WWW.BLOCKCAST.CC
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced that it has filed charges against 11 individuals in connection with a fraudulent crypto project that raised over $300 million from investors across the world. A SEC press release published on Monday, 1 August noted that the eleven played a leading role in the creation and […]
Visit us at https://is.gd/sDQ8UZ
Ethereum (ETH) is seeing an unmatched spike in inactivity. From institutional adoption to rising traction, and whatnot. Given the demand, Ethereum (ETH) network participants raised $2.48 billion in fees compared to $1.7 billion one year ago. Are you happy now? Ethereum’s bullishness throughout 2022 resulted in a good spike in trading and transaction volumes, as well as […]
Visit us at https://is.gd/jQYo4X
Visit us at https://is.gd/bPbVAy
Visit us at https://is.gd/AKo1ST
The founder of a multi-million crypto Ponzi scheme has escaped paying a $4.5 million penalty to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On March 23, the U.S District Court of Southern Florida initially ordered Jose Angel Aman to pay the SEC more than $4.2 million in disgorgement, and $300,000 in prejudgement interest. However, the court deemed the bill was satisfied that same day due to restitution paid in a parallel case from 2019.
According to an emergency order obtained by the SEC in May 2019, Florida-based Aman operated three consecutive Ponzi-schemes which made up a “complicated web of fraudulent companies in an effort to continually loot retail investors and perpetuate the Ponzi schemes as well as divert money to himself,” pulling in roughly $30 million from an investor base of more than 300 people based in the U.S, Canada, and Venezuela.
His efforts resulted in a seven-year jail sentence, three year’s supervised release, and an order to pay more than $23.8 million to the SEC in restitution.
Aman was the principle behind Argyle Coin, a crypto Ponzi-scheme he operated alongside Canadian radio host Harold Seigel and his son Jonathan Seigel. The scheme falsely promised a “risk-free” investment that was backed by what the SEC described as “fancy colored diamonds,” with investors being promised exposure to the diamond market.
The rarity of #coloreddiamonds has driven prices up 400% per carat in the last decade!#ArgyleCoin aims to bring the ability to own and invest
in colored diamonds to anyone in the world.Want to know how? Explore our website to learn all the details!
https://t.co/kUzdQENeIr pic.twitter.com/XyIlFDtK5x— Argyle Coin (@Argylediamond) October 10, 2018
However, it was later found that Aman was distributing the funds received from new investors to previous backers, misrepresenting the funds as being profits derived from their investments. At the same time, the fraudster was also using his clients’ money on personal expenses including designer-label clothing and horse-riding lessons. The SEC’s complaint noted:
“Aman, Natural Diamonds, Eagle, and Argyle Coin, misused or misappropriated more than $10 million of investor funds to pay other investors their purported returns and for Aman’s personal expenses, including rent on his home, purchases of horses, and riding lessons for his son.”
The latest ruling concerned Aman’s “Natural Diamonds Investment Co”, and under regular circumstances, the Floridian would’ve been required to pay the $4.5 million if it were not prior charges.
As part of the final judgment, Aman is prohibited from partaking in a wide array of violations of securities acts, and securities exchange acts, such as “employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” and “obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact.“
Image Credit: Refer to Source
Author: Refer to Source Cointelegraph By Brian Quarmby
Since the Ethereum 2.0 beacon chain went online just over a month, the balance of the Ethereum 2.0 mortgage address has exceeded 2.4 million Ethereum. At the same time, a large number of third-party staking platforms have been launched, including the centralized trading platform Binance and decentralized DeFi projects such as Rocket Pool and Lido. These different staking solutions are different in many aspects.
Despite their differences, they have one thing in common: all projects are proposing solutions to the inevitable frictions created by staking Ethereum. So, what exactly are these frictions?
First, the technical complexity of Ethereum 2.0 pledge is beyond the capabilities of ordinary users. With the rapid increase in the price of Ethereum ($1,040 at the time of compilation of this article), the minimum deposit requirement of 32 Ethereum is becoming more and more out of reach for ordinary users. Finally, in order to achieve the transition to Ethereum 2.0 in a safe and controllable manner, the pledge has a non-current lock-up period of 18-24 months.
In summary, these restrictions can prevent less sophisticated users from entering the “profitable” Ethereum 2.0 staking market.
This is where the Ethereum 2.0 pledge pool comes in. They obtain Ethereum from multiple users and perform Ethereum 2.0 staking operations on behalf of the users, so that any participant can receive staking rewards, regardless of their technical level or deposit scale.
In addition, they are trying to alleviate lengthy liquidity requirements by issuing Ethereum mainnet tokens that represent users’ deposits and rewards on the Ethereum 2.0 chain. These pledged tokens provide holders with an opportunity to unlock liquidity, allowing users to trade Ethereum 2.0 pledged tokens into Ethereum native tokens in secondary markets such as Uniswap to withdraw from the pledge early, and use their pledged tokens The ability to participate in DeFi (for example as collateral in Aave).
However, the implementation models of pledge tokens between different pools are different , which will undoubtedly bring some serious effects to users. For example, Lido’s third-party pledge token (stETH token) is different from StakeWise’s third-party token, so the pricing on the secondary market should be different. At the same time, Rocket Pool’s rETH token and stETH implementation are also different, and CREAM’s crETH2, Stkr’s aETH, etc. are also different.
In short, there are many differences in the token mechanism from different pledge pools, and these differences may cause confusion and bring undesirable consequences to end users. However, these differences can be classified and evaluated in order to discover the strengths and weaknesses of their respective pledge pools. In addition, this comparative analysis can show the price efficiency of different Ethereum 2.0 pledge tokens.
In this article, I will uncover the mystery of the principle of Ethereum 2.0 tokenization and give examples of how the tokenization of different staking pools works.
According to the classification of the token structure, two different structures can be distinguished: one is a single token design, which aims to obtain the initial deposit and income of depositing a token at the same time; the other is a dual token design, which will pledge deposits and The rewards are used as two different tokens.
Single token design
The single token structure is based on the concept of rebalancing or repricing tokens. This is the most popular design, and most staking pools use this strategy, probably because of its simplicity. By issuing a single token when the user deposits, the pledge pool seeks to realize the rights and responsibilities of rewards and punishments in the same token. This can be achieved in two ways:
1. Change in quantity: The rewards and punishments in the Ethereum 2.0 pledge contract are reflected by changing the token balance. In the 1.5th token circulation stage, each pledge token will be in the pool at a ratio of 1:1 Converted to ETH in China;
2. Change the price: The rewards and punishments in the Ethereum 2.0 pledge contract are reflected by the token price. In the 1.5 token circulation stage, the amount of redemption of each pledge token is rewarded by the pledge pool. fluctuation.
To understand through a simple diagram:
1. The method of changing the number of tokens. Representative projects include: Lido and Binance.
2. Change the way of representing prices, Rocket Pool, Cream, StaFi and Stkr.
Although different mechanisms are used to reflect the accumulation of revenue, the design of a single token has one thing in common: deposits and rewards are bundled in the same token. This means that whenever you buy or sell tokens on the market or get tokens from depositors, you will receive/sell deposits and any rewards accumulated in the pool in the past.
Dual token design
Instead, the dual token structure is based on the concept of two rebalanced tokens, which reflect deposits and rewards respectively.
In contrast, the dual token structure is based on the concept of two rebalanced tokens reflecting deposits and returns respectively. Taking stakewise tokens as an example, deposit and return tokens are stETH and reETH respectively.
When holding a dual-token design staking token, the token stETH representing the staking of Ethereum will not grow, and the rwETH (reward ETH) tokens that accumulate rewards at a ratio of 1:1 will be reflected in the income share of the pledge pool increase. In short, the sum of these tokens constitutes the overall revenue state, and can be freely transferred between Ethereum networks and used in smart contracts in the same way as individual tokens.
As long as it holds pledge tokens, it will accumulate reward tokens. As the reward pool grows, the balance of stETH, the Ethereum token representing the deposit, remains unchanged, but the holding address will receive the reward token reETH.
The sum of deposits and rewards of Ethereum tokens is always equal to the number of Ethereum in the pool; the exchange rate of the two tokens remains at 1
The dual token structure allows the creation of a new dynamic hybrid model similar to bonds, but the difference is that it divides the pledge into two parts with different accrued values and cash flow expectations (principal and interest), thereby enabling Manage personal pledges more effectively and flexibly.
When it comes to the core of the work of Ethereum 2.0 staking tokens, the design choices of different pools become more subtle, but they can still make major differences.
Off-chain oracle
In order to be an effective solution to liquidity stagnation, tokens must accurately reflect the value of the pledged tokens held. This requires placing the correct amount of Ethereum in the pledge pool to support the corresponding pledge tokens. In order to achieve this, the pledge pool needs to track their node balances in the Beacon Chain and issue tokens against them.
But what you need to know is that the contract responsible for issuing tokens and the balance of the verification node are not on the same blockchain (Ethereum 1.0 VS Ethereum 2.0).
Unfortunately, the ERC-20 contract responsible for issuing tokens and the balance of the node are not on the same chain (ETH1 vs ETH2). The token contract on the Ethereum 1.0 chain cannot directly synchronize the balance from the verification node of the beacon chain. The pledge pool needs to bypass this restriction by using off-chain oracles, and its working principle is similar to that of Chainlink, which is now ubiquitous.
The off-chain oracles can obtain the beacon chain data in the following ways: First, an oracle computing node must run Ethereum 1.0 and Ethereum 2.0 nodes at the same time in order to interact with the two chains at the same time. Once both nodes are started, the oracle will collect the information of verification nodes belonging to a specific pledge pool from the beacon chain and transfer it to the ERC-20 smart contract on the Ethereum 1.0 chain. Once the beacon chain information is submitted to the ERC-20 contract, the number of tokens will be updated according to the change in the verification program balance (or the exchange rate will be changed to issue new tokens). This change can go up or down, depending on whether the balance increases (i.e. gets a reward) or decreases (i.e. incurs a fine/).
Unfortunately, the off- chain oracle brings a disadvantage: the entity that controls the oracle effectively controls the update of the token. In order to alleviate this problem, the pledge pool requires multiple oracles to submit the same information at the same time, in order to update the token information through a consensus mechanism, and allocate oracles to achieve a certain degree of decentralization.
Stake token balance refresh rate
Each token balance update in the ERC-20 contract involves a gas fee. In order to optimize gas fees, most service providers prefer to update the token balance daily. Most people think this is sufficient because the daily income is very low (ranging from 0.005% to 0.063% per day), making more frequent updates irrelevant.
However, in the event of large-scale slashing, daily updates may not be enough. As long as the verification node makes a mistake that incurs confiscation, a “penalty and confiscation” will occur, which will cause the verification node to lose in a few minutes. If the frequency of updating the balance is lower than 24 hours, it will have disastrous consequences.
The problem here is that any user can track the number of Ethereum in the verification node monitoring the pledge pool through epochs (via the beacon chain browser), and “foresee” the reduction of its balance before the token is updated. Once users realize the potential loss that is about to happen, they will execute the ERC-20 smart contract in advance, sell the tokens on the secondary market to reduce the loss, and make the unsuspecting liquidity provider suffer permanent losses and be fined. Holds a large number of positions in the pledge pool.
In order to avoid this situation, the pledge pool can adjust the refresh frequency of its ERC-20 contract to a higher frequency and increase the gas fee cost to prevent the risk of balance mismatch during the penalty. But in reality, it is unlikely that the staking pool will update the token balance more frequently (let alone every epoch). On the contrary, they are more inclined to reduce the risk of forfeiture by improving safety procedures, or only prepare to increase the frequency of updates when a forfeiture event does occur.
Therefore, it is recommended that users and liquidity providers (LPs) of the staking pool monitor the balances of the verification nodes that they hold or provide liquid staking pools to prevent untimely penalties and preemptions.
I hope that the research and understanding of the Ethereum tokenized pledge design can stimulate in-depth discussions in the Ethereum community about the advantages and disadvantages of different staking pools, improve the efficiency of the tokenized Ethereum staking market, and protect those who know little about their use. The pledger who suffers accidental consequences for his products.
Some concepts discussed in this article are worthy of further analysis and discussion, and can have a profound impact on the annualized rate of return (APR) derived from the Ethereum 2.0 pledge pool.
Blockchain technology in general and smart contracts in particular can “unlock the hidden values of legacy digital systems,” according to the World Economic Forum, or WEF. To understand how, look no further than India’s Crop Insurance Scheme.
In a 40-page white paper released on Wednesday, the Geneva-based organization promotes the importance of interoperability between legacy systems and distributed ledger technologies – but only for specific use cases that are suitable for blockchains.
The WEF says:
“Once readers have already established that blockchain is desirable for their specific use case and business processes, this paper aims to spotlight the role of blockchain, smart contracts and oracles in accelerating the automation of such processes.”
Although the paper promotes highly technical and abstract solutions for enhancing interoperability between blockchains and legacy systems — which it calls the “interoperability bridge” — it provides a tangible example in the form of India’s Crop Insurance Scheme, which was devised in 2016 as a way to provide insurance coverage and financial support to farmers affected by natural disasters.
Issues ranging from transparency and accountability to corruption and information security were all raised by agencies involved in implementing the scheme. The white paper identifies how blockchain-based smart contracts and oracle systems could overcome these challenges.
The paper reads:
“The crop insurance programme serves as an apt case to highlight the current deficiencies most legacy systems face when dealing with multiparty business processes.”
It continues:
“If an organization’s objective is to automate business processes in a decentralized and disintermediated manner for various reasons, then a blockchain‑based architecture becomes imperative.
Indian regulators have had mixed feelings about cryptocurrencies, but they’ve been far more receptive to blockchain technology. Earlier this year, the National Institution for Transforming India, a government entity, released a report that explores the role of blockchain in improving business, social and governance outcomes in the country.
Image Credit: Refer to Source
Author: Refer to Source Cointelegraph By Sam Bourgi
Chinese city Suzhou has decided to launch what it calls a “red envelope” trial for the country’s impending digital yuan.
This will be the second time a Chinese city will be rolling out a test phase for the digital yuan. Last month another Chinese city Shenzhen rolled out a pilot scheme. From insider reports, the Suzhou district wants to launch the giveaway on the same day as China’s Double 12 chopping event on December 12.
Are you looking for fast-news, hot-tips and market analysis? Sign-up for the Invezz newsletter, today.
In anticipation of the forthcoming trial scheme, several businesses in the district have set up near-field communication QP codes.
In the first trial scheme held in Shenzhen, there were 10 million digital yuan distributed to about 50,000 beneficiaries of the red envelopes through a lottery format. As reported earlier, about 95 percent of the beneficiaries have already spent their 200 digital yuan prize within two weeks of the prize money is distributed.
Some of the participants even wanted to buy more of the yuan.
But the participants of the Shenzhen trial launch could not use the panda wallets, which is the digital wallet’s “touch” and “offline” functions.
But the Suzhou launch has this functionality, as it enables users and holders of the yuan digital currency to carry out the transfer of transactions. They can do this by tapping their mobile devices, even if the devices are not connected to the network.
E-commerce giant Alibaba will be hosting the Double 12 shopping event. It will be coming after the launch of the much-anticipated “Singles Day”. The shopping event will concentrate more on small brands and offline spending than online spending.
Apart from the city of Shenzhen and Suzhou launching their trials, Chengdu city is also planning to roll out its yuan digital currency trial. The venue of the 2022 Winter Olympics has also been billed to participate in another closed pilot scheme. These trials are coming as China prepares to launch its digital yuan. The country with the largest population in the world has been planning to roll out its digital yuan. As it stands, the launch stage will happen after the successful testing schemes from various districts.
The cryptocurrency industry has been filled with scams in which bad actors attempted to trick people into giving away their money. However, a few scams have been as big or as noteworthy as OneCoin. In fact, this one has gained so much attention that it will seemingly get its own movie, with a Titanic lead star, Kate Winslet.
OneCoin has been a complex and difficult mess to untangle, and even now, in 2020, the scheme is still making its way through the courts. However, it already has its own unpublished book by Jen McAdam, who was one of the scheme’s victims, and Douglas Thompson.
Are you looking for fast-news, hot-tips and market analysis? Sign-up for the Invezz newsletter, today.
Now, it is also going to get its own movie, supposedly called “Fake!,” which will be based on the book.
The movie itself will be written and directed by Scott Z. Burns, who is also known for a political drama called The Report. Some may know that this is a film based on the CIA’s report regarding post-9/11 torture. Another film that he wrote is known as Contagion, which is a 2011 pandemic, which starred Kate Winslet.
As mentioned, Winslet is also going to star in Fake!. However, this will not be the first time that the OneCoin scheme is being brought to the screens. The BBC is also producing an entire show about the project.
OneCoin, as some may know, was a crypto project that was founded six years ago, in 2014. It was started by Ruja Ignatova, and its country of origin is Bulgaria.
The project followed a structure that is rather typical for multilevel marketing schemes, with the only major difference being the fact that it included a cryptocurrency. It claimed that OneCoin will be the next big hit, promising massive returns, while the rising price figures were later discovered to have been random entries by employees.
The authorities kept issuing warnings against it which were ignored by the community. Eventually, many of its fans ended up victims of the scam, including McAdam, who invested over 250,000 EUR with her friends and family. After the project was revealed as a fraud, she starter a support group for OneCoin victims.
A recent filing from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, takes action against three individuals for allegedly raising millions of dollars against more than 1,000 victims.
“From 2017 to May 2019, Jali, Frimpong, and Johnson, directly and through two entities created to perpetrate the scheme, Smart Partners and 1st Million (the ‘Companies’), fraudulently raised more than $27 million from approximately 1,200 investors, many of them African immigrants,” an Aug. 28 legal filing states.
The allegations claim the three individuals used their influence in churches and health care, preying on commonalities and beliefs of those around them for financial gain. Johnson claimed to be a minister, while Jali reportedly pastored at seven church locations, as noted in the legal document. Leading investors to believe they would make profit on crypto and Forex on their behalf, the accused parties allegedly claimed themselves as experts, promising to give back initial invested capital one year later.
The filing states the defendants spent this money on themselves instead of using it as advertised.
“From 2017 to May 2019, Defendants offered and sold to investors in Maryland and several other states, including Georgia, Florida, and Texas, among others, contracts with the Companies in which they falsely promised, among other things, to generate profits for investors by trading Forex and cryptocurrency,” the filing sates.
The document notes a $5,000 minimum investment as their common requirement, advertising gains between 6% and 42% per month or financial quarter. The accused allegedly paid out some of the earlier investors at times to ward off suspicion.
Image Credit: Refer to Source
Author: Refer to Source Cointelegraph By Benjamin Pirus
WWW.BLOCKCAST.CC 