Will Bitcoin Have its Moment in the Trump Era?

Will Bitcoin Have its Moment in the Trump Era?

20.49 0
Michael J Casey works on blockchain-based solutions for the Digital Currency Initiative at the MIT Media Lab. He is also a former Wall Street Journal reporter, and the author of several books including "The Age of Cryptocurrency", which he authored with Paul Vigna.
Here, Casey examines how bitcoin might fare under the an administration soon to be overseen by noted, and controversial, entrepreneur Donald Trump.
Donald Trump
History tells us that no international monetary system lasts forever.
And as Barry Eichengreen, the leading thinker in this arena, has repeatedly reminded us, those systems tend to collapse very quickly, whether it was the dominance of Rome’s coins, the British pound’s status as the common unit of international trade, or the various periods in which the world aligned around the gold standard.
The same will be true for the US dollar’s unofficial status as the international reserve currency. Its hegemony will at some point disappear and, when it does, the fall will be swift as the world scrambles for a new commercial anchor.
Below, I will make the case that the trigger for this decline, whether it happens in the next four years or not, could well have been put in place last Tuesday. A Trump presidency could hold the right ingredients for a US dollar collapse.
I will also argue that this time, when the dollar system collapses, it won’t be replaced by another outdated fiat currency like the euro, yen or Chinese yuan. Neither will we go back to a precious metals standard, however much gold bugs hanker for it.
In the interim, we may anchor world trade to a transitional, multilateral combination of these paper and commodity currencies, but soon enough it will prove to be too unwieldy and out of touch with a changing global economy.
The fact is, we now operate in a digital economy in which economic activity is increasingly decentralized, with transactions happening peer-to-peer and, when the Internet of Things is in place, machine-to-machine. That online, decentralized economic architecture will require a digital, decentralized system of monetary exchange that bypasses the inefficient financial intermediaries of a broken banking system.
The solution might not be bitcoin per se, but the distributed, network-run system of value transfer that it represents will, I believe, provide the template for the future model.
It's one possible explanation for why the digital currency got a bump on Tuesday evening through Wednesday.

Change is coming

Why might Trump set this chain of events in play? To be sure, we don’t know what changes the next president will introduce, but he has definitely stoked uncertainty around the direction of US policy. And uncertainty, the enemy of efficient markets, can often have a self-fulfilling effect.
That’s an unsatisfying answer, however. So let’s also break down some of the ideas that Trump has floated and how they might change the international perception of America’s commitment to the dollar-based international system:
Rights determined by ethnic background
Trump suggests we should discriminate against external foreigners (Muslim visitors to the US), domestic non-citizens (undocumented Hispanic immigrants) and domestic citizens (judges deemed unfit to serve for being of Mexican descent.) This is not just a moral issue; it goes to the heart of whether the law is impartially upheld in the US.
That perceived impartiality is critical to foreign investors’ willingness to hold dollar assets. Might a Trump presidency call into question the vital notion that anyone can assert their contractual property rights in the US, regardless of who and where they are? If so, might it tip those investors toward repatriating some of the trillions of dollars they hold in US assets and which underpin the dollar’s reserve status?
Contempt for international treaties
Whether it’s Trump’s aggressively anti-free trade stance (vs Mexico and vs China) or his disregard for NATO and other international security pacts, the president-elect does not hold existing international agreements in high regard. Yet the US’s commitment to them is integral to the dollar’s role as the monetary rails of international trade.
It also seems possible that this isolationist mindset would lead the US to cut off support for the Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, two cornerstones of the current international financial system that have already been squeezed by funding constraints from a Republican-led Congress.
Foreign governments trust the US to hold their reserves under an implicit understanding that Washington will stand by these key elements of the international framework for cross-border exchanges and commitments.
Ambiguous commitment to US security umbrellas
Trump’s dismissal of NATO, his apparent cuddling up to Russia, and his seemingly more lax approach to nuclear proliferation hint at a dramatic diminishment of the US’s military deployment around the world.
That security structure is fundamental to the dollar’s strength – there is an implicit quid pro quo in the idea that in return for Washington’s expenditure on ships, planes and personnel that protect the world’s trade routes, the world uses dollars to transact along those routes.
Mistrust in the Federal Reserve
Trump’s explicit criticism of Janet Yellen during the campaign, saying she should be “ashamed” of keeping interest rates low, challenges the independence of the most important institution charged with upholding the value of the dollar. What might that do to foreign investor confidence?
Runaway federal deficits
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Government estimated that Trump’s campaign spending proposals would add a staggering $5.3 trillion dollars to America’s debt load over the next 10 years, 25 times that of Hillary Clinton’s proposal.
If even half of that were to be committed, the government would have two options: default on the debt or use inflation to monetize it. Either way, the result would be a massive devaluation in the dollar akin to that which President Nixon achieved when he abandoned its gold peg in 1971.
Speaking of the “Nixon shock,” it’s worth remembering that it was achieved through executive fiat, with the audacious plan privy to only a very small clique of close-knit presidential advisors. It provides a valuable reminder of the power of a strong-minded president to singlehandedly change the international monetary system.
I’m not saying Trump would willingly take such action, but these are the kinds of historical reference points that foreign investors will keep in the back of their minds as they weigh their bets on the dollar.

Enter bitcoin

As for what comes next, it’s worth considering how reluctantly many governments participate in the current dollar-based bargain. It’s no secret that China would love to be less dependent on the dollar for foreign trade, which in turn would mean that it isn’t trapped by a need to hold more than $1 trillion in national savings in US Treasury bonds.
But there are also smaller-country governments that feel completely vulnerable to the dollar system, since it means that any change in US interest rates can have a destabilizing effect on their economies. The situation effectively robs them of monetary autonomy.
What’s interesting is that new, digital money solutions inspired by, if not based on, bitcoin could help these countries wean themselves off the dollar.
The digital ledger technology that Wall Street banks are using to pursue the real-time settlement of securities transfers could equally be used to achieve real-time settlement of trade flows. If Chinese exporters can now get direct rubles-to-yuan payments from Russian importers, without depending on the US-led international banking system to clear transactions through its cumbersome, time-consuming process of aggregated transfers, those two countries’ payments would no longer need to triangulate through dollars.
Meanwhile, in smaller emerging markets, governments are exploring digital money solutions that might also bypass banks and potentially even allow them to create independent monetary policy systems.
And what might smart contracts that give both businesses and governments automating tools to mitigate cross-border currency risks do to demand for reserve currencies? The only reason to hold reserves, which amounts to deferring money that could be put to use back home, is for insurance against those risks.

Decentralizing the future

To me, these changes in the technology of money, along with other aspects of our increasingly digitalizing and decentralizing global economy  –  everything from machine-learning and augmented reality to drone delivery and 3D printing  –  make it unlikely that the post-dollar, international solution for managing value exchange will be another fiat currency-based regime. The new architecture will come from within the decentralizing digital technologies themselves.
I’m under no illusions that the powers-that-be who will help determine this future will necessarily gravitate toward bitcoin. But right now, there aren’t many other ways to hedge for these kinds of changes. Bitcoin is the only bellwether we have — a proxy asset class — for the prospect of a future financial system based on a decentralized, distributed trust network.
So if, you’re worried and/or excited about the disruption that a Trump presidency could do to the global monetary system  –  I’m both, I suppose  –  bitcoin might just be a creative way to bet on whatever emerges next.
This article was previously published on Medium and has been republished with permission.
Donald Trump image via Shutterstock/JStone

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, CoinDesk.
OCBC Trials Blockchain for Interbank Payments

OCBC Trials Blockchain for Interbank Payments

20.49 0

One of the five largest banks in Singapore has tested a blockchain-based payment service, with an eye to develop commercial products around the tech.
OCBC Bank used the tech to send funds between its operations in Singapore and Malaysia, as well as transmit money to the Bank of Singapore, a private banking business it owns. The bank said it worked with BCS Information Services, a local payments firm, to develop the prototype.
The test is the latest for Asia’s banking sector, the members of which have spent much of the past two years investigating use cases, investing in startups and pursuing commercial applications.
Praveen Raina, OCBC senior vice president, was quoted as saying:
“We hope this will be a catalyst for more banks to adopt the blockchain technology so that, together, we can achieve efficiency and cost effectiveness while delivering more high-value financial services to our consumers.”
Though the bank announced its move on its official group website, the details of that announcement appear to have been removed at press time.
The move comes as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city-state’s central bank, has moved to create a pro-fintech environment within the domestic finance sector. Earlier this month, MAS has forged relationships with regional interests on the tech, coming more than a year after the institution began developing and investing in projects of its own.

US Health Department Selects 15 Blockchain Research Contest Winners

19.18 0
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), a division within the US
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has announced the winners of a blockchain research paper contest.
The "Use of Blockchain in Health IT and Health-related Research Challenge", announced last month,solicited white papers that would explore how the technology can be potentially used in healthcare settings.
The ONC said that it received over 70 submissions, and that it ultimately chose just 15 to spotlight.
National coordinator Vindell Washington said in a statement:
"We are thrilled by the incredible amount of interest in this challenge. While many know about Blockchain technology's uses for digital currency purposes, the challenge submissions show its exciting potential for new, innovative uses in health care."
At the time it announced the contest, HHS indicated that it was weighing blockchain tech as part of a broader push for interoperability in the country’s healthcare IT systems. The ONC has been pursuing this line of inquiry for the past several years, releasing a report last October on this goal.
HHS, along with the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, are among the major US agencies looking into the technology.
The ONC is set to host a blockchain-focused workshop to be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) between 26th and 27th September.
Image via Wikimedia
Public Blockchains: The Community vs The Ecosystem

Public Blockchains: The Community vs The Ecosystem

21.24 0
William Mougayar is the author of "The Business Blockchain", and a board advisor to the Ethereum Foundation, the non-profit that oversees the development of one of two blockchains seeking to popularize the ethereum software.
ADVERTISEMENT
In this opinion piece, Mougayar offers his thoughts on the recent ethereum hard fork, opining on how he believes it showcases issues in current public blockchain governance.
torches, mob
We always hear the word "community" as a reference to the body of players who are supposed to be the stakeholders that care the most about such or such blockchain.
This term has been a cornerstone of recent events, like bitcoin's 'block size' debate and the ethereum hard fork, coloring how these events are communicated to the wider public.
But what does "community" mean in this context?

Defining community

According to blockchain theory, the community is supposed to determine the future of a given public blockchain via decentralized governance and the magic of consensus.
Consensus decision-making is at the heart of public blockchains, because a plain majority can sway it one way or the other. Just like an election, more or less.
The baseline of a blockchain rests on its economic soundness, and the reality is that some players hold the strings to this economic soundness more than others. (Economic soundness also directly relates to blockchain security, but let’s not digress on that important tangent).
With such deciding power on the future of public blockchains, the community is an important body, because it represents the current governance.
So, I went on a research investigation to figure out the composition of a typical blockchain community. What I found is that this deciding community is a subset of a larger ecosystem.
The community represents the base players that have had an earlier economic role in the ecosystem. They are mostly the insiders, and they have an advantage in being more "in-the-know" than others. Their voices are louder, and their collective actions (or inactions) can effectively determine a blockchain's trajectory.

Who's who?

There is something contrarian about cryptocurrency communities.
In the traditional sense, most companies will firstly gain users or customers, either as end-users or developers. Then the body and variety of users becomes the community.
In the cryptocurrency space, that sequence seems to be inverted.
We start with the community of core supporters before we get to a large set of end-users. That’s okay, and perhaps a characteristic of fundamental technologies that need to garner a strong base before they flourish.
Generically, the base players of a cryptocurrency community are largely developers, exchanges and miners..
The larger ecosystem involves several other participants. It can be portrayed to include the base players, in addition to groups like venture capitalists and mainstream users.
Here's a breakdown of each group:
Cryptocurrency-Community-Ecosystem
Let us take the cases of the recent ethereum hard fork decision, and the bitcoin block size debate epitomized by the Scaling Bitcoin conference series.
In both instances, the community was mostly formed of the respective base players. But these base players are a relatively small group.
In the bitcoin case, the number of attendees to the widely publicized Scaling Bitcoin process was probably under 100. And in the case of ethereum, when the Carbonvote was tallied, only a total of 1,325 addresses voted, which is a relatively small number compared to the overall number of ETH holders (considering there is an available supply of 82 million ETH).

Ecosystem approach

I hope we eventually use the word ecosystem instead of community, because it is more representative of a marketplace in the making.
And I wish that a part of this larger ecosystem would also have a voice into the future of these public blockchains.
Currently, the larger ecosystem is mostly a powerless silent majority that is watching events unfold, while remaining hopeful that the vocal and more powerful minority is going to lead the market in the right direction.
Eventually, any large scale public blockchain will need to reach a more balanced state where community leadership and ecosystem inclusion work together to strengthen its longevity and sustainability potential.
The base players are the community today, and they are steering the boat right now, but will they in the future?
Cul-de-sac image via Shutterstock
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, CoinDesk

Alibaba Affiliate Taps Blockchain for Charity Payments

21.22 0
Alibaba affiliate Ant Financial has created a private, proof-of-stake blockchain that seeks to help make charities more transparent and accountable.
ADVERTISEMENT
The news comes just months after Ant Financial closed a $4.5bn private fundraising round at a $60bn valuation. Ant Financial was spun out of China-based e-commerce giant Alibaba prior to its 2014 IPO, though both are overseen by executive chairman Jack Ma.
The trial is envisioned as one that could come to record donations made by Alipay users to charities through its “Ant Love” platform, Bloomberg reports, a move that may ultimately allow users to gain greater insight into how funds are handled by charities.
Ant Financial CTO Cheng Li told Bloomberg:
“We hope to bring more transparency to charity and blockchain technology’s decentralized nature fits that purpose well. It means that all the information and transaction history of funds will be more reliable and can’t be easily tampered with.”
According to the report, Ant Financial is currently the only firm with access to the blockchain, though it could open up access to third-party charities as the project matures.
Image credit: Fotos593 / Shutterstock.com
DAO Critic Defends Ethereum Hard Fork as 'Rite of Passage'

DAO Critic Defends Ethereum Hard Fork as 'Rite of Passage'

15.17 0
Emin Gün Sirer
ADVERTISEMENT
A Cornell University professor of computer science who has proved to have a knack for pointing out flaws in blockchain code believes the hard fork that occurred earlier today is a sign of maturity for the ethereum platform.
Last month, Cornell's Emin Gün Sirer emerged as a major critic of The DAO, the project whose failings ultimately led to the hard fork, pointing out vulnerabilities in its code and becoming the go-to source for ethereum coders looking to understand what exactly happened and how it could be avoided again.
Though he’s still quick to point out that unforeseen vulnerabilities in the code might persist, he told CoinDesk there are several reasons to be hopeful for the future of ethereum, even after the weeks of drama that ended in today's hard fork.
From an ethereum bootcamp co-hosted with the Ethereum Foundation, Gün Sirer said "chains change" because they are responding to the needs of a community, and not necessarily because they are weak.
He told CoinDesk:
"It’s a point of strength to be able to adapt to that change, to be able to respond to it, to be able to do it in an orderly fashion. Ethereum just demonstrated this. I think this is a rite of passage for ethereum."

A lesson for every currency

After weeks of planning, and several coordinated efforts to help achieve consensus among the miners on the etherum blockchain, the hard fork occurred today at approximately 14:30 UTC, returning about $140m worth of funds lost in the collapse of The DAO to an account available to its original investors.
According to Gün Sirer, the hard fork should be seen as a sign of growth not just for ethereum, but a lesson for anyone using cryptocurrency of any sort, or for that matter, fiat currency.
In particular, he describes the belief among some cryptocurrency users that the length of a blockchain is the source of its value as "long-chain fetishism" that misses the point of what really gives any currency value.
He said:
"The most important lesson, at least for me, and I hope for the public at large as well, is that the fiat currency in my pocket and also the cryptocurrency in various different wallets that I have, they all have value because of community properties, because the community believes them."

No rest for the weary

Beginning today and for the next week, Gün Sirer is co-hosting an etherum bootcamp with both the Ethereum Foundation and the inventor of ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, as part of an effort to build out that community.
Thirty-eight guests have enrolled to participate in the event from all over the world, half of which come from Cornell University, where it is hosted. Coding instructors include Buterin and three other Ethereum Foundation members and multiple Cornell University staffers. Participants range in experience from early-stage developers to high-level executives from several companies interested in exploring ethereum.
But not everything about building such a strong community is positive, according to Buterin. In email to CoinDesk, Buterin explained that ethereum users were "lucky" the hack gave them time to respond, but that might not always be the case.
Buterin wrote:
"The next time around, we may well not have such an opportunity at all. Additionally, forks will only get more and more difficult to implement over time as the community grows."
Image via Michael del Castillo for CoinDesk

Washington State Utility Raises Power Rates on Bitcoin Miners

15.16 0
A Washington State utility is raising rates on bitcoin miners, months after a dispute with the local
industry began over its power usage.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD) announced earlier this week that, effective January 2017, electrical rates will rise for so-called "high-density load customers", or those that use 250 kilowatt hours per square foot per year. The definition, as stated by the PUD, is intended specifically to cover server farms and bitcoin mines, or data centers that specifically service network transactions.
The increase won't be immediately felt by the region’s bitcoin miners, however, as the PUD said that a five-year transition period is being initiated for existing customers who can show they’ve made "substantial investment" and meet additional criteria.
The process dates back several years, to when the industrial bitcoin mining boom began. At the time, several firms sought to establish a presence in the hydroelectric power-rich Chelan County. A reported influx of phone calls and on-site visits by prospective bitcoin miners prompted PUD officials to put a moratorium on new high-density load customers in late 2014.
Bitcoin miners run high-powered machinery in a race to discover the next block of transactions, a process for which they earn rewards from the network. Cheaper power means more profitability for miners, and some of the least expensive electricity can be found in Washington State, particularly in places like Chelan.
PUD representatives said in statements that they believe the rate increase is a fair one, resulting from months of discussion between utility officials and members of the public.
"There was a lot of individual and collective effort involved in bringing this proposal forward, and I think it's a good product," Commissioner Dennis Bolz said in a statement.
It’s not yet clear how bitcoin miners in the region are taking the news. Phone calls to miners in Chelan County were not immediately returned.
In interviews with CoinDesk earlier this year, miners working both in Chelan and in nearby counties criticized the planned rate increase harshly, with at least one suggesting that the move could put them out of business.
Chelan county image via Shutterstock

Multiple Bidders Claim $16 Million in Australian Bitcoin Auction

09.05 0
Ernst & Young revealed today that multiple bidders claimed 24,518 BTC (worth roughly $16m at press time) as part of a scheduled bitcoin auction that began on 20th June and ended on 21st June.
E&Y, the professional services firm that oversaw the sale, did not disclose the price paid by bidders or the number of bidders involved, though it said participants had been notified of auction outcomes.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, given that the funds were held in a publicly available bitcoin wallet, analysis indicates that as many as three to four winners were awarded funds in the sale. (The bitcoin wallet holding the funds was first identified by bitcoin user Adam Meister on YouTube).
Data from blockchain data provider Skry shows unknown winners claimed 13,999 BTC ($9.25m), 6,517 BTC ($4.27m)  and 1,999.99 BTC ($1.31m), with the largest winner claiming seven 2,000 BTC blocks as part of the auction.
At press time, at least one transaction block was unaccounted for in the transactions, with 1,999 BTC still unspent in the original wallet.
In statements, E&Y transactions partner Adam Nikitins said that the auction drew “significant interest” from participants including bitcoin exchanges, digital asset investment funds and high net worth individuals.
Nitkins said:
"The process was very competitive and demonstrates the growing appetite for digital assets such as bitcoin."
Prior to the auction, participants indicated a willingness to enter the bidding process due to what they said has been the recent scarcity of bitcoin sellers given the sharp increases in the digital currency's price in the weeks leading up to the event.
As previously reported, the funds were originally confiscated by the Australian government in connection with the prosecution of a Silk Road user who plead guilty to commercial drug trafficking in 2014.
Australia auction image via Shutterstock

Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Pledges Support for Blockchain

09.04 0
Presumptive US presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has thrown her support behind blockchain tech
applications in the public sector.
ADVERTISEMENT
Clinton, who is expected to receive the presidential nomination from the US Democratic Party next month, released a broad technology and innovation agenda yesterday in which her campaign argued that US public policy should include work with blockchain.
The Clinton campaign stated:
"We must position American innovators to lead the world in the next generation of technology revolutions – from autonomous vehicles to machine learning to public service blockchain applications – and we must defend universal access to the global, digital marketplace of ideas."
The Clinton campaign also indicated that the presumptive Democratic nominee will, if elected, push for reduced regulatory barriers for startups and entrepreneurs.
"Hillary will challenge state and local governments to identify, review and reform legal and regulatory obligations that protect legacy incumbents against new innovators," the campaign said.
The comments make Clinton the latest major US political candidate to offer support for blockchain technology and its surrounding industry.
In April 2015, then-Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul announced he would accept bitcoin as payment for donations, a decision that was soon followed by former Texas Governor and presidential hopeful Rick Perry.
Image credit: Trevor Collens / Shutterstock.com

IBM’s New Watson Centre Merges Blockchain With AI

18.43 0
IBM today opened an incubator where 5,000 computer scientists will work to build rapid prototypes
using the company’s blockchain and Watson AI tools for businesses in the Asian-Pacific region.
ADVERTISEMENT
Called the Watson Centre at Marina Bay in Singapore, the incubator will also house Singapore’s IBM Garage, which will specialize in building blockchain applications using the company’s Open Standards tools.
IBM Asia Pacific’s chairman and CEO, Randy Walker, described the operation in a statement:
"Watson and blockchain are two technologies that will rapidly change the way we live and work, and our clients in Asia Pacific are eager to lead the way in envisioning and creating that future."
The IBM Garage is run as part of the company’s Global Entrepreneur program. Launched in 2010, it is intended to help startups build distributed ledger applications using the IBM Cloud.

All-in on blockchain

The opening of the new center comes during an active time for IBM and its exploration of blockchain.
IBM's work with the emerging technology goes back to 2015 when it joined the Hyperledger open-source blockchain project to build a cross-industry distributed ledger solution. Further, earlier this year, IBM CTO Chris Ferris was appointed project lead for Hyperledger.
By February, IBM blockchain director John Wolpert declared that the company was "all in on blockchain" during a keynote speech in San Francisco, and the following month, the company was already working to merge AI with blockchian.
Image of Watson Centre at Marina Bay via IBM

NFL Star Accuses Ex-Manager of Stealing $3 Million for Bitcoin Mine

18.41 0
A player for a professional American football team has filed a lawsuit against his former business
manager, alleging that he squandered money on bad investments including a $3m bitcoin mine.
ADVERTISEMENT
Court documents filed in an Arkansas federal court and published by the Arkansas Times allege that Michael Vick spent as much as $15m belonging to Darren McFadden, a running back for the Dallas Cowboys, on a series of fraudulent investments.
McFadden has accused Vick of lying to him about the success of those investments, while at the same time using those funds to pay for a luxurious lifestyle and failed business ventures.
Vick allegedly used $3m to build the operation, which court documents say was aimed at "creating and manufacturing bitcoins". McFadden further said that Vick guaranteed a profit on the mine, stating that he would "not lose any money”.
However, Vick would allegedly go on to keep the profits from the mine for himself, court documents assert.
The complaint states:
"...Defendant Vick used plaintiffs funds to start this bitcoin 'business', including using all of plaintiffs monies to purchase all the necessary infrastructure and materials, only to retain all the revenues generated or derived from the 'business' along with all the corresponding business assets purchased with plaintiffs money.”
McFadden accused Vick of fabricating financial documents to conceal the health and nature of the investments he was making in the player’s name, and for a time Vick held power of attorney. He further said in court documents that he ended the relationship after Vick tried selling him a property purchased using the player’s own money.
In an interview with The Dallas Morning News, McFadden said that he began working with Vick in 2008, and that the man was “an old family friend” whom he trusted.
"It's just one of those deals with me as a young guy I wasn't on top of my finances like I should have been and I trusted somebody to take care of everything for me and I don't feel like at the time he had my best interest,” he told the publication.
Vick declined to comment when reached by The Associated Press, earlier this week, saying that he hadn’t yet seen the lawsuit.
Images credit: Ken Durden / Shutterstock.com

Coinbase and ARK Invest Report Argues Bitcoin is a New Kind of Asset Class

17.58 0
A new report argues that bitcoin should be considered the first in a new kind of asset class.
The paper was produced by digital currency exchange and wallet startup Coinbase and ARK Invest, an investment management firm that specializes in disruptive technologies and offers financial products tied to bitcoin.
The white paper, written using data from Coinbase, TradeBlock, the S&P 500 Index and several additional industry benchmarks, outlines four approaches to characterizing assets before laying out the argument that traditional investors should view "cryptocurrency" as an entirely new asset class.
ARK Invest analyst Chris Burniske, who co-authored the report, said that the project started as an exploration between the two companies of how people use gold to buy bitcoin.
Burniske told CoinDesk:
ADVERTISEMENT
"We realized this is a bigger story than comparing bitcoin and gold. This is about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies maturing into their own asset class."
The new report builds on a 1997 paper about asset class characterization, which breaks down assets into three categories: capital assets, consumable/ transformable assets, and store-of-value assets.
Burniske and co-author Adam White, who serves as vice president for Coinbase, go on to define four distinct characteristics of traditional asset classes, positioning bitcoin both within and beyond those traditional definitions.

Liquidity and distinctness

The first characteristic of an asset class that the report outlines relates to what it calls “investability”. This, according to the report, pertains to whether an asset class provides sufficient liquidity and opportunity to invest.
In the case of bitcoin, ARK Invest and Coinbase analyzed bitcoin exchange trading volumes from July 2011 through the first quarter of 2016 to determine the liquidity available to investors.
Using data obtained from Bitcoinity and Tradeblock’s XBX Index, the paper shows steadily increasing volume, reaching as much as $1b per day through April of this year – though it acknowledges that this high figure is driven by self-reported figures not subject to third-party validation.
Next, the report defines a traditional currency relative to its “politico-economic features”. To be an asset, the report argues, the entity needs to have a unique profile that “arises” from its value, governance and use cases.
In each case, the report draws distinctions between bitcoin and traditional asset classes.
For example, bitcoin’s operational model, in which transactions are broadcast and verified on an open network, results in a predictable, "mathematically metered" release of the asset. By 2140, 21m bitcoins in the market will exist – by comparison, roughly 15.6m bitcoins have been created to date.
According to figures provided in the paper, that’s distinct from both the US monetary base and gold supply, which increase at sporadic rates based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Number Sleuth’s "All the World’s Gold Facts".
The report argues:
"Compared to bitcoin, no asset has evolved from concept to billions of dollars in stored value so quickly. Moreover, no asset in history has followed such a predictable supply trajectory."

Sufficiently different

The third trait used in the report to define traditional assets and help position cryptocurrencies as a new asset class relates to “price independence”, a characteristic that suggest how assets should exhibit a low correlation on returns relative to other assets in the marketplace.
Put more simply, an asset needs to be sufficiently independent from the value of other existing assets.
Using data sourced from Bloomberg and TradeBlock, ARK Invest and Coinbase compare bitcoin with the S&P 500, along with data on US bonds, gold, real estate, oil, and emerging market currencies.
“Strikingly, bitcoin’s price movements have been separate and distinct from those of other asset classes during the last five years,” the report states. “It is the only asset that maintains consistently low correlations with every other asset.”
Lastly, ARK Invest and Coinbase argue that the first three characteristics of traditional asset classes need to differentiate the risk-reward profile of the entity, leading to easily defined returns and a degree of volatility.
Using the Sharpe Ratio, which measures the returns on an investment per unit of risk, the authors of the report analyzed a five-year span from May 2011 through May 2016.
With data sourced from the XBX Index, the report shows that, during the five-year period, the average daily volatility compared to the previous year decreased from about 10% to about 4%.
Bitcoin’s daily volatility in May 2016 was roughly a third of that figure compared to five years ago, and 24% less than at the start of May 2015, according to the paper.
Image via Shutterstock

EU Watchdog: Distributed Ledgers Still Face Key Challenges

17.57 0
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), a securities trade watchdog based in the EU, has released a new discussion paper on blockchains and distributed ledgers as part of a fact-finding effort aimed at developing policy positions on the technologies.
ADVERTISEMENT
The paper, published today, comes more than a year after the organization first issued a call for information on the technology. ESMA has also hosted its own events, as well as participated in others focused on the use of blockchain applications in finance.
ESMA’s fact-finding mission itself grew out of an effort to investigate digital currency investments in the EU, which in the newest report ESMA said "remained marginal" overall.
The agency stressed throughout its new report that it had not developed a concrete opinion on the technology, framing the release as one that constitutes a "preliminary analysis" of blockchain applications to the securities sector. Each section is built out with a series of questions to industry stakeholders as part of the agency’s comment-seeking process.
The report states:
"ESMA appreciates that the [distributed ledger technology] may have different applications and impacts on financial activities, market participants and market infrastructures, depending on a variety of elements, including its capacity to address a number of technical, governance, legal and regulatory issues. It is too early at this stage to form a definite opinion on whether the DLT will be able to address these issues in an efficient way."
Overall, the report echoes other assessments, including those of its own executive director, on the technology’s potential in finance.
It posits that the technology could be leveraged to boost systemic efficiency, reduce intermediation in the clearing and settlement process and improve transparency in trade data recordkeeping. At the same time, the ESMA report raises questions about scaling, governance and cybersecurity issues.
"ESMA believes that the DLT will need to overcome a number of possible challenges and shortcomings before its benefits can be reaped," the report’s authors write. "Some of these challenges are related to the technology itself."
Notably, the report explores which regulatory frameworks within the EU that could apply to market applications of blockchain tech should it see wider adoption. These include the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR), the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and the Settlement Finality Directive (SFD).
The full ESMA report can be found below:
Image via Shutterstock

London Workshop Explores Blockchain Identity in Finance

13.55 0
The Identity & KYC conference in London hosted a workshop on using blockchain technology to improve know-your-customer processes earlier this week.
Led by blockchain compliance consultant Siân Jones, the workshop was attended by a group drawn from banks, financial institutions, startups and regulators.
The group discussed several challenges faced by banks and financial institutions when it comes to identity, and whether or not the blockchain can help solve these problems. The overwhelming consensus was that even though the blockchain is very promising, it has many real-world limitations around identity.
The discussion was exploratory in nature, focusing on the needs of current financial industry participants and exploring the use of potential blockchain technologies.

KYC moving beyond simple identity

The group discussed the impact on the financial industry of the trend of moving away from simply looking at government-issued identity cards, like passports and driver's licenses. Attendees looked at exploring more holistic datasets around individual identity that involve everything from purchase history to utilities connections to assess an individual’s identity.
These third-party data points already provide an important source of identification information beyond simple identification systems and are becoming increasingly popular in the financial industry and elsewhere to supplement government-provided identification data. They are also more nebulous in nature, giving a 'probability score' for how strongly the algorithm believes the individual is who she says she is.
The trend is expected to accelerate in the future, with simple identification mechanisms becoming less important for financial institutions.
In such a world, an identity on the blockchain, like a tokenized version of a driver’s license, may not be sufficient for most businesses and financial institutions. Any blockchain solution will therefore need to gather information on the individual available via third-parties, a considerably harder problem for blockchains to solve.

Where blockchains fall short

There are many challenges faced by the financial industry involving identity, and some of the key issues are hard problems to solve. The initial on-boarding process, when the issuing of identity is first conducted by a government or financial body after verifying information about the individual, still remains a challenge.
This is especially true on a global level, where a significant portion of the developing world is without any form of government-issued identification.
The reliability of any identity, whether on the blockchain or outside, is only as good as the authority issuing that identity. An identity verified and issued by the UK government, for example, would likely be considered more reliable than one issued by a bank in Somalia.

Advantages of blockchain-based identity

There are several advantages of using blockchain-based identity, especially around the quick dissemination of information about an individual in a global context.
This is true when identity needs to be revoked and reissued, especially in the event that someone's identity is stolen. For example, if a passport gets stolen, the issuing country might replace it, but it takes much longer for a financial institution in another country to know about the status of this identity revocation. Blockchain allows this process to be quick and efficient.
In addition, blockchain-based identity systems have the possibility of selectively revealing information about an individual’s identity. This could help prevent identity theft and enhance end-user privacy.
There could also be efficiency gains by larger institutions around issuing blockchain identities, especially because a lot of verification processes today are repetitive.
Although not a current concern to the nascent Internet of Things industry, several institutions are looking into how digital identity will play out when identity is not restricted to individuals and legally defined entities but also includes physical things.
A blockchain seems like an efficient solution to handle such large-scale identities that need to be shared among multiple stakeholders.

Starting point

Although many financial institutions are exploring blockchain technology for identity solutions, most of the rules and regulations around KYC and identity for regulated financial companies revolve around government-issued identity as the preliminary requirement. Therefore, the use of blockchain for identity will need to start with a government body deciding that it would issue some form of identity on the blockchain.
There are many unsolved problems around this, from privacy to access. For example, even though an identity document like a passport is issued to the individual, it isn’t owned by the individual in a legal sense.
It is unclear how the identity data on a blockchain will be owned — whether the individual or the identity issuing body will ultimately own the identity and data around it.
As Jones put it:
"The fundamental challenge in identity is the intents of various participants are not aligned. Governments, businesses and individuals have conflicting interests."
Anonymous crowd image via Shutterstock

Why ABN Amro Wants to Separate Bitcoin from the Blockchain

13.55 0
For ABN Amro’s director of transaction banking, the company’s strategy on blockchain tech can be best described with a restaurant analogy.
If you were looking to enter the business, Karin Kersten argues, you might first invest in a restaurant. Next, you might try to get a feel for the workflow, washing dishes and observing existing staff. It's then, she said, that you might be ready to enter the kitchen.
It’s that final last stage that Kersten contends is most indicative of the activity at the Dutch bank, which boasts more than 22,000 employees across business lines including retail, private and corporate banking. A member of banking consortium R3CEV and the Linux-led Hyperledger project, and an investor in Digital Asset Holdings, ABN Amro has 30 employees actively working in the proverbial kitchen to investigate blockchain applications.
Kersten told CoinDesk:
"We are doing experiments and seeing if they work. We are learning by doing, and working on different levels. There’s not just one team working on the blockchain."
That’s not to say that ABN doesn’t have a more clear strategy for how it intends to move forward and which versions of the technology it deems more relevant for its business. As with many other major global banks, ABN is focused on distributed ledger aspects of the technology, and isn’t working with digital currencies such as bitcoin.
"If you look at our view regarding the blockchain, we want to clearly separate bitcoin from the blockchain. There’s bitcoin as a method of payment, and blockchain as the technology behind it. The latter we find interesting to explore," she said.
Kersten indicated that ABN is investigating matters related to trade finance and transaction banking, and how blockchain smart contracts can be applied to problems in these areas.
In line with its focus on distributed ledgers, Kersten said that ABN is not as focused on payments applications of the tech, which she said the company views as being more problematic from a regulatory perspective today.

Letters of credit

That’s not to say that ABN Amro isn’t looking to better develop an understanding of how the tech could be applied broadly.
One area of study for the bank, Kersten said, is how the technology could play a role in the issuance of letters of credit, in which a bank guarantees that a buyer’s payment will be received according to an agreed set of conditions.
However, to start, Kersten explained how the ABN team approached this challenge by first talking with clients to understand the issues with current versions of this product. In the end, Kersten said this method found the bank deviating from its standard strategy, in which IT requirements dictate what is built.
"Here the experiment is completely different. We had a hypothesis and tested it, then pivoted," she said.
Kersten said that ABN is now entering the second phase on this prototype and that it could advance this concept to the minimum viable product (MVP) stage, but that this process is taking time, a willingness to iterate and patience.
"We want to learn about the content of the blockchain and see if there are interesting MVPs for clients. In the end, we want to add value," she continued.
The proof-of-concept is currently being built on the Ethereum blockchain.

Product over tech

While Kersten said that ABN Amro is working with the technology, along with IT vendors such as IBM and Tata Consultancy Services, she said that the company wants to focus less on lower-level parts of the stack, such as blockchain consensus methods.
Rather, she would like to see ABN Amro work on other components of its tests, namely, the top- and mid-level applications that facilitate communication between an application and a blockchain.
"You have to make a basis choice per application if you want open-source or closed-source technology, but we want to make valuable applications which are relevant for our customer base," she said.
Still, Kersten acknowledged that ABN will likely need to deepen its understanding of parts of this process, such as when to select a public or private blockchain platform, and which design will best allow the necessary parties to access the ledger system.
But, Kersten said that projects like this don’t necessarily lead her to conclude that the technology will be ready for consumers soon.
Kersten told CoinDesk:
"When will it be on the market? When will it have scale? We don’t know. What we know is that it’s a promising technology."
Image credit: JPstock / Shutterstock.com
The Law of The DAO

The Law of The DAO

08.17 0
Andrew "Drew" Hinkes is Counsel at Berger Singerman LLP, a business law firm in Florida. Hinkes represents companies and entrepreneurs in state and federal commercial litigation matters, representation of court-appointed fiduciaries, and electronic discovery issues.
In this opinion piece, Drew takes a deep dive into the legal structures that surround distributed autonomous organizations, or DAOs.

ADVERTISEMENT
DAO
The DAO leapt into the headlines earlier this month after it captured nearly $150m in funding, constituting almost 12% of the total amount of ether tokens in the Ethereum network.
The DAO’s structure attempts to emulate the behavior of a crowdfunding business entity, and allows its investors to choose how The DAO will invest the collective ether (ETH) contributions among specific target projects.
The idea and structure of The DAO presents significant legal challenges. Specifically, courts will be forced to grapple with the implications of a web of contracts imitating an entity, instead of a legally incorporated entity.
The law is simply unprepared for DAOs. However, based upon the structure of The DAO, it is foreseeable that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would view its tokens purchased by investors as a security or investment contract, subject to its jurisdiction.
The voting system implemented for The DAO is likewise problematic due to its mixed incentives and propensity to depress the value of ETH and its own tokens. Because investment in The DAO is laden with risk and seems to implicate SEC jurisdiction, The DAO may attract regulatory attention.

What is a DAO? What is The DAO?

The DAO is an example of a decentralized or distributed autonomous organization (“DAO”). Generally speaking, DAOs are structures that use smart contracts to provide additional features and functionality to blockchains.
Implementations of DAOs, like The DAO, can include sophisticated arrangements of rights and powers encoded through smart contracts that emulate the attributes and activities of business entities or regulated financial contracts, including insurance, futures, options, etc. The DAO is attempting to emulate a crowdfunding entity where its backers vote to choose on which project The DAO’s aggregate investment should be spent.
DAOs are said to offer advantages to conventional business entities because (a) their activities are limited to that of the code used to operate them, (b) all terms, conditions, and governance are expressly disclosed to the investors, and (c) DAOs are based on blockchains, which generally provide increased transparency.
The DAO is intended to three primary functions. First, it is expressly intended to aggregate investor assets by taking ETH in exchange for DAO tokens. Second, it enters into contracts to use the ETH invested for projects selected by investor vote. Third, it pays returns on those investments back to DAO token holders.
As stated in the organization's manifesto:
"The goal of The DAO is to diligently use the ETH it controls to support projects that will: …[p]rovide a return on investment or benefit to the DAO and its members."
Traditional business entities exist as a result of legislation permitting groups of actors to shift risk and obtain legal protection by incorporating. In exchange for these privileges, groups of individuals operating as entities must comply with financial and operational restraints imposed by the State. Unlike conventional business entities, DAOs exist only within their own blockchains, and are generally unable to interact with the outside financial and/or regulatory actors. As a result, DAOs are reliant upon outside information in order to act.
The DAO is structured to include four types of actors: the creators of the platform, the curators, the contractors, and the DAO token holders (i.e. investors). The creators of the platform wrote open-source code that allows The DAO to function and that anyone can freely use. Investors (also called DAO token holders) in The DAO obtain stakes in The DAO by exchanging  ETH for DAO tokens. Along with these tokens investors are granted voting rights.
Contractors then offer proposals which are potential investments for The DAO’s accumulated ETH assets, along with clear payment terms in the form of a return on The DAO’s investment. Curators in-turn verify and "whitelist" proposals without providing opinions as to the merits of any proposal. The DAO thus requires external inputs in the form of investor capital, investor voting participation, the supply of project information from contractors, and the approval of projects by curators.

Will the law recognize The DAO?

DAOs are not currently recognized legal actors in the US. This creates uncertainty for legal actions brought against a DAO, and the legal rights of a DAO. It is unclear whether the actions of a DAO would be attributed to the creators of that DAO, those who maintain that DAO, those who suggest projects, or those who have invested in a DAO. Although it may be helpful for a DAO to designate a human representative, DAO token holders may choose not to disclose an owner or primary actor.
If a lawsuit were filed against a DAO, it would stall immediately because of the difficulty of identifying a party who represents the DAO to serve with process. A plaintiff would need to verify that the person is appropriate to represent the DAO, and prove that the person falls within the jurisdiction of the court. Any party served with legal process on behalf of a DAO would likely seek to quash service on the basis that they are not an authorized representative of the DAO. The court would then need to determine what is a DAO in a legal context.
As litigation lawyer Steven Palley suggests, DAOs would likely be considered general partnership or joint ventures, resulting in any participant being a representative of the DAO’s interests. Palley’s article earlier this year suggests that DAOs would be considered general partnerships, which would allow a plaintiff to reach individual participants for service and or liability.
Under Palley's theory, anyone suing The DAO could attempt to obtain jurisdiction over the organization by serving any human participant in The DAO. If considered a general partnership, each partner would then be held jointly and severally responsible for all liabilities of the business, and all personal assets of each partner are subject to seizure or lien by creditors. Thus, the parties to a DAO may have unlimited potential liability for the entity’s actions. The lack of regulatory recognition will thus limit the utility of DAOs for risk-mitigation.
Palley’s conclusion is problematic. It suggests that a lawsuit against bitcoin itself might be viable, provided that the digital currency’s creator, a bitcoin core developer, node operator, and/or miner may be served with process, be deemed a representative of the network, and potentially have liability.
If considered a general partnership, a plaintiff could thus serve any participant who benefits from the DAO who is within the geographic scope of the Court’s power. Using pseudo-anonymous blockchains to obtain funding makes identifying and locating investors extremely difficult. Contractors who suggest projects may be easier to identify than any other actors because disclosure of the nature of the project is necessary. If the DAO’s creators, or those who benefit from the DAO, are not located in United States, obtaining judicial redress may be functionally impossible.

Why voting might be The DAO’s Achilles Heel?

Investors in The DAO have voting rights that permit them to collectively determine whether projects are funded. Each investor has a voting share that is proportional to the amount of tokens the investor DAO held. The voting investor has the ability to irrevocably vote once per proposal, and a vote freezes that investor’s DAO tokens. However, for The DAO to engage in any investment activity, at least 20% of its DaoToken holders must vote for the project. This may be a critical vulnerability in The DAO.
"Accepting a Proposal requires a majority decision after a debating period of two weeks minimum, and a participation rate of 20% or higher calculated proportionally to the value of ETH requested in the Proposal." As noted by chief technical officer of SteemitDan Larimer, once a party has voted, their ETH is committed to that project until the project is accepted or rejected, which seems to dis-incentivize voting.
Agreeing to fund projects may actually cause a drop in the value of ETH and DaoTokens because a project will require The DAO to transfer ETH to a contractor, who would then likely convert it to fiat currency, which may depress the value of the ETH on open trade markets, which would then reduce the value of The DAO’s ETH holdings. As Larimer suggests "Every time a project is funded, the amount of ETH backing the DAO tokens falls and is replaced with speculative IOU from a contractor." Thus, The DAO funding a project may actually cause a reduction in the value of ETH and reduce the value of its own investment base.
Finally, the voting system may be subject to manipulation by disproportionate actors. If a small group of investors hold an aggregate 20.1% share of existing DaoTokens, they could collaborate to force the acceptance of the proposal, irrespective of any other investors’ votes. If less than 20% of the investment value of The DAO actually votes, The DAO will never fund a project.

Why the investment in The DAO is probably a security

The SEC regulates securities or investment contracts, which are defined as an investment in a common venture premised on a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. In this case, it is likely that investors who purchase or "create" DAO tokens with ETH are purchasing securities or investment contracts.
Investors in The DAO pay ETH to "create" DAO tokens. Although ETH is not "money," the law suggests that money equivalents qualify as "money" for this analysis as long as the investor is subject to financial loss. A court will also examine what was represented to the investor. Thus, if the representations suggest that the investor was promised a return on the investment, and has a risk of loss, then it is likely considered a payment to an investment contract or security.
The DAO clearly promotes the expectation of investors of ETH obtaining returns. "The goal of The DAO is to diligently use the ETH it controls to support projects that will: …[p]rovide a return on investment or benefit to the DAO and its members;" "The DAO then has the option to accumulate this ETH to support its growth, or redistribute it to the [DAO token] Holders as a reward.” The DAO discloses the risk of loss of invested ETH: "The use of The DAO’s smart contract code and the Creation of [DAO tokens] carries significant financial risk." But The DAO also clearly represents that investors should expect a return on investment or to receive benefit through the increase of value of the [DAO tokens].
The next prong is commonality of enterprise. Although different courts apply different tests to determine commonality of enterprise, under the tests applied by most courts, the structure of The DAO would be deemed sufficiently common to satisfy this prong of the test.
Finally, The DAO appears to satisfy the requirement that profits derive solely from the efforts of others. The DAO functions to fund projects approved by the investors. Without projects, The DAO does nothing but hold invested ETH pending approval of a project. To determine whether the profits derive from the efforts of others, the court will determine whether the significant, managerial efforts that affect the failure or success of the enterprise are made by those other than the investor. Because The DAO relies upon contractors and their projects to present investment opportunities from which returns or profits may be obtained, this prong is likely also satisfied.
The sale of DAO tokens by The DAO in exchange for ETH carries all of the hallmarks of an investment contract or security, and under this analysis, the SEC could assume jurisdiction over The DAO. The DAO presents novel legal issues, both with respect to its ability to interact with the legal system, and as to the potential regulatory ramifications of investing in a new novel structure.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, CoinDesk.