Mediaboss Marketing

May 15 will mark the beginning of a new day for schools in Chicago.

Thats the day Brandon Johnson, a former organizer for the Chicago Teachers Union, will lay down the mantle of progressive insurgent and take the oath of office as mayor. Last month, in the citys closest mayoral race in 40 years, Johnson prevailed by just 26,000 votes over former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas, a technocrat who ran on a record of support for education reform.

RelatedIn Progressive Breakthrough, Teachers' Union Organizer Elected Mayor of Chicago

The win represented a generational breakthrough for Johnson and his union, which has waged a decade-long struggle against a regime of school choice and accountability that stretches back to Vallass tenure. That ambitious complex of policy and regulation was carefully installed over decades, including a lengthy interval during which Chicago saw some of the fastest academic growth of any major school district in the United States but also a steadily building resistance from educators and community members over controversial policies like school closures.

The lessons of the long reform era are detailed in a new book, How a City Learned to Improve Its Schools, released in April by Harvard University Press. In five chapters, the text chronicles the genesis of Chicago Public Schools transformation beginning with a 1988 state law initiating an unprecedented decentralization of autonomy from the district office to local school communities and the adoption of stringent accountability measures that in some ways anticipated the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

The books lead author, Anthony Bryk, offers a rare perspective on the city. A veteran researcher and former president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bryk previously served as a professor of urban education at the University of Chicago. In 1990, he helped found the UChicago Consortium on School Research, a data hub that has generated a host of influential studies on Americas fourth-largest district.

Story continues

Bryk believes the evolution of CPS under leaders like future U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and long-serving Mayor Richard M. Daley helped spur a leap forward in student performance by engaging CPS families, improving the selection and development of teachers, and allowing administrators more latitude in running their schools. The results were revealed in a 2017 analysis by Stanford sociologist Sean Reardon, which found that Chicago elementary and middle schoolers gained six years of academic benefits from just five years in school.

RelatedCompeting K12 Visions Collide in Chicago Mayors Race

But he has reservations about the future of the citys schools, and particularly the gradual establishment of an elected board that will oversee them. In an interview with The 74s Kevin Mahnken, Bryk offered his views on what worked during Chicagos turnaround; the warning signs ahead, including dramatically falling enrollment numbers and mounting debt; and the unions overnight move from one of the districts biggest critics to perhaps its most important actor.

This might be as radical a reform in governance as one could envision, Bryk said.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The 74: Your book depicts a long journey toward school improvement in Chicago during the 1990s and 2000s. But the years since have been marked by a great deal of tumult, obviously including the pandemic. How far has the district come, and where is it headed?

Anthony Bryk: I think about Chicago Public Schools within the broader context of major American school systems at the moment. We are clearly in an unprecedented time with respect to post-pandemic trauma and learning loss, which have been especially pervasive for those students who are most dependent on strong civic institutions. Of course, were also living through a period of racial reckoning as we come to better understand the vestiges of systemic racism that operate in big urban school districts.

Former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett allegedly dubbed Chicago Public Schools the worst school district in America. (Norm Staples/Getty Images)

Then you bring in the Chicago-specific context of a new mayor and, perhaps even more important, the shift to a 21-person elected school board over the coming years. Most people dont realize that Chicago has never had an elected board, and a 21-person board is just a huge change. Over the last number of years, theres also been renewed conflict between labor and management in schools, and like a number of other places, but maybe more so in Chicago the district is experiencing a new round of budget shortfalls.

Together, these factors pose extraordinary challenges. Although the array is quite different, it appears to me in some ways like what Chicago felt like in the 1980s, at the beginning of the work to turn around local schools. [Then-Education Secretary] Bill Bennett visited Chicago and called it the worst public school system in America. I doubt if it was the absolute worst, but it was clearly one of the most troubled public school systems in the country. And while the specific challenges that had to be confronted were different at that time, their scope certainly strikes me as comparable to what the city is facing now.

I would expect the teachers union to organize and have a significant voice within that new board. If you get this kind of progressive alignment the union and the mayor and school board and the governor in Springfield Im curious to see whether these people can actually solve these challenges. Its one thing to go around criticizing what others do, but theyll now be in a position to do something.

The big difference, as we write about in the book, is that there is now a civic architecture that grew up over the past several decades. Its an interesting kind of architecture in that the politics of urban districts typically tend to focus on shaping what happens at the systems center; but a lot of the energy in Chicagos reform push was focused on making ideas work out in schools and finding new ways of developing teachers and school-based leadership. A lot of social learning emerged around the work of school improvement, and there was space for new ideas. The district, over the period of [Arne] Duncan, was open to partnerships with the business community, foundations and lots of new organizations. It generally kept things stabilized even through the period of 20102017, when we saw a lot of financial issues and churn in system leadership.

Thats what leads me to think that Chicago is still positioned well to take on these new problems. The improvement work in Chicago keeping kids on-track through high school and onto college, developing a framework of essential supports and regularly reporting evidence has created coherence among an incredibly diverse array of actors, and those will be resources in the years ahead. Having said all that, its really hard for me to discern how this shift to an elected board will unfold. In my mind, thats the real wild card.

Can you be more specific about the steps that led to academic improvement over the last few decades?

We describe decentralization as the DNA of reform. Over the decades, theres been a lot of attention paid to governance as a key lever for reform. Whats important to take from the Chicago story is what governance change did and the mechanisms it opened up. One of the things it did was to recognize schools as the principal unit for change: How do we get schools to get better at their core work?

The 1988 law [the Chicago School Reform Act, which formed local school committees that gained authority over hiring and budgetary practices in individual campuses] made that critical. It helped reform the relationships between and within schools and local communities, and it brought a horizontal dimension to relationships where, traditionally, educators looked vertically up to bureaucratic actors to tell them what to do. And by virtue of the fact that there were real resources made available to schools, there were opportunities for innovation to occur; a lot of them were wasted, but some very positive things emerged and eventually spread across the system.

One of the key initiatives was all the attention to how principals were selected, supported and evaluated. Again, when you see schools as the prime mover for change, you focus carefully on the quality of leadership at school sites. Chicago is a huge district, but there are only about 600 people who do this work, and maybe 100 get replaced each year. That makes the task of identifying and developing school leaders a manageable one, and it did become a priority in CPS.

There were efforts to create more aligned instructional systems: curricular materials, professional development, assessment data to judge the progress of students and feedback systems to support teachers in their own improvement. In the past, it had been the task of central administrations to make all these pieces run and work together because its so hard to put them together in individual schools. Not impossible, but hard.

RelatedNew Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson Inherits Americas Worst Teacher Pension Mess

Thats where some tension plays out. Itll play out, for instance, around the new Skyline curriculum that CPS has heavily invested in. From what I know of the design principles behind Skyline [an online compendium of learning resources that the district spent $135 million to develop], its an attempt to create a coordination environment across various systems and generate good, formative information to support improvement. But thats a huge undertaking, and it runs the risk of the central office defining whats to be taught, how its to be taught and what evidence should be used.

The tension lies in the fact that you need lots of capacity to build an integrated instructional system that has the promise of actually delivering more ambitious academic outcomes, both reliably and at scale. But then you confront this political issue that democratic localism was intended to solve, i.e., We want to push these problems into local school communities to decide what they think is best for their own children. So to some extent, were shifting back now to more centralized control.

Youre describing these organizational dynamics and players in a very different way than Im used to hearing about them, which is always through the prism of reformers vs. unions. Do you think that debates over K12 politics are cast too simplistically, both by the press and the combatants themselves?

I do. When the second major reform act passed in 1995, it turned over control of the system to the mayor of Chicago, who appointed the board and the CEO. Since the mayor at that time [Richard M. Daley] also basically controlled the City Council, 49-1, you essentially had unitary politics in Chicago for a 15-year span. You just dont see that in big, urban districts. And there was mostly peace between labor and management from 1995 to around 2011.

There were a few things that established that peace. One was that Illinois had swung Republican in 1994. We had a Republican governor and a Republican legislature, which had been very rare, and downstate Illinois was intent on taking a sledgehammer to the Chicago Teachers Union by stripping out a lot of provisions around collective bargaining. But when the mayor took over, his office chose not to use a lot of the power it had been given. They didnt bludgeon the union; Paul Vallas actually figured out how to negotiate a multi-year contract with decent wages for CTU members. In the early 2000s, there was an element within the union that emphasized professionalizing teaching, and the system sent some resources in that direction as well.

RelatedAs Chicago Prepares to Close Additional Schools, New Report Shows the Shuttering of 49 Campuses in 2013 Led to Lower Test Scores

At that time, there wasnt a traditional labor-management conflict. In some regards, it looked more like a European system, where theyve got more of a cooperative relationship than you tend to see in American cities. But it broke down after 2010, largely because enrollments were declining, and we had financial issues affecting both the city and the state. Those are what led to the closure of all those schools. The conflict is quite active again in Chicago, but there was a period of time when these forces were working together in a more productive fashion.

Those long-term declines in enrollment, combined with big deficits of academic and social-emotional skills following the pandemic, seem to pose the biggest problems to Chicago schools right now.

The situation is extraordinarily challenging. In big districts like Chicago, where revenues are predicated on a per-pupil basis, its all fine as long as the student margins are growing. But when you start subtracting, which is what the city has been doing for years, the fixed costs dont go down with every person who walks out of the building. They closed a lot of schools, but theyve still got a lot of schools that are already under-utilized and will probably become more so. The way we financially support school systems doesnt really take that into account.

Students walked out of class in solidarity with teachers during a COVID-related work stoppage in 2022. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Its going to be interesting to see a mayor coming out of the teachers union. With the move to an elected board, I would expect the teachers union to organize and have a significant voice within that new board. If you get this kind of progressive alignment the union and the mayor and school board and the governor in Springfield Im curious to see whether these people can actually solve these challenges. Its one thing to go around criticizing what others do, but theyll now be in a position to do something. What would better look like, and how would they get to it?

Would you agree that, whatever the political configuration moving forward, the urgent question is whether the district can shrink its footprint to match the roughly 100,000 fewer students it now educates compared with 20 years ago?

From a purely financial point of view, CPS has got more buildings operating than it surely needs. But one of the results of that is that the typical school, particularly at the high school level, has gotten smaller. Of course, the smaller size allows more personalized relationships to form between faculty and students and parents. Going back to the 90s, we did see that smaller schools were more likely to engage in reform in productive ways. You tended to see stronger reports about relational trust in that students felt that adults knew and cared about them more. No one intended this, but in shrinking the size and population of schools, they actually created resources for improvement by making them less bureaucratic places.

That certainly contributed to improved high school graduation outcomes: Reduced size has enabled more intimate relationships to form between adults and students which have, in turn, allowed more students to graduate. At the same time, you do have this financial squeeze that will almost certainly force the district to close more buildings.

Do you think thats feasible, given the backlash that school closures spawned during Mayor Rahm Emanuels administration? The shrinkage that youre describing as almost inevitable is also a politically explosive scenario.

Without question, one of the most contentious issues in Chicago politics is that of closing schools. Emanuel closed 50 of them all at once, and there had been an initial threat of something like 130 candidates for closure. It fractured political alliances, and it was a key component of the revival of the Chicago Teachers Union as a political force.

Parents and educators alike protested the closure of dozens of Chicago schools in 2013. (Scott Olson/Getty Image)

If you go back to 1987, the union was broadly vilified across Chicago by parents and community leaders. In the opening pages of our book, we reproduce a very critical Chicago Tribune cartoon of the CPS from that era. If you fast forward to 2015 and the aftermath of the school closings, it was the union that organized parents and community members against the system. It was a fundamental realignment but having said that, there was another shift of some dimension during the pandemic. The union was largely responsible for keeping Chicago schools closed for a very long time, which didnt necessarily work to the benefit of all parents and children.

Another equally important factor is this period of racial reckoning. Race has always been a big issue in Chicago, but its gotten really heightened attention over these last four or five years. That has made it much more challenging to form the community relationships that supported improvement for several decades.

RelatedExclusive: As Post-Pandemic Enrollment Lags, Schools Compete for Fewer Students

Is the CTU now the most important single actor in Chicago Public Schools?

In all likelihood, yes.

This is brand-new territory. Teachers unions have organized in other cities to get members elected to boards of education, but when a teachers union is recognized as being responsible for how a system operates, thats really new. The elected board is structured to phase in over the next four years, such that half the seats are appointed but theyre appointed by the mayor. In that sense, this is positioned to be as novel a governance reform as we saw in 1987, which was the most radical decentralization of public education that had ever been tried in the United States. Chicago is positioned to have a public school system run by its teachers union.

This is positioned to be as novel a governance reform as we saw in 1987, which was the most radical decentralization of public education that had ever been tried in the United States. Chicago is positioned to have a public school system run by its teachers union.

As an aside, something on the horizon that hasnt gotten a lot of attention is the new authority for school principals to collectively bargain. Whether that actually comes into play is an open question, but if principals organize, its not clear to me that their union will be on the same side as the CTU on all issues.

At the same time, is it fair to say that some of the measurements of school performance in the district including school ratings, which have relied to one degree or another on student test scores are due to be refocused on different metrics?

I totally agree that these things are all being challenged. But theyre essentially written into regulations, and some of them are federally mandated by things like Title I and the Every Student Succeeds Act. While the existing assessments and their use will be challenged, theyre going to have to be replaced by something; I cant imagine us going to nothing, no measures of achievement and school quality.

The question is, what are they going to replace it with? Over the last couple of decades, theres been so much focus on being evidence-based in how researchers and policymakers do our work; but of course, that is predicated on evidence. So if you dont like the evidence weve been using, whats going to take its place? It might be hard to arrive at suitable replacements, especially in a heavily choice-based district like Chicago. In a choice district, parents have to have evidence to make their choices about where to send their kids to school what are they going to use?

Again, thats the difference between being in a critics role, where you challenge the status quo, and being in the governance role, where you say, Heres what were going to do instead. Right now, its not clear that there is an instead.

If you were designing a district from scratch, would you create a school board of 21 elected members?

No, Id have to say I would not.

Chicago Public Schools is something like a $9 billion operation. Its a huge enterprise that has to be managed. A 21-member elected board managing a $9 billion enterprise like I said earlier, this might be as radical a reform in governance as one could envision. Theres just no way to predict how it plays out.

Would you want to be a superintendent accountable to a 21-member board? It just opens up challenges for which we have no precedent to suggest that it will work well.

Could I imagine a scenario where this really works well? Yeah. I could imagine one where labor and management begin to come together because labor really has a stake in the success of the system. In the old days, they might have said, Well, thats managements responsibility, not ours. Now its all ours. So yes, this could evolve in a productive fashion. But would you want to be a superintendent accountable to a 21-member board? It just opens up challenges for which we have no precedent to suggest that it will work well.

View post:

Interview: Researcher Anthony Bryk on Chicago Schools Radical New Direction - Yahoo News

Blockchain technology was introduced in 2008 as a decentralized, secure, transparent system for managing digital transactions. Its primary aim was to provide a solution to major problems with traditional transactional systems, including trust, security, decentralization and efficiency. Blockchain has since expanded beyond finance and has been used in supply chain management, healthcare, games, digital media and social media, among others.

However, the blockchain industry is still facing significant challenges such as a lack of diversity, wealth control by a few holders, hash rate problems and a loss of the promise of decentralization.

The cryptocurrency on everyones mind and in the digital wallets of more than 400 million people around the world is Bitcoin (BTC). Bitcoins hash rate is the computing power required to validate transactions and produce new blocks on the Bitcoin blockchain. A high hash rate is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Bitcoin network, but it also presents some significant challenges.

One of the most pressing issues is the high energy consumption required to maintain a high hash rate. As more miners join the network, the hash rate increases and so does the energy consumption required to sustain it. The environmental impact of BTC mining has led to concerns throughout Bitcoins volatile history and rise to mainstream fame.

Another challenge with Bitcoins hash rate is the centralization of mining power in a few large mining pools. As the hash rate has increased over time, it has become increasingly difficult for individual miners to compete with these large pools, leading to concerns about the potential for these pools to monopolize the network and control the direction of Bitcoins development.

Related: Elizabeth Warren wants the police at your door in 2024

There is also the potential for 51% attacks by mining pools that control the majority of the hash rate. If a single mining pool or a group of mining pools controls over 50% of the hash rate, they could potentially control the network and carry out malicious activities, such as double-spend attacks or rewriting transaction histories. This presents a significant threat to the security and integrity of the Bitcoin network.

Finally, the limited scalability of the Bitcoin network is another challenge associated with its hash rate. As more users join the network and the number of transactions increases, the network can become congested, leading to slow transaction times and high fees. This can limit its utility as a viable payment system and has led to ongoing debates within the Bitcoin community about how to address these scalability challenges.

The blockchain industry has quickly fallen into a massive imbalance of power, mirroring the traditional finance industry. The concentration of wealth and power within a small group of individuals has created an industry that is far from decentralized. Those who were early adopters of blockchain technology, particularly Bitcoin, were able to accumulate large amounts of wealth through mining, investing and trading.

This has led toa concentration of wealth and power within a small group of individuals. The complexity of blockchain further limited early adoption to a minuscule percentage of people in the tech world. This concentration of power and wealth has made it difficult for new players to enter the market and challenge the dominance of established players.

The high barriers to entry have also contributed to the imbalance of power in the blockchain industry. The cost of setting up and running a successful blockchain project can be significant, and not everyone has the resources or expertise to do so. This has made it difficult for new startups to enter the market and challenge the dominance of established players.

Network effects also play a role in the imbalance of power in the blockchain industry. Blockchain networks rely on network effects, which means that the value of the network increases as more people use it. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where established networks become increasingly dominant, making it harder for new networks to gain traction.

Despite the challenges facing the blockchain industry, there are ways to address these issues and create a more sustainable, equitable system.

One of the most pressing issues with Bitcoins hash rate is its high energy consumption. To address this, the industry could move toward using renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power, to power mining operations. This would not only reduce the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining but also make it more sustainable in the long run.

Related: CBDCs will lead to absolute government control

To address the issue of limited scalability in the Bitcoin network, efforts should be made to improve the underlying technology. This could include the development of new protocols or the adoption of existing protocols, such as the Lightning Network, which could significantly improve the speed and efficiency of Bitcoin transactions.

Finally, greater efforts should be made to educate people about blockchain technology and its potential. This could be achieved by providing greater access to information and resources, offering training programs and workshops, and working with educational institutions to integrate blockchain into their curricula.

Alexa Karp is head of marketing at Lumerin and a former founding marketing manager at Metaplex. She is also an angel investor and adviser to more than 20 Web3 projects. She graduated with a BBA degree from Baruch College in New York.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Follow this link:

Bitcoin hash rates threaten blockchain decentralization - Cointelegraph

AUSTIN, Texas What is real decentralization? Though it may be the biggest buzzword in crypto, ambiguity around the definition of decentralization heralded as a core use-case for blockchain technology remains constant fuel for controversy.

The most-hyped event in the cryptosphere of the past two months was the ARB airdrop, when Arbitrum a layer 2 rollup that allows users to transact on the Ethereum blockchain with lower fees distributed its long-awaited token to early users, builders and investors.

Arbitrums creators said they built and distributed the ARB token as a way of decentralizing control of the network, handing the reins from Offchain Labs, the company that originally built Arbitrum, to the newly created Arbitrum DAO a group comprised of newly-minted ARB token-holders.

Abitrums decentralization narrative came under fire soon after the ARB airdrop, however, when the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) moved nearly $1 billion worth of its new tokens to the Arbitrum Foundation an organization established to serve as a kind of formally registered steward of the Arbitrum DAO before a formal vote on what to do with the funds had run its full course.

In an explanation mirroring one provided by the Arbitrum Foundation earlier this month, Goldfeder told the audience at Consensus that a ratification vote on what to do with the funds which was ongoing when the funds were transferred sowed unnecessary confusion.

He hedged his response, however, by drawing a line between his company, Offchain Labs, and the new Arbitrum Foundation: I can't speak to what the Foundation did, but leading up to creating this, that was the thought process at least, Goldfeder said.

He also said the vote fiasco resulted in a pledge from the Foundation that it will give regular transparency reports regarding its operations and the use of its treasury.

I as a community member think the place where this ended is even better, said the Arbitrum co-founder. The community seems happy and I also think, you know, transparency and accountability is a great thing.

Although Offchain Labs is, formally speaking, distinct from the Arbitrum Foundation, it would seem reasonable to question if Labs which built Arbitrum might be pulling strings behind the scenes. If there was any takeaway from Goldeders address at Consensus, it was his acute awareness that this relationship between the two organizations or lack thereof remains top of mind for people trying to suss out whether Arbitrum is, in fact, decentralized.

Asked explicitly by Nijkerk whether Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation are linked, Goldfeder stressed that they were not. Who controls the Arbitrum Foundation? Its really actually the DAO and the token holders, adding later that the important thing Id focus on is that the DAO is the most decentralized DAO that exists.

When ARB launched, however, 44% of its initial token distribution went to Offchain Labs investors and employees. Asked by Nijkerk whether this large percentage of insider tokens undermines Arbitrums decentralization narrative, Goldfeder responded that principle number one was there always has to be a majority in the hands of the community.

The counterside of 44% of tokens going to insiders, according to Goldfeder, is 56% were given to the community in different capacities: the airdrop, the foundation, the DAO, etcetera.

Goldfeder added that all tokens granted to insiders were subjected to four-year transfer restrictions to prevent any kind of mass sell-off, with nothing unlocking before one year. He said that Offchain Labs employees are not allowed to vote on Arbitrum DAO governance proposals, though they are allowed to delegate their tokens to like-minded voters.

Repeatedly, Goldfeder placed the foundation at arm's length. The foundation has a set of excellent people, he said at one point, adding that Offchain Labs gave them a lot of technical guidance as they were setting up, in servicing their goals, but remains a distinct entity.

There's a real community, he said towards the end of the Consensus session. When we say it's controlled by the community, the community is not me. It's not Offchain Labs. There's a massive community with many different interests and companies and protocols and projects that care deeply about this.

See original here:

Arbitrum Co-Founder Addresses DAO Vote Fiasco, Waves Off Allegations of Decentralization Theater - CoinDesk

Mastodon is making it easier for newcomers to create an account on the platform. On Monday, the decentralized network announced that it will start directing new users to create an account on mastodon.social instead of prompting them to choose from one of the thousands of other servers on the platform.

This update doesnt mean that Mastodons taking away the ability for new users to sign up for an account in a specific community, though. It will simply present two separate options on its signup page: Join mastodon.social or Pick my own server. The services flagship mastodon.social server is the platforms largest, but the network notes that users can swap instances at any time.

Prior to this change, creating a Mastodon account wasnt as simple as just entering your email and making a password. Mastodon originally had users choose which instance, or community, theyd like their account to live on. For those new to the platform, this step is a bit intimidating, especially now that Mastodon now has over 12,000 instances users can join. Should you join mastodon.world or mastodon.online? Or should you go to something more focused, like birdon.social? It could be overwhelming and confusing for a new user to pick.

If we only attract people who already care about decentralization, our ability to make decentralization mainstream becomes that much harder

Still, the change could frustrate existing users and server operators who want to see Mastodon remain committed to its promise of being a decentralized platform, which is not governed by any one entity. However, Mastodon CEO Eugen Rochko says this change is necessary to help new users get past the sign-up process and more quickly engage with others.

We believe its important for Mastodon to be good as a product on its own merits, and not just because of its ideology, Rochko writes in the post announcing the change. If we only attract people who already care about decentralization, our ability to make decentralization mainstream becomes that much harder.

In addition to a new onboarding experience, Mastodon is also rolling out quote posts, improved content and profile search, and groups. Rochko also says the platform is working on improving its moderation tools, as well as removing friction from decentralized features.

More here:

Mastodon is making it easier to create an account - The Verge

Since Bitcoin was invented, hundreds of cryptocurrencies have been created for various uses. A relatively new network, Algorand, uses a native cryptocurrency, ALGO, to enable the convergence of traditional and decentralized finance. Participants can create tokens and smart contracts representing new and existing assets on the Algorand platform. You may already have noticed the algorand coin pricealongside others if you are familiar with the crypto market.

The Algorand Foundation oversees the development and funding of this project and its cryptocurrency. While that is happening, the protocol was designed to facilitate a decentralized environment. Algorand is popular for its advanced features, novel technology and fast transaction speeds.

Are you interested in Algorand (ALGO) but need help figuring out where to start? This guide will help you bring yourself up to speed on the project, so you can start trading immediately.

People are also reading

Algorand (ALGO) What is it?

Algorand is a decentralized, open-source network that uses proof-of-stake to allow decentralization, scalability, and security to coexist. There's a lot of trouble with scalability, safety, and decentralization on one blockchain network. It aims to deliver full decentralization, top security and scaling while handling 1,000 transactions a second.

This project was launched in 2019 to enable emerging and existing businesses to operate in a decentralized economy. It is the native cryptocurrency within the Algorand system. ALGO participants get instant transactions with ALGO and can earn rewards. The system relies on ALGO holders and ALGO block producers or node runners.

Decentralized applications (dApps) can be built with Algorand smart contracts. Pure proof-of-stake is Algorand's scaling alternative to Ethereum's smart contracts. Users can deploy new tokens on the Algorand network or transfer existing assets.

Algorand: How does it work?

Algorand uses a pure proof-of-stake consensus mechanism with a Byzantine agreement protocol for security, scalability and decentralization. If a node breaks, automating the protection of staked ALGO balances is possible.

This protocol uses a pure proof-of-stake algorithm to secure the network. However, despite some users' power, the system is codependent.

Algorithm transactions are instant and final and can be processed 1,000 times per second. A decentralized economy has an anti-inflation mechanism that limits total supply. ALGOs are minted at the genesis and distributed to ALGO holders and network participants every time a new block is created. Algorand solves the storage problem in blockchain by letting new users participate in network storage immediately. The two-tiered decentralized network Algorand facilitates these features and protocols.

Algorand: What makes it unique?

Algorand's unique approach makes security, scaling, and decentralization all work together. Algorand can process around 1,000 transactions in a second, and makes it easy to develop, deploy, and manage dApps.

As a decentralized economy with apps and crypto assets is built, participants can create and deploy their tokens. ALGO uses pure proof-of-stake so all users, including node runners and holders, can participate in network governance and be rewarded. Algorand has unique features and novel technology, making it one of the fastest blockchain networks.

What makes Algorand valuable?

Many factors can affect Algorand's value and market price, including its technology and functions, adoption, network utility, etc.

The finite supply of Algorand makes it valuable, and ALGO's supply has been limited to 10 billion since Algorand's inception. These funds go to node runners, end users, and the Algorand Foundation. The market value of Algorand depends on buying and selling activity and market trends.

What is the circulation rate of Algorand (ALGO) coins?

The 10 billion ALGOs are estimated to be in circulation for less than a third. A total of 3.038 billion ALGOs circulated in May 2021. A certain amount of time will pass before the maximum supply of ALGO coins is exhausted. ALGO minted 10 billion coins at genesis. As with Bitcoin, the finite supply may suppress inflation.

Final words: How to use Algorand

Algorand lets you create decentralized applications using smart contracts. Algorand combines speed, security, and decentralization in one blockchain. The Algorand decentralized finance platform provides perfect scalability for users and developers. The network uses native crypto. You can send payments, create dApps, stake, and trade with Algorand (ALGO).

Lee Enterprises newsroom and editorial were not involved in the creation of this content.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Go here to read the rest:

All that you wanted to know about Algorand crypto - Tulsa World