Archive for the ‘Vitalik Buterin’ Category

Ethereum’s Unplanned Supply Ceiling: A Joke Turned Into Reality? – BeInCrypto

In the dynamic world of cryptocurrencies, a joke made in passing can sometimes shape the course of events. Just ask Elon Musk. This was the case when Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin made an April Fools jest in 2018, suggesting an ether supply cap. At the time, it was dismissed as improbable.

Today, a blend of technology and circumstance has turned the prank into an unplanned reality, with the total ether supply seemingly capped. This unexpected shift has significant implications for Ethereums network, its users, and the broader crypto market.

In the annals of Ethereums history, Buterins 2018 proposal, made in jest, barely registered. However, the subsequent evolution of Ethereum has rendered this joke unexpectedly prescient.

Today, thanks to a confluence of technological advancements, Ethereums supply curve is experiencing a dramatic shift. The key players in this unexpected turn of events are the EIP-1559 burn mechanism and the impact of the Merge on Ethereums supply curve.

The Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) 1559, a core component of the London hard fork, introduced a mechanism to burn a portion of the transaction fees. This unique feature has a profound impact on the supply dynamics of ether, Ethereums native token. By regularly burning ether, EIP-1559 effectively reduces the cryptocurrencys overall supply.

Simultaneously, Ethereums transition from a Proof-of-Work (PoW) to a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, known as the Merge, has significantly altered the rate of new ether creation. In the PoW model, miners create new ether as they add transactions to the blockchain. The PoS model, however, drastically reduces this rate of new ether creation.

These technological advances have unintentionally led Ethereum towards a deflationary nature. Its a stark divergence from Buterins initial vision of minimum necessary issuance. Yet, its a change that could have profound implications for Ethereums future.

Ethers deflation has a ripple effect that extends far beyond the Ethereum network. As the total supply of ether diminishes, the tokens scarcity increases. Scarcity, as economic theory suggests, can drive up the value of an asset.

In the realm of cryptocurrencies, Ethereums unplanned supply cap invites comparison with Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization.

Bitcoin has a fixed supply limit of 21 million coins. Once these coins are mined, there will be no new bitcoins. Ethereums unplanned supply cap places it in a similar position, potentially boosting its allure as a store of value.

Moreover, this discussion wouldnt be complete without considering gold, the traditional hedge against inflation. Golds supply, like that of Bitcoin, is naturally capped. At some point, well run out of gold to be mined. This scarcity has been a key factor in its value proposition for centuries. Ethereums new deflationary status invites comparison with this timeless asset class.

The unexpected introduction of a supply cap to Ethereums ecosystem provokes speculation about the blockchains future. What can we expect as Ethereum continues to evolve? The implications are vast, presenting both challenges and opportunities for the network and its users.

One potential challenge lies in the networks transaction costs. As ether becomes more scarce, transaction fees may increase. Higher transaction costs could deter users, potentially limiting Ethereums growth. However, these concerns should be weighed against the potential benefits.

A capped supply could attract a new wave of investors, enhancing Ethereums market position.

Scarcity often increases an assets appeal. With an unintentional supply cap in place, ether becomes a more attractive investment. This could encourage more market participants, driving up demand and potentially boosting the tokens value.

However, this raises another question: Could Ethereums supply cap change its fundamental nature? Traditionally, Ethereum has been valued for its utility, particularly its smart contract capabilities. With a supply cap, it may evolve into a store of value, much like Bitcoin or gold.

As we ponder Ethereums future, its worth considering the broader ecosystem. Ethereum is the backbone of the burgeoning Decentralized Finance (DeFi) sector. The supply cap, therefore, has implications that extend beyond Ethereum itself.

DeFi projects often use ether as collateral. With a capped supply, the value of this collateral could increase, potentially boosting the value of the entire DeFi sector. On the other hand, increased transaction costs could make DeFi applications less accessible, potentially stifling innovation.

As we delve into the intricacies of Ethereums evolution, the cap on ethers supply represents a significant milestone. What began as a casual joke by Buterin has now morphed into a defining characteristic of ETHs economic model. The advent of EIP-1559 and the transition to a PoS consensus mechanism have inadvertently created a deflationary dynamic, with potential implications far beyond its native token.

In the broader landscape of cryptocurrencies, Ethereums unplanned supply cap adds another layer of complexity and intrigue. Comparisons with Bitcoin and gold have emerged, highlighting ETHs growing appeal as a potential store of value. Concurrently, the effect of this shift on the DeFi sector, largely built on Ethereums network, is an area of keen interest.

Yet, amid these transformations, challenges and opportunities coexist. Higher transaction costs could deter users, while the allure of a capped supply could attract new investors. Ethereums utility as a platform for decentralized applications could shift towards being a deflationary asset.

As Ethereum continues its journey, the story of its unplanned supply cap serves as a reminder of the crypto worlds unpredictable and dynamic nature. As observers and participants in this space, we can only anticipate, adapt, and learn.

Following the Trust Project guidelines, this feature article presents opinions and perspectives from industry experts or individuals. BeInCrypto is dedicated to transparent reporting, but the views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of BeInCrypto or its staff. Readers should verify information independently and consult with a professional before making decisions based on this content.

More here:

Ethereum's Unplanned Supply Ceiling: A Joke Turned Into Reality? - BeInCrypto

The Blocksize Wars Revisited: How Bitcoins Civil War Still Resonates Today – Yahoo Finance

This weekend, a pseudonymous developer known as Punk3700 made cryptocurrency history by launching what he calls the first smart contract written on Bitcoin. Its the type of technical achievement crafted in the bespoke programming language, Solidity that lately has become more common on a blockchain known for its chelonian development speeds. Solidity, if you need reminding, is the crypto coding standard that Vitalik Buterin invented to run decentralized applications on the largest alternative blockchain, Ethereum.

This feature is part of our "CoinDesk Turns 10" series looking back at seminal stories from crypto history.

Punks project is also an example of the type of change thats been rankling many of Bitcoins oldest supporters: the Bitcoin maximalists who see other cryptocurrency efforts as a distraction at best, and a lead balloon at worst, capable of tanking even Bitcoins success. While Bitcoin essentially does one thing really well mint and authenticate a currency without the backing of the state Ethereum exists as a virtual computer capable of just about anything (including Ponzi-like monetary schemes that have soiled cryptos reputation). Bitcoiners often want as little to do with Ethereum as possible.

But, about a year after Bitcoins latest upgrade called Taproot (which enabled new types of bitcoin transactions), developers have found they could build Ethereum-like programs and systems on Bitcoin. This started off with non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which bitcoiners relabelled inscriptions, and has lately grown into a whole corpus of tokens and meme coins. Last week, Punk3700 deployed a version of Uniswap (Ethereums largest decentralized crypto exchange) on Bitcoin.

Punk3700 calls himself a New bitcoiner, and together with his team at New Bitcoin City is planning a host of projects looking to reinvent what Bitcoin is used for. This includes a metaverse (Generative), artificial intelligence lab (Perceptrons Square) and an Ethereum Virtual Machine or EVM (Trustless Computer), for Bitcoin, which will power the sub-projects of his digital city.

Story continues

[W]ere taking a different approach. We prefer to reuse battle-tested technologies (like the EVM), battle-tested programming languages with years of developer community forming (like Solidity), and battle-tested dapps (like Uniswap and MakerDAO), Punk3700 told CoinDesk.

While Punks designs may be grander and more sweeping than others, he is hardly alone, following the surprising success of ordinals, in wanting to zap life into the open-source project. Theres clearly demand for Bitcoins non-monetary uses, and a growing roster of bitcoiners wanting to build. At the same time, this unexpected demand for Bitcoin block space (the amount of data that can fit into a newly-mined block, which people pay for in transaction fees) has caught many flat-footed.

See also: Alex Adelman Web3 Should Be Built on Bitcoin | Opinion

Although an influx in bitcoin users benefits the network by increasing its security budget (by increasing the amount BTC miners can earn by processing transactions), many take issue with how the network is being used. Some think meme-coins and NFTs are outright scams, while others think the network congestion is harming the type of adoption bitcoin needs most that is, by pricing out people looking to send remittances payments or buy small amounts of BTC. Transaction fees spiked above $10 last week, three orders of magnitude larger than the sub $0.01 fees paid at the beginning of the month. Thats not good if you want people in developing countries to think of bitcoin as a payment system.

As Bitcoins in-fighting crescendos, some have predicted this relatively mundane debate could devolve into a civil war. Its happened before. Known now as the Blocksize Wars, the period between 2015 and 2017 was marked by rancor and internal division. What started as an argument nominally about how the network should scale to handle periods of increased transactions was inflamed into a philosophical tte--tte over Bitcoin's ultimate purpose and political drama over how the open-source project should be managed.

The two sides, then, were known as Big Blockers and Small Blockers, and they were split over a rather small technical decision: how many megabytes of data a BTC block should handle. Big Blockers wanted to increase the block size to accompany more transactions, lowering fees and making everyday payments more viable. Small Blockers were more conservative, both in the way their name suggests, as well as in not wanting to make irreversible changes to Bitcoins source code. Big blocks would enable more people to use bitcoin, increasing throughput, but would also require a protocol update known as a hard fork (an irreversible, and non-backwards compatible code split).

Worse, the thinking went, bigger blocks would also likely concentrate control of Bitcoin, with someone ultimately having to pay for increased performance (if it was not users). While there is no CEO of Bitcoin, the network can be thought of as being managed by a distributed cast of users (who pay for transactions and induce demand), miners (who expend actual energy to build Bitcoins blockchain) and node operators (who validated this ledger of transactions to ensure everyone is on the same page). Because big blocks were more data-intensive, fewer users would also be able to become miners or validators because fewer would be able to use higher-end hardware Big Blocks would need.

In a reflection of the narcissism of small differences, the in-fighting became a holy war over ecumenical interpretations of Bitcoin. Developers who proposed different Bitcoin implementations reportedly received death threats, Bitcoin forums became sites of propaganda and ostracization and, at one point, a sustained denial-of-service (DoS) attack waged against a Bitcoin fork brought down a major Internet Service Provider (ISP) on Long Island, New York. Ultimately, the small blockers won, a victory often described as a win for decentralization.

I think small blockers won democratically. Of course, a lot of shenanigans happened on r/Bitcoin which affected public opinion, but at the end of the day, the rally cry behind favoring decentralization over TPS [transactions per second] was a real one and it won, Eric Wall, an OG and chief investment officer of hedge fund Arcane Assets, told me.

Wall is something of a gadfly in Bitcoin circles, in part because of his support of non-monetary use cases for Bitcoin. While Wall has said he was an orthodox bitcoiner during the Civil War who ardently supported scaling the network through layer 2s rather than larger blocks, he has since become somewhat disillusioned with the results.

The route chosen was a more conservative one. People who were inclined to try out riskier ideas were pushed out. Bitcoin ossified, with Taproot being the only new upgrade to reach the protocol in the following five years, he said.

For years, Wall has been advocating for a spark of ingenuity in Bitcoin, and for its supporters to consider trialing tech developed on networks like Ethereum. He, like many bitcoiners willing to challenge the orthodoxy, has essentially been excommunicated, though he may not see himself as a casualty of war.

Todays debate over transaction fees and Bitcoin development is different from the Blocksize War in one key regard: many of the questions over Bitcoins technical limitations have already been settled. In 2017, bitcoiners had a choice between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, a hard fork that offered bigger blocks, which its founder Roger Ver said fulfilled the original mission of peer-to-peer digital cash. A later fork from Bitcoin Cash, called Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision, founded by the untrusted individual who calls himself Satoshi Nakamoto without evidence, Craig S. Wright, offered even larger blocks. Instead, market participants have clearly decided the canonical blockchain is the real Bitcoin. And thats a vote of confidence in the Small Blockers' plan to scale Bitcoin using layer 2s, and sidechains like Liquid and Lightning.

See also: Roger Ver: Bitcoin Cash Hard Forks Could Have Thwarted

While the high fees today paid to transact on-chain cause some concern, and perhaps provide impetus to build Bitcoin differently, as of yet no one prominent is suggesting a complete overhaul of the blockchain. However, adoption of Lightning, a payments-focused scaling option that settles on Bitcoin, has been slight (in part due to bitcoiner's proactive warnings that these systems are experimental). Liquid, built by major Bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream, fairs even worse.

Like the problem of high fees during periods of sustained use, the current Bitcoin architecture is also possibly vulnerable in the long-term if it cannot generate a "fee economy" needed to pay miners after the 21 million bitcoins are paid out as a pre-determined subsidy or if most fee-generating activity migrates to layer 2s.

"In hindsight, it is obvious why the small blockers needed to win, and it is their principles which I have become more aligned with, expanding the reach of sound money while maintaining decentralization," popular Bitcoin podcaster, and British football club and bar owner, Peter McCormack said in an email. Bitcoiners today generally accept open markets will work out some of these nebulous questions about Bitcoin's long-term security and current scaling limitations. Because block space, not unlike BTC itself, is a scarce asset with a highly-dedicated user base it is expected to be become increasingly valuable.

See also: Steven Lee Can Bitcoin Afford to Maintain Its Core Network? | Opinion

In a recent op-ed, CoinDesk columnist and co-founder of investment firm Castle Island Ventures, Nic Carter wrote about the absurdity of some bitcoiners today rejecting the use of the network for novel assets like ordinal NFTs and the BRC-20 token standard. Given the crypto-libertarian unpinning of the Bitcoin movement, which traces its lineage to economic philosopher Murray Rothbard and the 1990s cypherpunk culture, it is unaccountable to call for these non-economic use cases to be censored, Carter said.

But the battle scars of the previous civil war are real

But Bitcoin culture has been imbued with willing or unnoticed hypocrisies since the beginning. Carter, too, has rejected and been rejected by contemporary "toxic maximalists," which is likely a small but vocal contingent of the network's user base. This is a group defined often less by its radical economic beliefs than by a certain lifestyle brand that's coalesced on social media, which includes prodigious meat eating, a skepticism of authority (with pols who support bitcoin being an exception) and obsession with spreading bitcoin as a messianic cause. MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor won this group's favor after redirecting his dot-com era tech company into a publicly-traded bitcoin vacuum, and has called this self-described toxic element Bitcoin's antibodies or ultra-protective "killer hornets."

See also: Paul Dylan-Ennis The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin Culture | Opinion

To the bitcoiner mind, the occasional purge of heterodox thinkers who violate some tenet of the Bitcoin Way and attacks of critics is a reflex developed during the 2015-17 civil war. "Maximalism was formed in the crucible of the Block Size War and introduced a dogmatic Dark Ages that we are only now escaping," Dr. Paul Dylan-Ennis, a crypto historian, CoinDesk columnist and associate professor at the University of Dublin College of Business, said. At the time, the scaling debate was often described as being between "populists" who supported big blocks and expanding Bitcoins commercial potential and "elitists" protecting its status against upstart cryptocurrencies. That language has mostly been shed from the contemporary historical understanding of the Blocksize Wars, in favor of the "democratic" ends of preserving the ability to run a node.

Because history is written by victors, it's now said Big Blockers were essentially a coterie of monied interests in Bitcoin, like industrial miners in China and major crypto payments providers. Whereas Small Blockers are often depicted as underdogs the ragtag assemblage of bitcoiners who wanted the network to remain closer to its original code base, and were wary of a backwards incompatible upgrade. There's a degree of truth to this. Influential and well-heeled Big Blockers included Jihan Wu, the co-founder of Bitmain, the largest incumbent mining company at the time; Brian Armstrong, the Coinbase chief executive who backed an astroturf movement to fire the developers" (as in Bitcoin Core) for their intransigence; and Roger Ver, who was once known as Bitcoin Jesus for his proselytizing media strategy that included maintaining the @bitcoin Twitter handle.

Further, the infamous New York Agreement exists in the public imagination (rightly or wrongly) as a closed door session at CoinDesk's Consensus conference in 2017, where dozens of corporate actors schemed under the direction of CoinDesk's parent company Digital Currency Group (DCG) to force through a protocol update. The topic of conversation that day was SegWit2x, a sort of hybrid plan between big and small blockers that would double the Bitcoin block size to 2MB and activate the Segregated Witness (SegWit) upgrade proposed by Bitcoin Core developers, which would improve network throughput by separating the data of who signed what transaction from the transaction itself.

If you don't already know, SegWit2x died in the water. SegWit itself was implemented on Aug. 1, 2017, a date celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day, through a "user-activated soft fork" (UASF) symbolizing the Bitcoin community's bonhomie and power over monied miners. Thus ended Bitcoin's "first of many civil wars," Luxor's Colin Harper wrote in an excellent Bitcoin Magazine retrospective. The UASF was a feat of technical and social engineering, combining ideas from disparate sources to avoid a hard fork while improving the network substantially. The event "permeates" Bitcoin culture, Arcane's Eric Wall said, and imbues the act of running a full node with significance. "It changed the discussion climate in Bitcoin forever."

Adding to SegWit's charm and legacy is that many miners and crypto companies dallied on implementing the change. It took Coinbase until February of 2018 to upgrade, for instance, and payments processor BitPay until July of 2020. Today, "no true bitcoiner" would be caught dead using BitPay, which is now known mostly as the impetus for Bitcoin Core contributor Nicolas Dorier to launch an open-source alternative called BTCPay Server in 2017, after he found out the company signed the New York Agreement. Stories like this are carried by word of mouth, and brought up time and again on social media, because they speak to a certain self-conception among bitcoiners as punks interested in economics and tech.

Its hard to say whether that spirit is dead. Bitcoin as a social technology has certainly changed over the years, especially with an influx of users during the meteoric bull run under COVID. And now it seems to be teetering on the edge of an even bigger shift. But the battle scars of the previous civil war are real, and it's unlikely the changes this time around will be technical. All tech is "path dependent" and bitcoiners chose their course long ago. Whatever curiosities like ordinals are unlocked next, we need to contend with a blockchain designed to be constrained. Ultimately, the market will decide whether buyers of Taproot Wizard NFTs overpaid for blockspace.

See also: Peter McCormack Balaji Srinivasan's $1M Bitcoin Bet Could Be Right, but I Hope He's Wrong | Opinion

But I'll leave you with one last bit of history to mull: SegWit was written long before it was ever implemented, and found its way into Bitcoin's source code well before there was complete consensus between users and miners, with arguably just a slight quorum Bitcoin Core developers in favor. There's good that came from the resulting debate including, as former Blockstream CTO Samson Mow noted, a concerted drive to reduce the concentrated power of miners (Blockstream was early on the trend of building mining facilities in North America). But SegWit was a change that made it into a Core release, which could have passed unnoticed had miners not boycotted the change. Is there not some version of the story where the rarefied circles of Bitcoin puritans are in the wrong? Where miners, wanting a vote, kickstarted a debate that changed how Bitcoin is governed for the better?

In a game driven entirely by economic incentives, you can drive yourself insane moralizing about actors and motivations. Bitcoin is for everyone including your enemies.

See the rest here:

The Blocksize Wars Revisited: How Bitcoins Civil War Still Resonates Today - Yahoo Finance

Revolutionizing Ethereum and Polkadot: Efficient Verification of … – Crypto News Flash

Source: Wit Olszweski - Shutterstock

The Ethereum (ETH) core developers have undertaken a lot of research to ensure safe scalability through zero-knowledge protocols. Moreover, zero-knowledge proofs can be used to generate cryptographic proofs that some computation has been performed outside of a blockchain in accordance with predefined rules. Nevertheless, countless protocols have come up with different technicalities for solving the zero-knowledge scaling solution.

However, it is the Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget (Casper FFG) that was jointly published by Ethereum core developer Vitalik Buterin and Virgil Griffith in 2017 that developer Seun Lanlege alias Web3 Philosopher on Twitter (@seunlanlege) presented research for a scaling protocol.

In the research article, the Polkadot and Ethereum developer presented a SNARK-based approach for verifying Ethereums Casper FFG consensus proofs. Notably, the SNARK-based scaling solution is famous among many layer two protocols since it uses a non-interactive smaller proof than the data it represents.

Although the Casper FFG uses a rather simple consensus mechanism, its proof of security has been described as rather difficult than normal. Moreover, Casper FFG is a Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) inspired and improved consensus protocol. The Ethereum core developers argue in this direction since PBFT is characterized by a two-round voting mechanism that is permissionless, leader-based, and security-oriented.

Follow us for the latest crypto news!

According to Buterin, the key goal of Casper is to achieve economic finality.

Economic finality is accomplished in Casper by requiring validators to submit deposits to participate, and taking away their deposits if the protocol determines that they acted in some way that violates some set of rules (slashing conditions), Buterin noted in a Medium post.

Notably, the Ethereum beacon chain has significantly grown since the Merge event last year and currently has more than 18.3 million ether staked by more than 576k validators. With the SNARK-based scheme for verifying the Ethereums Casper FFG consensus proofs introduced by Seun Lanlege, both on and off-chain light clients can benefit from the crypto economic security provided by the ETH 17m ($34b) at stake.

This protocol offers full node-level security that is orders of magnitude more secure than the sync committee, and is fully Byzantine fault-tolerant, Lanlege noted.

Notably, Lanlege presented a detailed mathematical proof expression to show that the protocol is a more ambitious approach to directly verifying the Casper FFG consensus proofs.

The Ethereum network has one of the most comprehensive interdisciplinary professionals working together including economists, computer scientists, and philosophers among others. As a result, the Ethereum network has scaled to one of the leading smart contract ecosystems for building scalable, and secure decentralized applications.

According to the latest crypto prices, the Ethereum (ETH) network has a total market capitalization of approximately $217.45 billion with a 24-hour traded volume of about $6.042 billion. Trading around $1,808 on Friday, Ethereums price was up approximately 50 percent YTD despite a 13 percent drop in the past month.

Crypto News Flash does not endorse and is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy, quality, advertising, products, or other materials on this page. Readers should do their own research before taking any actions related to cryptocurrencies. Crypto News Flash is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods, or services mentioned.

Read more from the original source:

Revolutionizing Ethereum and Polkadot: Efficient Verification of ... - Crypto News Flash

Ripple Price Prediction 2025-2030: XRPs future hinges on SEC case outcome – AMBCrypto News

Disclaimer: The datasets shared in the following article have been compiled from a set of online resources and do not reflect AMBCryptos own research on the subject.

XRP is a cryptocurrency that was designed to facilitate fast and cheap cross-border money transfers. It is the native token of the Ripple network, a decentralized payment protocol that is designed to connect banks, payment providers, and digital asset exchanges. Ripple aims to improve the speed and efficiency of cross-border payments by using XRP as a bridge currency.

One of the key advantages of XRP is its speed. Transactions on the Ripple network can settle in just a few seconds, compared to several minutes or even days for traditional wire transfers. This makes it an attractive option for businesses and individuals looking to send money across borders quickly and cheaply.

According to data from CoinMarketCap, XRP is currently trading at $0.464, up more than 1% over the past 24 hours. XRP has gained nearly 10% over the past week. The tokens market capitalization stands at $23 billion, making it the sixth largest crypto in the world. The daily trading volume came in at over $1.5 billion.

ReadPrice Prediction for Ripple (XRP)for 2023-24

One reason for XRPs relatively strong performance may be its strong adoption in the financial industry. Many banks and financial institutions have begun using XRP as a means of facilitating cross-border payments, which has helped increase demand for the cryptocurrency. Additionally, Ripple Labs has made significant efforts to promote the adoption of XRP, which has helped promote its credibility and appeal.

After the company was established, the XRPL architects gifted 80 billion XRP tokens to Ripple for the company to build on the network. The XRP Ledger uses a consensus system that involves several bank-owned servers to verify transactions. The validators verify that the proposed transactions are valid by comparing them to the most recent version of the XRP Ledger.

A transaction must be accepted by the majority of validators to be verified.

The XRP ledger uses distributed ledger technology, which is different from the more commonly used blockchain technology. This technology allows bank and non-bank actors to incorporate the Ripple protocol into their own systems, as the protocol is completely open and accessible to anyone without prior approval from Ripple Labs.

In 2017 and early 2018, XRP reached an all-time high of $3.40, marking a 51,709% increase from its original price at the beginning of that year. Although it has since declined, XRP remains a significant player in the cryptocurrency market and is consistently ranked among the top ten coins in terms of market capitalization. The team behind XRP and Ripple continue to work on the development of the XRP ledger and its potential use cases in the global financial system. Overall, XRP remains a significant and influential cryptocurrency in the world of finance and technology.

In 2020, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Ripple, alleging that the company sold $1.3 billion in unregistered securities through its XRP cryptocurrency. Ripple denies the allegations, claiming that XRP is not a security and does not meet the criteria for the Howey Test.

A report byCoinSharesindicated that investors are confident of Ripples victory in the landmark case against the SEC. This is based on the fact that XRP investment products have seen consistent inflows for three consecutive weeks.

On the business front, Ripple revealed key developments pertaining to its European expansion. The companysharedits progress with Paris- based Lemonway and Xbaht in Sweden. Businesses in France and Sweden will now be able to leverage Ripples On-Demand Liquidity (ODL).

On 15 November, Rippleannounced that it partnered with MFS Africa, a leading FinTech firm with the largest mobile money footprint in the continent. This joint venture seeks to streamline mobile payments for users in 35 countries.

In other news, Ripple CTO David Schwartz took toTwitterto offer former employees of the troubled crypto exchange FTX, a place at Ripple. However, this offer only stands for employees who were not involved with compliance, finance, or business ethics.

Ripplestie-upwith Tokyo Mitsubishi Bank in 2017 was a major milestone. Following the same, it became the second-largest crypto by market capitalization for a brief period. A year later, Ripple was in the news again for itspartnershipwith international banking conglomerate Santander Group for an app focusing on cross-border transactions.

In terms of rivals, Ripple has close to none at the moment. They are the leading crypto firm catering to financial institutions around the world. As the number of partnerships grows, XRP will reap the benefits. After all, it is the medium of exchange for all cross-border transactions enabled by RippleNet.

Ripple has been capitalizing on the need for quick transactions and another untapped potential in emerging economies, given that nations in Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions are more likely to realize the value of blockchain and its tokens compared to their first-world counterparts. With the rise of central bank digital currencies (CBDC), it is likely that developing countries looking to explore this option will go for Ripple, since it already offers a well-established cross-border framework. Increased adoption of CBDCs will also lead to banking institutions considering integrating crypto into their services. This will work out very well for Ripple, since RippleNet is already associated with a number of banks.

Blockchain solutions being offered to Ripples Central Bank partners wanting to venture into CBDCs include the option to leverage the XRP ledger using a private sidechain.

Ripple is predicted to develop rapidly over the forecast period, as it can be used for a variety of functions like accounting, investment, smart contract implementation, and decentralized programming.

XRP has an edge over its rivals due to its low cost of entry. The fact that a few dollars will buy tens of XRP seems appealing to new investors, especially those who prefer little investment.

According to a Valuatesreport, the cryptocurrency markets size is expected to hit $4.94 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 12.8%. A number of crypto-firms will benefit from this, Ripple among them.

The growth in the cryptocurrency market is spurred by an increase in the demand for operational efficiency and transparency in financial payment systems, as well as an increase in demand for remittances in developing nations.

The general idea is that RippleNets adoption by financial institutions will increase, leading to more recognition of the platform as well as its native token. This has also been factored in while calculating predictions for 2025 and beyond.

Data from CoinMarketCap revealed that XRP has lost more than 6% of its value over the past seven days. At the time of writing, the token was trading at $0.42, with a market capitalization of $21 billion. As the sixth largest crypto in the world, XRP saw a trading volume of more than $610 million over the last 24 hours. The total open interest on XRP perpetual contracts fell by 1.24% in 24 hours.

XRPs press time price was a far cry from its all-time high of $3.84 in January 2018. As a matter of fact, its price was closer to its launch price than its all-time high.

Although XRP gained somewhat over the last three months, its recent returns have made investors worried.

On 22 December 2020, the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)fileda lawsuit against Ripple Labs. The lawsuit alleged that Ripple had raised $1.3 billion through the sale of unregistered securities (XRP). In addition to this, the SEC also brought charges against Ripples top executives, Christian Larsen (Co-founder) and Brad Garlinghouse (CEO), citing that they had made personal gains totaling $600 million in the process.

The SEC argued that XRP should be considered security rather than a cryptocurrency and as such, should be under their purview.

A verdict in favor of the SEC will set a rather unpleasant legal precedent for the broader crypto market. This is why this case is being closely observed by stakeholders in the industry.

It is evident that developments in the lawsuit have a direct impact on XRPs price. Following the news of the lawsuit in 2020, XRPtankedby almost 25%. In April 2021, the judge handed Ripple a small victory bygrantingthem access to SECs internal documents, which caused XRP to rise over the $1-mark A threshold that the crypto hadnt crossed in 3 years.

According to atweetby Defense Attorney James Filan on 15 August 2022, the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York dealt yet another blow to the SEC when Judge Sarah Netburn granted Ripples motion to serve subpoenas to obtain a set of video recordings for the purpose of authentication, dismissing the regulators claim that Ripple was trying to reopen discovery. This was in response to Ripplesmotionfiled on 3 August 2022.

In theOpinion & Orderpublished earlier in July, Judge Sarah Netburn condemned the SEC for its hypocrisy and actions which suggested that the regulator was adopting its litigation positions to further its desired goal, and not out of a faithful allegiance to the law.

The lawsuits verdict, whatever it is, will have a lasting impact on XRPs value. It is important to note that a verdict in favor of the SEC would make XRP security only in the U.S. because the regulator does not have jurisdiction across the countrys borders. This should offset some of the damage to Ripple, given that it has a substantial amount of business globally.

Carol Alexander, Professor of Finance at the University of Sussex,believesthat XRP is unlike any other crypto. She believes that if Ripple manages to beat the SEC lawsuit, it could start taking on the SWIFT banking system. SWIFT is a messaging network that financial institutions use to securely transmit information and instructions.

In an interview with CNBC, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghousetalkedabout the possibility of an IPO after the case with the SEC is resolved. Ripple going public will have a significant impact on XRPs price action in the following years.

In aninterviewwith Axios at Collision 2022, Garlinghouse further stated that the current price of XRP has already factored in Ripple losing the case. If Ripple loses the case, does anything change? Its basically just status quo, he added.

As for his personal opinion on the verdict, Garlinghouse is betting that it will be in favor of Ripple. Im betting that because I think the facts are on our side. Im betting that because the law is on our side, he remarked.

Curiously, support for Ripple and XRP hasnt been universal really, with Ethereums Vitalik Buterin recentlycommenting,

XRP already lost their right to protection when they tried to throw us under the bus as China-controlled imo

Ripple and the SECs lawsuit is not just restricted to the courtroom. The matter is often covered by the media with both parties having been featured in multiple op-eds, often criticizing each other. Just this month, the market watchdog and the crypto firm were the subject of a heated exchange through pieces published by the Wall Street Journal.

On August 10, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler reiterated his stance on the definition of crypto assets and their oversight in hisop-edpiece featured in The Wall Street Journal. Make no mistake: If a lending platform is offering securities, it . . . falls into SEC jurisdiction.

Chairman Gensler went on to cite the $100 millionsettlementthat the regulator had reached with BlockFi, stating that the crypto markets must comply with time-tested securities laws. As per the terms of the settlement, BlockFi has to rearrange its business to comply with the U.S Investment Company Act of 1940 in addition to registering under the Securities Act of 1933 to sell its products.

In response to Chairman Genslers op-ed, Stu Alderotypublishedhis own piece in The Wall Street Journal and did not mince his words while taking a shot at the regulator. Alderoty accused Gensler of side-lining fellow regulators (CFTC, FDIC etc.) and overreaching its jurisdiction, as opposed to the executive order by U.S President Joe Biden, which directed agencies to coordinate on regulations for crypto.

What we need is regulatory clarity for crypto, not the SEC swinging its billy club to protect its turf at the expense of the more than 40 million Americans in the crypto economy, Alderoty added.

A controversial article authored by Roslyn Layton in Forbes on 28 August pointed out that since 2017, the SECs Crypto Assets Unit has been involved in 200-odd lawsuits. According to Layton, this figure suggests that instead of coming up with clear regulations to ensure compliance, the regulator would rather engage crypto firms with lawsuits in an attempt to regulate by enforcement.

Ripple CTO David Schwartz found himself in a stand-off with Ethereum Co-Founder Vitalik Buterin earlier this month, after Buterin took a dig at XRP ontwitter. Schwartz hit back andrespondedto Buterins tweet, comparing miners in the PoW ecosystems like Ethereum to stockholders of companies like eBay.

I do think its perfectly fair to analogise miners in PoW systems to stockholders in companies. Just as eBays stockholders earn from the residual friction between buyers and sellers that eBay does not remove, so do miners in ETH and BTC, Schwartz added.

Now, putting an accurate figure on the future price of XRP is not an easy job. However, as long as there are cryptocurrencies, there will be crypto pundits offering their two cents on market movements.

Changelly has gathered an average prediction of $0.47 for XRP by the end of 2022. As for 2025, Changelly has provided a range between $1.47 to $1.76 at max for XRP.

Finders conclusion from a panel of thirty-six industry experts, is that XRP should be at $3.61 by 2025. It should be noted that not all of those experts agree on that forecast. Some of them believe that the crypto wont even cross the $1 threshold by 2025. Keegan Francis, the global cryptocurrency editor for Finder, does not agree with the panel of experts. He predicts that XRP will be worth $0.50 by the end of 2025 and, surprisingly, a mere $0.10 in 2030.

According to data published onNasdaq, the average projection for 2025 is around $3.66.

Are your XRP holdings flashing green? Check theprofit calculator

Finders experts had a rather conservative figure for XRP in 2030. They believe that the crypto could hit $4.98 by 2030. In a statement to Finder, Matthew Harry, the Head of Funds at DigitalX Asset Management, revealed that he doesnt see any utility in XRP other than the speculation element.

According to data published on Nasdaqswebsite, the average projection for 2030 is around $18.39.

Year-to-date (YTD) figures from Ripples Quarter 2 earningsreporthave made it clear that despite the drop in XRPs price, demand for their On-Demand Liquidity service not only remained undeterred but actually grew by nine times year-over-year (YoY) with ODL sales totalling $2.1 billion in Q2. The report further stated that Ripple has pledged $100 million for carbon removal activities, in line with their carbon neutral objective and sustainability goals.

Ripples Crypto Trendsreport claims that NFTs and CBDCs are still in their nascent stages and, as their potential is gradually realized, its impact on Ripples network and on the broader blockchain space will be visible.

It should be noted that while various experts have predicted XRPs price to increase in the following years, there are some who believe that XRP will lose all value by the end of the decade.

The major factors that will influence XRPs price in the coming years are:

Predictions are not immune to changing circumstances, and they will always be updated on new developments.

With the Fear and Greed index leaning towards neutral at press time, it implies that investors were confident in their expectations about XRP.

Link:

Ripple Price Prediction 2025-2030: XRPs future hinges on SEC case outcome - AMBCrypto News

Shiba Inu: How Much To Be a SHIB Millionaire If Price Hits $0.01 – Watcher Guru

In the meme coin sector, becoming a millionaire seems like a matter of luck and timing. However, how could that change with one of the fastest-growing meme coins on the market? Specifically, regarding Shiba Inu, how much would you have to invest to be a SHIB millionaire if the price reached the $0.01 mark?

The $0.01 dream has been a consistent one for the SHIB Army. Moreover, the efforts to achieve that long-held dream have continually come to fruition. Yet, considering the asset currently sits at a price point of $0.0000087, the difference in cost is astonishing. But just how much would it be?

1/ Ever wondered how much money you would need to invest in meme coins to become a millionaire?

Our recent study shows that an investor would have needed an average of $66,298.25 to become a meme coin millionaire.

Read the full study: https://t.co/XPGIpukeT8 pic.twitter.com/vAMk10onMg

The meme coin market has been an ever-growing one in the digital asset industry. As newcomers like Pepe Coin (PEPE) continue to arrive, mainstays like Dogecoin (DOGE) and Shiba Inu (SHIB) continue to lead the pack. All while the hope for continued price growth persists.

How much would you have to invest to be a Shiba Inu (SHIB) millionaire at a $0.01 price? This is an interesting calculation considering the growth rate that Shiba Inu has already displayed. According to CoinGecko, SHIB has the highest return rate of any coin that has been launched.

Specifically, the report notes that a $12 investment in 2021 yielded a $1 million return in just 15 months. As many have been vocal about regretting missing out on that run, perhaps assessing an entry point could help put it into perspective.

Currently, at the previously stated price of $0.0000087, you would only need to invest $878 to become a millionaire when SHIB reaches a price of $0.01, which is the eventual goal. Specifically, your $878 investment would yield you 100 million tokens. Consequently, if you held those until the $0.01 pie, you would make a $1 million return.

Alternatively, the question is whether or not the asset could actually achieve the $0.01 price. Considering its current price, the asset would need to grow 1,133x to reach the price. While that does seem improbable, it is important to maintain perspective. Specifically, SHIB had previously jumped 84,242 times to reach its all-time high in 2021.

That was the result of a massive 410 trillion toke burn from Vitalik Buterin. Subsequently, a similar token burn would be required for a similar surge in the asset price. Although that is unknowable currently, the burning of SHIB has been a focus of the community. Moreover, it should only be accelerated by the eventual arrival of the Shibarium mainnet and the SHIB metaverse projects.

Although there is no certainty in investment, there is also no data that states it could be impossible. Moreover, SHIB has proven to consistently deny the impossible. Only time will ultimately tell where the meme coin story goes.

See the original post:

Shiba Inu: How Much To Be a SHIB Millionaire If Price Hits $0.01 - Watcher Guru