Bitfarms was able to sell far few shares for the same amount of proceeds thanks to a 45% rise in its stock price in the last week.
There comes a point in every investor’s journey when he must admit he is wrong about something. In my case, I was wrong about bitcoin and whether it would ever be considered a legitimate asset class. This realization dawned on me in the last month when the price of bitcoin passed its December 2017 highs of $20,000. My prior belief was that bitcoin wouldn’t surpass these highs for many years, if at all. I didn’t think that bitcoin was “going to zero,” but I also didn’t think it would eclipse its December 2017 peak anytime soon.
Nick Maggiulli is chief operating officer at Ritholtz Wealth Management and author of the “Of Dollars and Data” financial blog, where a version of this article first appeared.
Now that it has surpassed that peak by over 50%, I have come to realize that bitcoin isn’t the one-trick pony I thought it was. As Paulo Coelho wrote in “The Alchemist“:
Everything that happens once can never happen again. But everything that happens twice will surely happen a third time.
Well, here we are again. Bitcoin is on another spectacular bull run and investors are taking notice. Now that bitcoin has survived (and thrived) beyond its 2017 peak, many investors who used to see it as a joke are now realizing it isn’t one. I am one of them.
I have changed my tune on bitcoin, but not because of many of the arguments put forth by bitcoin bulls. For example, bitcoin bulls have claimed that bitcoin would be used as a currency, that the U.S. dollar would plummet in value and that the halving in May 2020 would increase bitcoin’s price. They were wrong on all counts, yet bitcoin’s price has still gone up.
What the bitcoin bulls were right about was increased adoption and the ability of many bitcoin owners to hold (“HODL”) even as prices rose dramatically. These two effects (more demand from buyers and reduced supply from sellers) have helped to boost bitcoin’s price and cement it as a legitimate asset class within the investment community. As a result, bitcoin has become a form of digital gold. You may not agree with this assessment, but if you still think bitcoin is “going to zero” you should reconsider your assumptions.
Why bitcoin is here to stay
The problem with arguing that bitcoin is “going to zero” is there are too many investors who are willing to buy it at a price far above $0. I remember speaking to many non-crypto investors before the recent run-up in price who said they wouldn’t buy bitcoin at $10,000, but if it dropped to $1,000-$2,000 they would surely jump in.
Well, guess what? Now that the current price is above $30,000, some of those investors have likely increased the limit at which they would consider buying bitcoin. Instead of buying at $1,000 these same investors may be happy to jump in closer to $10,000. And every time the price goes up in the future, these “mental buy limits” go up as well, increasing the likelihood of bitcoin’s future survival.
“But Nick, bitcoin doesn’t have any intrinsic value!” Well, guess what? Neither does gold, which has a $10 trillion market capitalization! So if you want to argue against bitcoin on intrinsic value terms, then you have to argue against gold, too. Because both the price of gold and the price of bitcoin are based around one thing and one thing alone – belief, the belief that these assets will have value in the future.
See also: Pondering Durian – Why >15% of My Net Worth Is in Bitcoin
And right now the collective belief in bitcoin is increasing. The cult is becoming a religion. Don’t just take my word for it though. There are plenty of articles (see here, here and here) that discuss this increased adoption within the investment community. And if this trend continues (as it probably will), then we are even less likely to see a future without bitcoin.
How will bitcoin behave?
Now that bitcoin is here to stay, you might be wondering how it will behave in the future. Will increased adoption lead to higher prices? I have no idea! What I do know is bitcoin is a speculative asset class. Therefore, we should look at other speculative asset classes as a guide for how bitcoin might behave. And I believe there is no better speculative asset to use for this comparison than the early years of gold as an investment.
While gold has been around for millennia as a form of money, it wasn’t until August 1974 in the U.S. that it was an investable asset class. And in the six years following its reintroduction to the investment community (1974-1980), gold tripled in value in real terms (i.e., the yellow line below):
But since that tripling, it hasn’t performed all that well. Though bitcoin is unlikely to follow a similar path to gold, it is likely to exhibit similar behavior. This means bitcoin will continue to have huge run-ups in price followed by violent crashes that may last years (and possibly decades) in the future. We have already seen this kind of behavior from bitcoin before and I am quite confident we will see it again.
The difference between bitcoin and gold is that bitcoin is still gaining adoption among investors. Will that continue at its current pace into the future? Who knows? However, if bitcoin’s market capitalization were to match that of gold, it would be worth over $500,000 a coin. This is why some investors are so bullish on bitcoin.
However, there are still some reasons to be bearish. The main one is that bitcoin is associated with some of the most speculative investment activity out there. This is most apparent when comparing its price movement to the price movement of another speculative cryptocurrency – dogecoin. Though you may not have heard of dogecoin, it is an alternative crypto currency (altcoin) that is kind of an inside joke on the internet.
And since dogecoin’s price is a clear indicator of speculative behavior, if we look at the correlation between dogecoin and bitcoin we can get a better feel for how much speculation might be occurring in bitcoin at any point in time:
As you can see, over the last three years the correlation between dogecoin and bitcoin has been quite high, with the most recent correlation reading around 0.8.
But if we compare dogecoin to gold, we see that the correlation between their prices tends to center around 0:
This is just more evidence that bitcoin is associated with speculative activity and will continue to behave like a speculative asset in the future.
Is there a right way to invest in bitcoin?
Though I have changed my mind on bitcoin, I haven’t necessarily changed my view on how one should invest in it. I believe the only prudent way to invest in this asset class without any long-term negative repercussions is to hold no more than 2% of your portfolio in it. I wouldn’t recommend this approach for everyone, but it may work for some people. By limiting your exposure to 2% of your portfolio you’re unlikely to get rich, but you’re unlikely to go bankrupt either.
Why 2%? This was the allocation I got when I worked out the optimal portfolio back in October 2017. Anything more than 2% adds too much risk (per unit return) to your portfolio and anything less than 2% reduces your returns (per unit risk) too much. Of course, the optimal portfolio is the best solution for the past, not the future. Either way, I don’t see the harm in a 2% allocation, but please do your own research first.
See also: Ajit Tripathi – Why I’m Long Crypto, Short DLT
The biggest risk I see to owning bitcoin going forward isn’t a price crash (which is inevitable), but the possibility of a government ban on ownership. This might seem outlandish but in April 1933 the U.S. government banned the ownership of gold bullion/coinage for all U.S. citizens. The reasons for that ban are very different from a bitcoin ban that could happen today, but with the recent Securities and Exchange Commission complaint against Ripple I wouldn’t rule it out completely.
Lastly, I might be wrong on many of the things I have stated today or in the past. But I don’t blog so that I can be “right.” I do it so I can learn more about investing and get closer to the truth. As economist John Maynard Keynes (or Paul Samuelson) supposedly said:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
Despite the excitement and enthusiasm in the Ethereum community, many people don’t yet fully understand the significance – and the opportunity – of the second-largest blockchain for large institutions and enterprises.
The nature of network participation is changing dramatically as well as the incentive mechanisms for securing open permissionless protocols, demonstrated by Ethereum’s shift to a radically new consensus mechanism.
This post is part of CoinDesk’s 2020 Year in Review – a collection of op-eds, essays and interviews about the year in crypto and beyond. Evan Weiss is head of business operations at Bison Trails.
Anyone holding ether (ETH) as an asset can participate in securing the network and earn rewards. Given the increased growth and utilization of the protocol, now is the time for large enterprises to take a look at the Eth 2.0 opportunity.
Ethereum, currently the second-highest market cap network with over $40 billion in value, aims to be a globally distributed computer for executing peer-to-peer contracts. In other words, it’s “a world computer you can’t shut down.” More important, Ethereum has become the most utilized blockchain protocol in the world, settling over $6 billion per day.
Eth 2.0, the next iteration of this distributed system, represents years of research and coordinated effort from teams across the world. A primary goal of Eth 2.0 is to enable the protocol to continue to grow with our industry and scale to support trillions of dollars in value transfer in a decentralized manner.
See also: The Risks and Rewards of Staking on Eth 2.0
Before the launch of its skeletal system on Dec. 1, more than 835,520 ETH was staked to the Eth 2.0 deposit contract, far exceeding the minimum of ETH required to trigger the new network’s “genesis.”
Not only is this launch a huge milestone for the crypto community, the transition also represents a significant change in how the protocol will be secured, as the network moves from mining (proof-of-work, or PoW) to staking (proof-of-stake, or PoS).
Token ownership and rewards
In decentralized protocols, mining and staking seek to accomplish the same goal, determining network consensus. Coming to agreement on the “state of the chain” ensures the monetary balances the blockchain stores are accurate. But networks based on mining and those based on staking operate very differently in the real world to achieve this consensus.
In PoS, mining to secure the network is a separate activity from holding tokens. Many bitcoin miners are sophisticated actors, with large balance sheets. They optimize for access to cheap hardware and electricity but don’t always meet the necessary margins to stay profitable. PoW miners face the significant risks of price swings of the native protocol assets they hold and depreciation of their assets – a risk greater than some investor appetites.
A large portion of this PoW mining happens in China and is controlled by a few large mining companies. These large mining companies are not known for operational transparency and, as such, are not an attractive option for well-established enterprises or institutions with fiduciary responsibilities.
In proof-of-stake, on the other hand, token holders are responsible for validating blocks. By participating in securing the network, these holders earn rewards. PoS protocols have a built-in inflation mechanism that increases the supply of coins, distributing them proportionally to those coins that have been staked.
More important, with PoS networks, large-scale token holders and enterprises don’t have to navigate the intensive hardware requirements, find locations with cheap access to electricity or rely on international miners in order to actively participate in the supply side of the network.
At a minimum, all you need to participate in Eth 2.0 is 32 ETH and an active validator. For enterprises and large-scale token holders, active PoS network participants may also consider running in-house infrastructure, as well as the time investment and opportunity cost of capital.
In the five years since Ethereum’s debut, a number of new PoS protocols have launched including Polkadot, Celo, NEAR and Flow. There has also been a proportional rise in “infrastructure as a service” companies. These companies make it safe and easy for token holders and institutions to earn rewards as network validators.
These enterprise-grade, cloud-based blockchain infrastructure providers can strengthen the network by geographically distributing the network’s nodes, without introducing the costs associated with proof-of-work mining.
Further, we’re seeing a trend towards professionalization of the staking industry as new products are brought to market that provide liquidity for staked tokens and additionally provide insurance protections around slashing penalties – a major concern for institutions.
As Ethereum’s utilization continues its hockey stick-like growth, staking represents an opportunity to own a small part of the growing Web 3.0 ecosystem. A distributed web built on blockchain technology is a drastic shift from the internet we are familiar with today, where there is no way to own or monetize your usage.
Policymakers understand this is a clear movement towards enabling users to own a small part of the next generation internet. As Ethereum grows to power trillions of dollars in daily settlements, owning a portion of this next-gen web will become a once in a generation opportunity.
Lastly, taxation of assets is an important consideration for institutions. There is promising work being done to advance the idea that staking rewards should be treated as “created property” so that rewards are taxed when they are sold, not when they are first created. These “capital assets” would give token holders the opportunity to hold their staking rewards for longer than one year and then receive long-term capital gains treatment under current tax rules.
Clarity here would provide even more assurance that participating in PoS networks won’t come at the cost of an excessive tax burden.
See also: US Lawmakers Don’t Want Proof-of-Stake Networks to Get Overtaxed
Eth 2.0 represents a fundamentally new kind of business opportunity. It offers a chance for non-technical market actors to own a piece of the Ethereum protocol and the fees that come with its utilization. While still in the earliest stages of its rollout, there’s already a well-established ecosystem of professional companies to support institutional investors with cloud-based infrastructure.
It’s experimental, but the rewards are there for the brave new adopters.
by Peter Smith,
Last week I sent a letter on behalf of Blockchain.com to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (embedded below), outlining my concerns regarding FinCEN’s anticipated rules related to self-custodied wallets. Since then, FinCEN released a set of proposed rules that has been widely commented on in the crypto space. The good news is that the proposal published by FinCEN on Friday is less onerous than we had anticipated. For a great synopsis of the proposed rules, I recommend reading Compound General Counsel Jake Chervinsky’s thread on twitter.
Here are some of my thoughts about the proposal to implement additional restrictions on self-hosted wallets, as captured in my letter. First, the rules may be unintentionally detrimental to the underlying goal of addressing money laundering and terrorist financing activities. The challenges of addressing money laundering in the global financial system are admittedly immense.
Second, the rules may simply bifurcate the industry into providers who comply with the rules and off-shore wallet providers who do not, relegating illicit activity outside of the view of US law enforcement agencies. It’s possible that unregulated offshore hosted-service providers may gain a competitive advantage over AML/KYC-regulated providers, so US law enforcement agencies may end up losing access to information that is currently readily available to them.
Blockchain.com’s financial crime department interacts with law enforcement authorities on a daily basis. If we were not able to facilitate transactions between self-custodied wallets and our hosted offering, that stream of transactional traffic would no longer be captured, nor could we provide any requested details to law enforcement. It would simply be transacted elsewhere. We believe law enforcement would prefer to preserve their current visibility into the network.
Next, we believe that self-custodied wallets are beneficial to users. Not only because they provide the privacy of cash-like payments, but also because of the innovation that is made possible. Innovation that, like the internet, presents opportunities limited only by the imagination of entrepreneurs.
While a large and well-capitalized crypto company like Blockchain.com that currently operates KYC-regulated products across a number of jurisdictions can comply with the strictest interpretation of these rules, we believe they’re bad for innovation. Crypto is a nascent and growing industry. We have talented teams and entrepreneurs across the United States who are innovating yet would buckle under the weight of this regulation. We know because we invest in many of them.
Finally, we believe that there is a quite-effective regulatory framework in place. The activities of MSBs and money transmitters are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act and each must meet strict KYC and anti-money laundering requirements — Blockchain.com alone has KYCed millions of users over the past 2 years. Third-party intermediaries (banks and payment services providers) are also regulated in accordance with banking and financial services regulations. Thus the gap in the regulatory framework is less about the companies operating in the United States and more about offshore OTC exchanges and brokerages, where there would be no impact of these restrictive regulations.
As noted above, FinCEN’s proposal, as published, is less restrictive than we had feared. However, requiring hosted service providers to collect and report personal information on unhosted wallet recipients does not, in our opinion, target the critical issues here and may have unintended consequences. I’ll conclude by stating that, in no uncertain terms, we condemn the illicit usage of cryptocurrency to commit crimes of any sort. We simply believe there are more effective ways to achieve the goals of FinCEN and the United States government.
It is critical to acknowledge that US law enforcement authorities have access to much of the information which is needed in order for them to target criminal activity — due to regulations applicable to hosted providers located in AML- and KYC-regulated jurisdictions. Given the inherent complexities, any proposed regulation should be subject to a full consultation and review process. Only in this manner, can we achieve a system of regulation that is sensible, meaningful and appropriately targeted, preserving the transparency available to US law enforcement today.
Read in full here.
In the run-up to the 2017 market peak, stories abounded of traders who bought bitcoin in the spot market just a few months before only to cash out to the tune of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.
The days of tripling or quadrupling your money in just a week or two just by buying bitcoin may be behind us. But since those heady days of three years ago, the crypto derivatives market has taken up the mantle of being the place where astonishing returns can occasionally be had by taking huge risks.
Indeed, some traders with bullish outlooks have recently generated significant profits by taking long positions using the cheap out-of-the-money call options. That has given them the same reward as holding multiple bitcoins in the spot market but at a significantly less cost, albeit with more risk.
That’s what a bullish call options trade executed five weeks ago on the world’s largest crypto options exchange, Deribit, has achieved.
On Oct. 30, someone (a single trader or small group) bought 16,000 January expiry call options at the $36,000 strike for 0.003 bitcoin per contract, according to data shared by Deribit. The total cost was 48 bitcoin – the number of contracts (16,000) multiplied by the per-contract premium of 0.003 bitcoin.
In dollar terms, the per-contract premium at the time was around $39.90, and the entire trade required an initial outlay of approximately $638,400.
As bitcoin rallied from $13,400 to over $19,000, the premium drawn by the $36,000-strike January expiry call rose from 0.003 bitcoin to 0.0145 bitcoin, generating a paper profit of more than $4 million.
Here is how the net return is calculated:
= [(Option’s current price of 0.0145 BTC x 16,000 contracts) x bitcoin’s current spot market price of $19,200] minus (-) cost of trade.
= [232 bitcoin x $19,200] – $638,400
= $4,454,400 – $638,400
If the position were to be liquidated now, and assuming dumping on the market 16,000 far-out-of-the-money calls wouldn’t drop the price, the net return ignoring the fees charged by the exchange would be seven times the initial outlay.
A call option gives the holder the right but not the obligation to buy the underlying asset at a predetermined price on or before a particular date. A put option represents a right to sell. Options on Deribit are also cash-settled, which means when they are exercised it is only the profits that are paid. One options contract represents the right to buy or sell one bitcoin.
As of now, the $36,000 call is an out-of-the-money call option – one which has no intrinsic value due to the spot price hovering below the strike price.
Theoretically, the purchase of the $36,000 call expiring on Jan. 29 is a bet that prices will rise above $36,000 before the end of January, making the option “in-the-money.”
However, as markets move higher, the probability of the out-of-the-money option turning into one that is in-the-money rises, boosting the option’s premium, as seen in this case.
If the bull market maintains its pace, the option premium will continue to rise, all things being equal. However, a potential price consolidation would reduce bitcoin’s probability of rising above $36,000 by the end of January and erode the option’s value as the time to expiration draws near (referred to as “theta decay” in options parlance).
Taking on an options trade brings with it even more risk than just buying bitcoin outright. For one, the trader could get wiped out. That’s because the long call position would expire worthless on Jan. 29, yielding a loss of $638,400 (the total premium the trader paid) if bitcoin settles below $36,000 on that day. Then again, the maximum loss the option trader can suffer is limited to the extent of premium paid, which is $638,400 in this case.
If the trader is seeking to liquidate a little bit of the position now, he or she may have a willing buyer out there near current prices for small amounts. As of now, the $36,000-strike call looks somewhat active. A few other traders seem to have bought call options at that strike price.
“Options offer a different strategy to make leveraged profit,” said Shaun Fernando, head of risk and product at Deribit. “In this case, extremely bullish sentiment could be done through buying leveraged futures. However from trading far out-of-the-money calls, it offered the trader a low-risk, high-reward strategy with limited down side. Increase in option price was as a result of underlying move and increased volatility. Underlying [bitcoin] does not necessarily have to cross the strike for a trader to profit.”
At press time, there are more than 20,000 call option contracts open at the $36,000 strike – that’s the highest concentration of open interest at a single strike.
A big open interest buildup in a deep out-of-the-money option is often considered a bullish sign. However, sometimes the data is skewed by a few large trades and thus not reliable as a market indicator, as in this case.
Blockchain payments firm Ripple is selling roughly one-third of its stake in MoneyGram, in its first such sale of company stock since the startup invested in the remittance giant in 2019.
According to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Friday, Ripple owns 6.22 million shares of MoneyGram, or 8.6% of shares outstanding, plus a warrant to buy up to another 5.95 million shares, for a total equity position of 12.2 million shares, or 17% of MoneyGram’s shares outstanding.
Ripple is now selling up to 4 million shares, or approximately 33.3% of its entire stake, if you count the shares represented by the warrant. After the sale, Ripple will still own at least 3.22 million shares, or 4.44% of MoneyGram. When including the additional shares represented by the warrant, which gives Ripple the right to execute a stock buy at a predetermined price, the blockchain payments firm will still own about 11% of MoneyGram.
Under the terms of Ripple’s initial investment announce in June 2019, the company bought the shares in MoneyGram at $4.10 apiece, at a significant premium to their price at the time. Shares of MoneyGram have risen more than 260% this year, closing at $7.42 on Wednesday, meaning Ripple is netting a significant profit on its investment.
“Ripple is a proud partner in MoneyGram’s digital growth transformation. This is purely a judicious financial decision to realize some gains on Ripple’s MGI [MoneyGram International] investment and is in no way a reflection of the current state of our partnership,” a Ripple spokesperson told CoinDesk.
The sales are still in process, according to the spokesperson, who didn’t respond to an emailed question asking what the company intends to do with the proceeds from the stake sale.
Ripple completed the purchase of a $50 million equity stake in MoneyGram in November 2019.
As recently as the end of Q3 2020, Ripple had paid $9.3 million to MoneyGram, noted as “market development fees” on MoneyGram’s latest financial statement, for the remittance firm’s use of Ripple’s XRP-based settlement network, the On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) network (formerly known as xRapid).
MoneyGram has used this cross-border solution to conduct transactions in Europe, Australia and the Philippines since June 2019, for which Ripple has paid MoneyGram at least $52 million. The remittance firm piloted Ripple’s flagship cryptocurrency in 2018.
“We will remain a significant shareholder in MoneyGram following the sale – they are clearly a leader in the global payments space in over 200 countries and territories. In just over a year, we’ve made incredible progress and look forward to continuing to work alongside MoneyGram to transform cross-border payments,” the Ripple spokesperson said.
After the most recent Mac update caused major problems for one of Bitcoin’s oldest wallets, its development team has rolled out a fix.
Originally raised as an issue on Github, the Big Sur update is bricking MacOS Electrum clients, a Bitcoin software wallet which is a favorite of power users because of its complex tooling and user controls. The Electrum team announced today that a new release fixes the issue.
“Currently, the latest release of Big Sur has completely broken Electrum [for Mac devices]. You can’t open the app or load any of your wallets,” one Electrum user, Nico, told CoinDesk.
The issue was opened on Electrum’s Github on Aug. 1, around the time Apple released Big Sur’s beta.
While the “root cause is still unknown,” Electrum developer SomberNight said in the Github issue page, it’s related to Big Sur’s treatment of Python, the coding language that Electrum is written in.
To work around the problem, Electrum users can run the software from source (that is, by manually compiling the source code) or they can bundle an older version of Python into their software. The Electrum team’s fix incorporates the latter solution.
The snafu is the first case of Apple’s latest release disrupting the Bitcoin realm, but it’s not the first time the update has caused issues.
Upon the version 11.0 release last week, an error in Apple’s servers caused worldwide shutdowns of Mac hardware running the update. These servers process OCSP requests, or the data packets that verify user credentials for applications.
Mac users soon discovered that the Big Sur update and the error were related. Big Sur sends OCSP requests for every online and offline application that a user opens, and if these requests fail, then the computer fails too.
This activity logging feature has been present since Apple’s Catilina update, but Big Sur makes it so Mac users can’t trick the feature with firewalls and VPNs like they once could.
These requests are transmitted unencrypted, raising privacy concerns over how this data may be intercepted and used by third parties. From the perspective of a Bitcoin user, this feature would broadcast every time a wallet, coin mixer or other Bitcoin-related service is used on their device.
According to the bright minds of FinTwit, the biggest event isn’t the U.S. presidential election but today’s Pfizer vaccine update.
Our main discussion: The stock market soars on promising Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trials.
The S&P 500 and DJIA hit new all-time highs after Pfizer announced its experimental vaccine had prevented COVID-19 in 90% of patients. Travel stocks soared, work from home stocks suffered and safe havens fell. In this episode, NLW explores the shifting market sentiment, as well as what it means for bitcoin.
Seven Celebrities That Allegedly Use and Invest in Cryptocurrencies Daily – Blockchain News, Opinion, TV and Jobs
If you thought that the “cryptocurrency world” was only limited by nerds, then let us open your eyes with this list.
To our surprise, we have found more than 100 celebrities that use and invest in cryptocurrencies
They have diverse reasons for it, but something that all of them have in common is that they don´t have any regrets, in fact, they are happy with the results after they started to use cryptos, they enjoy the freedom and security that blockchain offers them in general
Apparently, the actor not only plays millionaire roles in movies or TV series (as Steve Jobs or Walden Schmidt) He also likes to make smart use of his money.
Or at least that was the impression he gave on “The Ellen Degeneres Show” when he talked about where he was investing his money.
- Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
Know widely in the Hollywood world, the Winklevoss twins are a perfect example of how volatile the cryptocurrency market could be since the way their fortune fluctuates is everything but normal.
However, they are positioned as great entrepreneurs, cameo experts, and Hollywood most charismatic twins.
In 2014, 50 Cent saw a great opportunity to test the value of cryptocurrencies. Therefore, he listed Bitcoin as one of the payment methods for his album “Animal Ambition” besides the dollar.
Furthermore, the artist managed to raise around 700 BTC, and his decision opened his eyes because at that time the Bitcoin price was around US $1000 and US $300 throughout the year. Now in the year 2020, 1 BTC worth around US $13000.
- Kanye West
The way that Kanye made his interest in cryptocurrencies public was using the same way that he usually does for all things: causing controversy.
Accordingly, in August 2018, Troncoin better known as TRX enabled a protocol that allowed people to send TRX through Twitter.
The idea behind it was using TRX to send small tips, drawing attention to the cryptocurrency versatility.
However, one of the personalities who received a tip was Kanye West and his answer about how marvellous cryptocurrencies were caused all the topic to go viral.
It was thanks to that event that 10 of the not-so-known cryptocurrencies began to be used due to their accessibility in their price (especially comparing them to Bitcoin).
Also, several initiatives to educate people about cryptocurrencies began to be a trend, such as this thorough guide to Ripple.
Another example of artists who decided to enable the Bitcoin payment of their album is Snoop Dogg, although his story is more curious since it was all thanks to an innocent comment he made on the red carpet in December 2013.
After a few hours, Coinbase mentioned him in a Tweet telling him that they fulfill his idea and that is how the artist increased his coffers exponentially.
The Spice Girl also has a pretty curious story of how she enters the world of cryptocurrencies. In short, seeing the success that other artists had with Bitcoin, she allied with Cloud Hashing, which allowed the use of cryptocurrencies to become more popular in Europe.
Although everyone sees Myke Tyson as an ex-boxer with a tattooed face (or even as the guy who bit his opponent’s ear), Tyson, who started investing in Bitcoin at an early age of the currency, today is one of the top activists (and crypto millionaires) trying to bring cryptocurrencies to the world.
That is why some BTC ATMs have Tyson’s tattoo on their sides.
Please follow and like us:
Bitcoin has carved out a 33-month high, showing resilience amid growing instability in the traditional markets.