeguards.EU VASPs will have to be established and have substantive management in the EU, including a resident director and registered office in the member state where they apply for authorization. There will be robust checks on management, persons with qualifying holdings in the VASP or persons with close ties. Authorization should be refused if AML safeguards are not met.Exchanges will have liability for damages or losses caused to their customers due to hacks or operational failures that they should have avoided. As for cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, the brokerage will have to provide a white paper and be liable for any misleading information provided. Here, it is important to know the difference between the types of crypto assets. Both cryptocurrencies and tokens are types of crypto assets, and both are used as a way to store and transact value. The main difference between them is logical: cryptocurrencies represent “embedded” or “native” transfers of value; tokens represent “customizable” or “programmable” transfers of value. A cryptocurrency is a “native” digital asset on a given blockchain that represents a monetary value. You cannot program a cryptocurrency; that is, you cannot change the characteristics of a cryptocurrency, which are determined in its native blockchain. Tokens, on the other hand, are a customizable/programmable digital asset that runs on a second or third generation blockchain that supports more advanced smart contracts such as Ethereum, Tezos, Rostock (RSK) and Solana, among others.VASPs will have to segregate clients’ assets and isolate them. This means that crypto assets will not be affected in the event of a brokerage firm’s insolvency. VASPs will have to give clear warnings to investors about the risk of volatility and losses, in whole or in part, associated with crypto-actives, as well as comply with insider trading disclosure rules. Insider trading and market manipulation are strictly prohibited.Stablecoins have become subject to an even more restrictive set of rules: 1) Issuers of stablecoins will be required to maintain reserves to cover all claims and provide a permanent right of redemption for holders; 2) the reserves will be fully protected in the event of insolvency, which would have made a difference in cases like Terra.First introduced in 2020, the MiCA proposal went through several iterations before reaching this point, with some proposed legislative provisions proving more controversial than others, such as NFTs remaining outside the scope but being able to be reclassified by supervisors on a case-by-case basis. That is, nonfungible tokens have been left out of the new rules — although, in the MiCA settlement discussions, it was pointed out that NFTs may be brought into the scope of the MiCA proposal at a later date.Related: Are NFTs an animal to be regulated? A European approach to decentralization, Part 1In the same vein, DeFi and crypto lending were left out in this MiCA agreement, but a report with possible new legislative proposals will have to be submitted within 18 months of its entry into force.As for stablecoins, a ban on them was considered. But, in the end, the understanding remained that banning or fully limiting the use of stablecoins within the EU would not be consistent with the goals set at the EU level to promote innovation in the financial sector.Final considerationsShortly after the ToFR and MiCA agreements were reported, some criticized the ToFR, pointing out, for example, that while legislators had done their part, the approved origin and recipient identification measures will only reach central bank digital currencies, but not privacy-focused blockchain networks like Monero and Dash.Others have argued for the need for a harmonized and comprehensive framework like the MiCA proposal, which brings regulatory clarity and boundaries for industry players to be able to operate their businesses safely across the various EU member countries.Do you think European policymakers have been able to use this opportunity to build a solid regulatory framework for digital assets that promotes responsible innovation and keeps bad actors at bay? Or do you think that new means of transactions will emerge to impede the traceability of crypto assets with zero threshold? Do you see a need for regulation to prevent the loss of more than $1 trillion in value of the digital asset industry in recent weeks caused by the announced risk of algorithmic stablecoins? Or do you believe that market self-regulation is sufficient?It is true that market adjustment is shaking up many scammers and fraudsters. But unfortunately, it is also hurting millions of small investors and their families. Regardless of positioning, as an industry, the crypto sector needs to be mindful of accountability to users, who can range from sophisticated investors and technologists to those who know little about complex financial instruments.This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.Tatiana Revoredo is a founding member of the Oxford Blockchain Foundation and is a strategist in blockchain at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. Additionally, she is an expert in blockchain business applications at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the chief strategy officer of The Global Strategy. Tatiana has been invited by the European Parliament to the Intercontinental Blockchain Conference and was invited by the Brazilian parliament to the public hearing on Bill 2303/2015. She is the author of two books: Blockchain: Tudo O Que Você Precisa Saber and Cryptocurrencies in the International Scenario: What Is the Position of Central Banks, Governments and Authorities About Cryptocurrencies?

Čítaj viac
Web5 vs. Web3: The future is a process, not a destination

Web5 vs. Web3: The future is a process, not a destination

Uverejnil používateľ | júl 3, 2022 |

On June 10, many were surprised by the news that TBD, a subsidiary of Block, Twitter’s co-founder Jack Dorsey, announced the launch of the Web5 platform. Web 1, 2, 3 and now Web 5? But where is Web 4? Those who don’t care about number sequences can just downloaded Web 7.But first, so that no one gets behind in understanding this article, let’s quickly talk about the stages of Web evolution. If you already know the subject, you can skip to the next topic.From the static web to the collaborative webIn the beginning, there was what we now call Web1, at that time simply known as the web. At this stage, the first websites, portals and online services were developed, and users could only read the information, without the chance of direct interaction. As no interaction was possible between users. Those who accessed the web just consumed the content made available in a web of one-way communication and, for this reason, Web1 was also called “Static Web.”With the evolution of Web support technologies, Web2 gradually arrived with the emergence and proliferation of social networks and all the applications such as blogs, forums and podcasts that made new forms of participative communication possible.In fact, due to the development of these new tools, users began to communicate with each other and share their own content. In this step, the user who was once just a passive actor, became the holder of the creation and management of online content, building new processes and interactions, which is why Web 2 has been dubbed the “Collaborative Web.”When did Web3 emerge?Just like the other stages of the web, it is difficult to pinpoint when Web3 was born. This is because Web development is a process and, as such, has no set start date. But, many argue that the idea of Web3 emerged around 2006, although the term Web3 was only coined in 2014 by Gavin Wood. It is supposed to be the next step of the internet. And, I say supposedly, because it is still in its infancy and therefore there is still no certainty of what the next stage of the Web will really be.Note that there is no single creator of Web3. It is being developed as a collaboration of different individuals and organizations building upon each other. But, overall, those involved in smart contract platforms on blockchains such as Ethereum, EOS and TRON are the ones who are admittedly leading the way in building Web3.Related: What the hell is Web3 anyway?It’s important to note here is that one of the most popular programming libraries used to write Ethereum code is called web3.js. And there is also a foundation, the Web3 Foundation, which is run by the founders of the Polkadot network.Broadly speaking, the main goal of Web3 is to try to solve the biggest problem of Web2: the collection of personal data by private networks that enable surveillance capitalism, a true marketplace of future behavior.And for this, Web3 has as its main focus of innovation to be a web of decentralized networks, not controlled by any one entity, formed by platforms that use consensus mechanisms that everyone can trust. In it, decentralized applications (DApps) would be built on top of open networks, and no entity would be able to collect data without the user’s consent, nor limit or censor anyone’s access. That is, as extracted from the Web3 Foundation’s own website, Web3 has a mission to create “a decentralized and fair internet where users control their own data, identity and destiny.”The second focus of innovation promised by the Web3 developers is that these decentralized networks would enable the value or “money” of the internet to be transferred directly between users’ accounts, without intermediaries. And, these two features — decentralization and internet money — are still in their early stages, are the keys to understanding Web3.However, many critics have expressed concerns about the current Web3 such as its dependence on funding from Venture Capitalists like Andreessen Horowitz, which would compromise its main focus of innovation — providing the user with a truly decentralized web.Well, now that everyone is on the same page, let’s clarify what has certainly become the question of many after Jack Dorsey said that “Web 5” powered by Bitcoin will replace Web3.Related: Polkadot vs. Ethereum: Two equal chances to dominate the Web3 worldWeb4 is gone?After Web3 — the term encompasses all the blockchain and decentralized technologies being built around the world — the next stage of the Web is not really a new version but is an alternative version of what we already have (Web2) or are already building (Web3).Web4, also known as “Mobile Web,” is one that has the necessary infrastructure to adapt to the mobile environment. Imagine a web that connects all mobile devices in the real and virtual world in real-time.Well, Web4 enables mobility and voice interaction between the user and the robots. If the focus in previous websites was on the user interacting with the internet by being in front of the desktop and in front of the computer, the focus of Web4 is on enabling the user to use and distribute information regardless of location via mobile devices.Therefore, Web4 changes the relationship between humans and robots, which will have a symbiotic interaction. In this fourth stage of the Web, humans will have constant access to robots, and everyday life will become increasingly dependent on machines.“Web5,” or the “Emotional Web”Although many only heard of Web5 for the first time when headlines reported Jack Dorsey’s statement, the fact is that the term is not new.this will likely be our most important contribution to the internet. proud of the team. #web5(RIP web3 VCs )https://t.co/vYlVqDyGE3 https://t.co/eP2cAoaRTH— jack (@jack) June 10, 2022To get an idea, Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web, gave a lecture at TED Talks in 2009 in which he already talked about Web5: “Open, connected, intelligent Web,” which he called the Emotional Web.[embedded content]According to the creator of the web himself, the Web5 would be the Emotional Web. Actually, the true form of Web5 is still forming, and according to the signs we have so far, this web also known as the Symbiotic Web will be an interconnected network that communicates with us as we communicate with each other (like a personal assistant).This Web will be very powerful and totally run on (emotional) interaction between humans and computers. Interaction will become a daily habit for many people based on neurotechnology. Here it is worth mentioning that despite surveillance capitalism, currently Web2 “itself” is “emotionally” neutral, meaning that it does not perceive users’ feelings and emotions. Now, with Web5 proposing to be an emotional web, this may change in the future. An example of this is WeFeelFine, an organization that maps people’s emotions through headphones.Along these lines, in Tim Berners-Lee’s Web5, users will interact with content that interacts with their emotions or facial recognition changes. In this context, it seems that the “Web5,” announced by Jack Dorsey, has nothing to do with the Emotional or Symbiotic Web envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee in 2009.Related: An open invitation for women to join the Web3 movementWhat Jack Dorsey’s Web5 is all aboutTBD, a subsidiary within Block (formerly known as Square), was founded in July 2021 with the goal of creating “an open platform for developers” focused on decentralized finance (DeFi) and Bitcoin (BTC). Now TBD has its first goal to build “Web 5: an Extra Decentralized Web platform,” where users will have full control of their own data.Web5: An extra decentralized web platformhttps://t.co/LDW3MZ8tON— TBD (@TBD54566975) June 10, 2022

“This will probably be our most important contribution to the Internet. Proud of the team. (“Rest in Peace, Web3 Investors),” Dorsey said in a tweet on the morning of June 10. According to TBD’s presentation on Web5, the internet’s main problem is the lack of an “identity” layer: “In the current Web, identity and personal data are turned into the property of third parties,” and this is why Web5 will focus on decentralizing identity, data storage, as well as its applications.TDB also claims that it will create an extra decentralized Web platform to solve this problem.Related: Digital sovereignty: Reclaiming your private data in Web3Possibilities: The future is a process, not a destinationMuch of what is dismissively referred to as “false promis” by critics of Web3 seems much more challenging to achieve with Bitcoin alone — at least for now. Bitcoin’s decentralization and priority to cybersecurity come at the expense of storage space, and, above all, transaction speed — although the advances brought by the Lightning Network are promising.In addition, some Web3 features already seem possible through layers built on top of Bitcoin. Hiro is building smart contracts using Bitcoin. Stacks was created to enable DeFi, nonfungible tokens (NFTs), apps and smart contracts in Bitcoin. Not to mention that since 2012, the equivalent of NFTs and ERC-20 tokens already exist on the Bitcoin blockchain in the form of colored coins.Also, there are already decentralized identity solutions based on decentralized identifiers (DIDs) on Web3, such as the one developed in the Identity Overlay Network (ION) that is built using the Sidetree Protocol on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. Add to this the fact that it is unclear what alternative routes will be used for funding and building Dorsey’s new version of Web3.Related: Identity and the Metaverse: Decentralized controlWill this new attempt by TBD to create a decentralized layer on top of the Web via the Bitcoin blockchain solve current concerns about Web3? Of course, the more initiatives focused on achieving a decentralized web, the better for users. But, what is essential here is that such initiatives can bring together all the technical and financial resources and bright people who are committed to the hard work and effort needed to make the decentralized web happen.The future is a process, not a destination.This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.Tatiana Revoredo is a founding member of the Oxford Blockchain Foundation and is a strategist in blockchain at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. Additionally, she is an expert in blockchain business applications at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the chief strategy officer of The Global Strategy. Tatiana has been invited by the European Parliament to the Intercontinental Blockchain Conference and was invited by the Brazilian parliament to the public hearing on Bill 2303/2015. She is the author of two books: Blockchain: Tudo O Que Você Precisa Saber and Cryptocurrencies in the International Scenario: What Is the Position of Central Banks, Governments and Authorities About Cryptocurrencies?

Čítaj viac
Decentralization, DAOs and the current Web3 concerns

Decentralization, DAOs and the current Web3 concerns

Uverejnil používateľ | mar 26, 2022 |

What we call Web3 will be centered on an ecosystem of technology products that are decentralized, based on blockchain networks, interoperable, and without a traditional trusted validator (such as corporations, institutions and government bodies). But exactly what does this mean? What is Web3?Web3, a term coined by Gavin Wood, Web3 Foundation president, is the next phase of the internet and, perhaps, of organizing society as a whole. Web1 was the era of open, decentralized protocols, where most online activity involved browsing individual static pages. Web2, which we are now experiencing, is the era of centralization, in which a large part of communication and commerce occurs on captive (closed) platforms and is owned by a handful of technology corporations, subject to centralized control by regulators and government agencies.In contrast, Web3 aims to solve all the problems that have arisen in Web2 by giving data ownership and power over digital identity, which now belongs to large technology companies, to individual users.Put another way, Web3 refers to a decentralized online ecosystem based on blockchain. To better understand this, see the figure below for a comparison of the architecture of a Web2 application versus that of a Web3 application.This means that platforms and applications created on Web3 will not be owned by a central gatekeeper, but by the true owner of the data: the human being. In short, human beings will be the main focus of Web3.Decentralization and trust on the Web3Instead of relying on a single, centralized server, Web3 is being built on top of blockchain networks, powered by cryptography that makes it possible to store data across distributed devices (also known as “nodes”) around the world.And such distributed devices can be anything — computers, laptops or even more robust servers. These devices serve as the framework of blockchain networks, communicating with each other to enable the storage, dissemination and preservation of data transactions without the need for a trusted third-party validator (such as an institution, corporation or government). In other words, thanks to nodes running blockchain software, a decentralized record of property transfer is now possible, which is unlike anything we have seen before. Now, the way Web2 was built, we had no choice but to hand over our data to technology companies, governments, and their respective centralized storage servers.So, we needed to trust that these traditional third party validators would use our data in an ethical and secure way. And we were taken by surprise when scandals, such as the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal, came to light.Related: A letter to Zuckerberg: The Metaverse is not what you think it isIn the current structure of the web, it is very easy for our data to be transacted on “behavioural futures markets” without us having any idea this is happening and what impact it has on our lives. Not surprisingly, ownership of our data and decentralized identity, also known as self-sovereign identity, are considered prerequisites to Web3.The automation of trust with Web3 interoperabilityIn Web3, self-sovereign identity and data ownership are managed by the indvidual users themselves via digital wallets such as MetaMask (compatible with Ethereum blockchain) or Phantom (compatible with Solana blockchain). These digital wallets work more or less like a wallet in the real world. Thus, a digital wallet serves as proof of your Web3 identity, securely holding both your currency and your data.This wallet is interoperable, meaning that it can easily be created on the internet and work with various products and systems, allowing the user to choose which decentralized applications have access to their data and identity. Also, all transactions and interactions on the blockchain network are permissionless; they do not need the approval of a trusted third-party validator to be completed. But how important is this?Today, individuals must use their Facebook or Google login to access many online applications, which forces them to hand over their data to these companies. In Web3, by contrast, individuals will own their digital identities. By replacing third parties with blockchain technology, Web3 unlocks entirely new business models and value chains where centralized intermediaries are no longer favored. Ultimately, Web3 takes power away from intermediaries and gives it back to individuals. And now, surely, you must be wondering if this power shift is really possible.In fact, we are already seeing this firsthand with nonfungible tokens (NFTs). As I commented in another article in this column, content creators have recently begun experimenting with ways to receive the bulk of the revenue from their work. And much of this can be credited to the function of smart contracts, which, specifically with NFTs, enable secondary royalty structures, meaning that creators get paid every time their work changes hands on the open market. Thanks to this fundamental change in the value chain, creators are earning more than ever before. Alongside this new value chain, Web3 has created entirely new economic organizations — DAOs. These decentralized autonomous organizations are a central function of interaction across the Web3 space. Let’s understand why.Related: DAOs are the foundation of Web3, the creator economy and the future of workDAOs in Web3A DAO is a unique, self-managed organization run solely and exclusively by blockchain smart contracts, with their own bylaws and rules of procedure, that replace day-to-day operational management with self-executing code. The main advantage of a DAO is that, unlike traditional companies, blockchain technology provides the DAO with complete transparency.All of the DAO’s actions and funding can be seen and analyzed by anyone. This transparency significantly reduces the risk of corruption, illicit activity or fraud by preventing important information from being censored.Furthermore, it is blockchain technology that ensures that the DAO maintains its purpose. This is because, like NFTs, DAOs also work with smart contracts that can trigger an action whenever certain predetermined conditions are met. For example, in the case of a DAO, a smart contract can ensure that proposals that receive a certain amount of affirmative votes are automatically enacted.And, unlike traditional organizations that operate from the top down, DAOs operate with a flat hierarchical structure, allowing all members to have a say in crucial decisions that affect the broader group — rather than just the primary shareholders.In addition, DAOs are much more accessible to the average individual, as the barrier to entry is not as high. Usually, the only people who can invest in an organization early on — and reap most of the financial returns as a result — are incredibly wealthy and well-networked individuals.In DAOs, this is not the case. They are globally accessible and available at a much lower cost.Currently, DAOs have already been used to govern communities and fund projects, like managing a basketball team in the NBA and even trying to buy a first-edition print copy of the U.S. Constitution. However, the path to Web3 is not always easy.Related: Fan tokens: Day trading your favorite sports teamWhat are the current concerns with Web3?Today, a lot of learning and experimentation is required in the average user’s journey in using Web3 technologies. The lack of current user-friendly design in Web3 applications hampers the user experience and results in a steep learning curve.In fact, such factors are a significant barrier to entry for most people. And when we consider the time required for software code exploration and development, as well as the current focus of developers, we realize just how far from a priority the user experience is.While Web3 platforms are difficult to use, it is worth noting that this is only because things are so new that most developers are still focused on developing the underlying technologies.Where does the future of the web lie?Every significant change comes with a high risk. While one of the great advantages of Web3 is that it intends to return the ownership of data to its true owner — the human being — this “advantage” is also its greatest challenge.Better explained, the fully matured Web3 space is still a long ways off, and nobody has a clue what exact form it will actually take. As the Web3 infrastructure is intended to be fully decentralized and use peer-to-peer networks, dispensing with traditional trust validators (or intermediaries), people will be fully responsible for their data and their crypto actives.This means the necessary overcoming of cultural barriers and a change in behavior on the part of users, who will need to learn what digital wallets are, how public and private keys work, which cybersecurity practices are most appropriate, be constantly alert for phishing scams, never give their private key to a third party, among other things. In short, users will not delegate the security of their identity and data to third parties; they themselves will be responsible for keeping their vigilance at all times.In short, security is still not a universal truth in Web3. You may trust the blockchain, but do you trust yourself? There are also scalability issues. While few would argue that decentralization is a bad thing in and of itself, transactions are slower on Web3 precisely because, at the current stage of developments in blockchain structures, decentralized networks do not yet scale satisfactorily.In addition, there are the gas fees — payments that users make to use the Ethereum blockchain, one of the two most popular blockchain platforms in the world. Put another way, “gas” is the fee required to successfully conduct a blockchain transaction. These fees can drive up the value of a transaction to hundreds of dollars during peak times.Then there is the conundrum of decentralization. Even though blockchain networks and DAOs may be decentralized, many of the Web3 services that use them are currently controlled by a small number of private companies. And there are valid concerns that the industry that is emerging to support the decentralized web (Web3) is highly centralized.In any case, it is important to remember that while there is still a considerable list of concerns and obstacles to overcome, Web3 is still in its infancy, and brilliant people are actively working to solve the current problems.What about you? Do you think we will enter a new era with a truly decentralized and privacy-focused web? Do you think that if the developers working on the current Web3 problems are successful, we will eventually get there?Knowledge is power!This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.Tatiana Revoredo is a founding member of the Oxford Blockchain Foundation and is a strategist in blockchain at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. Additionally, she is an expert in blockchain business applications at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the chief strategy officer of The Global Strategy. Tatiana has been invited by the European Parliament to the Intercontinental Blockchain Conference and was invited by the Brazilian parliament to the public hearing on Bill 2303/2015. She is the author of two books: Blockchain: Tudo O Que Você Precisa Saber and Cryptocurrencies in the International Scenario: What Is the Position of Central Banks, Governments and Authorities About Cryptocurrencies?

Čítaj viac
Blockchain and the evolution of business models in the game industry

Blockchain and the evolution of business models in the game industry

Uverejnil používateľ | jan 22, 2022 |

The first computer games were developed in the late 20th century with the sole purpose of entertaining their audience. One of the first goals was to distract players from their routine work and provide them access to a fantasy world. Very soon, games began to compete for users’ time against traditional forms of entertainment, such as movies, circuses, theater performances, zoos, etc.Planet Earth entered the new millennium with a population of over 6 billion people, and the forecast is that this number will reach 8 billion as early as 2023. If we assume that computer games will cease to be an alternative to work and become complementary to it, there will be 4 billion gamers in the world by then.Not surprisingly, the traditional boundaries between games, media, sports and communication are rapidly disappearing, creating new business partnerships and causing more and more mergers and acquisitions around the world.The still-active virtual world Second Life, which represented a first attempt at a portal to the metaverse with its own in-platform virtual currency, was an important example of this process between 2003 and 2006, during its most rapid period of growth. Players in many countries quit their jobs and dedicated 100% of their time to the virtual world.But why is the use of blockchain in games causing a real revolution in the gaming industry? That is what this article seeks to answer.The gaming marketsAccording to data from mid-2021, there were 3.2 billion people playing computer games, and as a report by Newzoo states, the global gaming revenues in 2021 were about $180.3 billion — 20% more than before the pandemic began in 2019.Digital distribution channels are responsible for most of this revenue. Mobile games act as the main growth engine for the games industry, driving this segment to $93.2 billion dollars.The game development industry has experienced a profound transformation over the past five years. With the emergence of mobile app stores and digital distribution platforms, even smaller studios have gained the ability to create games for the global market.China remains the largest regional segment in terms of both revenue and number of players, accounting for more than a quarter of all sales. The Asia-Pacific region as a whole holds 55% of all players and offers the highest profits and fastest growth rates.The introduction of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR) and blockchain, has become a major trend in the market. In recent years, numerous blockchain-enabled gaming apps and services have emerged, and the number of such projects promises to cause a boom in the market by 2022.The evolution of business models in the games industryPay-to-play (P2P) modelFrom the 1970s until the 2000s, the most prevalent business model for the games industry was “pay-to-play.” In this model, development studios and publishers generate revenue from initial game sales and, in some cases, subscriptions. Collaborations with advertisers for in-game ads were few and far between.In this model, players have little or no opportunity to extract value from games, except the satisfaction and enjoyment gained from the in-game experience.Free-to-play (F2P) modelIn the late 2000s and early 2010s, the “free-to-play” gaming model gained traction. This model was once considered a disastrous business model that would, at best, bring in lower revenues for a given game and, at worst, cannibalize the entire gaming industry. However, it has instead proven to be the best way to monetize, as well as being a main reason behind the cultural rise of games.In the free-to-play model, games are offered to players at no upfront cost. In this type of model, in-game purchases (items and upgrades that improve features in the game) and ads make up the vast majority of the publishing studios’ revenues. Streaming and esports services act as monetization levers for players, while allowing “elite” players to receive rewards.A perfect example of how some of these free-to-play business models have become successful is Fortnite. The game, launched in July 2017, generated over $5 billion in revenue in its first year of production. In addition, its userbase climbed to approximately 80 million monthly active users in 2018.Play-to-earn (P2E) modelThe “play-to-earn” model is exactly what the name suggests: A model where users can play and earn tokens or crypto while playing. This model has a very powerful psychological incentive, because it combines two activities that have driven humanity since the beginning of time: reward and entertainment.The main idea in P2E is that players are rewarded as they invest more time and more effort in the game, and thus become part of the in-game economy (tokenomics), creating value for themselves, for other participants in the game ecosystem, and also for the developers. They receive an incentive/reward for their participation and playing time in the form of digital assets with potential appreciation over time.Note that the use of blockchain technology in such assets has brought scarcity to digital assets in games, which can take the form of NFTs and can represent absolutely anything from characters like the kittens in CryptoKitties to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) or Ether (ETH).Related: The Metaverse, play-to-earn and the new economic model of gamingAlong these lines, the key component in this model is to give players “ownership” over certain “digital assets” in the game, allowing them to increase their value by actively participating. This is where blockchain technology has become decisive for gaming business models.Many concepts come from traditional gamesThe blockchain-based gaming industry is still in its early stages and it is still centered around many concepts coming from traditional gaming. NBA Top Shot, for example, is building on the “collect and trade model” that has prevailed in baseball cards and other collectibles for decades. Axie Infinity, currently the most famous blockchain-based game, uses the “breed and battle” game model that Pokémon launched in the 1990s.Related: How blockchain technology might bring triple-A games to metaversesSorare, on the other hand, a game in which players buy and trade soccer cards and build competing soccer teams, is based on the “recruit and compete” model. Similarly, virtual worlds like Decentraland and Somnium Space are immersing people in alternative realities, like Second Life and The Sims before them.Thus, although many games that use blockchain technology (such as The Sandbox, Gods Unchained and Star Atlas) often fall into the same categories as games that do not use such technology, the most important feature that distinguishes them from their counterparts in the traditional market is the use of blockchain-based cryptocurrency support.Overview of blockchain gamingAdvantages of blockchain games for playersWith the introduction of blockchain technology, native game assets go to global, non-permitted blockchain platforms, rather than being tied up and locked in the particular game’s platform or in local environments controlled by video game development companies. We’ve talked about this before, when we covered the role of blockchain in NFTs in this column.Here, it is important to highlight how blockchain technology has enabled digital assets, such as nonfungible tokens, to be interoperable and immediately viewable across dozens of different wallet providers, tradable on other gaming platforms and required in various virtual worlds of the Metaverse. And interoperability, in turn, has extended the negotiability of digital assets by enabling their free trade on other gaming platforms, thanks to blockchain technology. This puts users in direct ownership of their in-game items, giving them full and irrevocable control over their use.That is, blockchain game players can access NFT marketplaces and crypto-active brokers and extract value from their in-game experiences by buying and trading digital assets obtained in games, 24/7, globally. In addition, tokenization of in-game assets opens up numerous other opportunities. Related: Ready Player Earn: Where NFT gaming and the virtual economy coincideThe decentralized finance marketplace is a place where some players can put their acquired in-game assets to yield. Platforms like Yield Guild Games facilitate, for example, the lending and borrowing activities of in-game assets, so that players who do not have the initial capital needed to purchase in-game items can, through DeFi, participate in a given game by ceding a portion of the monetization and their earnings to “in-game item lenders.”The advantage of blockchain games for developersIn addition to increasing monetization opportunities for gamers, the use of blockchain-based assets can also be beneficial for game developers. Under the current structure of in-game item exchange, the practice known as “gold mining” has become prevalent. Gold mining involves players selling accounts or game “coins” on dark markets or over-the-counter markets, limiting secondary market monetization opportunities for developers and making players vulnerable to fraud.With the expansion of marketplaces for digital assets obtained in blockchain games, developers can obtain information about the trading volumes of these assets and encode royalties into NFTs, so that with each subsequent sale, they receive a portion of the sale price as a royalty fee. This represents a real evolution in the way intellectual property and copyrights are thought of in the digital world.The game industry and the property disputeGames that use blockchain are fundamentally different from traditional games because of the way they approach ownership. Blockchain games give players full control over the digital assets they earn or acquire through their participation in the games.In traditional games, even though players pay real money for their digital assets, they can no longer access them if the server is down. That is, in traditional games, the money and assets remain the property of the publisher or developer.Ultimately, blockchain game players retain full ownership of their digital assets, allowing them to trade them freely with other players, sell them for real money, and potentially use them in other games or virtual worlds in the Metaverse.Related: Nonfungible tokens from a legal perspectiveThe trend in the games industry is towards the adoption of blockchain in games as a path of no return, and at the moment, the P2E model is the driver of this adoption. However, over time, the use of blockchain in games will likely span a variety of use cases beyond the play-to-earn model. This is because the technology enables a myriad of combinations and incentives.Against this backdrop, it’s no wonder that, in the last four months alone, hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed into blockchain or NFT-centric games, with investors allocating large amounts of funds to startups that, in turn, are looking for expert developers to build their teams. Parallel to this, governments are already considering taxing the profits made by the more than two million players of Axie Infinity, currently the most popular game on blockchain and using the P2E model.What about you? Would you invest your time to compete and be rewarded with digital assets in a game, including it as work experience on your resume?This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.Tatiana Revoredo is a founding member of the Oxford Blockchain Foundation and is a strategist in blockchain at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. Additionally, she is an expert in blockchain business applications at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the chief strategy officer of The Global Strategy. Tatiana has been invited by the European Parliament to the Intercontinental Blockchain Conference and was invited by the Brazilian parliament to the public hearing on Bill 2303/2015. She is the author of two books: Blockchain: Tudo O Que Você Precisa Saber and Cryptocurrencies in the International Scenario: What Is the Position of Central Banks, Governments and Authorities About Cryptocurrencies?

Čítaj viac

Získaj BONUS 8 € v Bitcoinoch

nakup bitcoin z karty

Registrácia Binance

Burza Binance

Aktuálne kurzy