Elon Musk appears to have revealed his Bitcoin (BTC) holdings while participating in the crypto community’s efforts to educate J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, about Bitcoin.
In response to a request from Rowling for Twitter to explain Bitcoin to her, Musk emphasized that “massive currency issuance by govt central banks is making Bitcoin Internet money look solid by comparison.” Musk added:
I still only own 0.25 Bitcoin btw.
Tyler Winklevoss responded asking, “ Then how are you going to pay for things on Mars?”
Elon Musk claims to be holding 0.25 BTCHowever, not all were convinced by the sum of Bitcoin that Musk claimed to own, with self-described crypto investor Alistair Milne responding: “This is called OpSec, something everyone who owns Bitcoin should learn… Pity I lost all mine…”
The Twitter account with the handle @Bitcoin sought to describe the core benefits of Bitcoin in terms that Rowling might find relatable:
Wizards still need to trust Gringotts Bank. Bitcoin fixes this.
Musk sells house but holds on to BitcoinMusk’s pronouncement of owning 0.25 BTC suggests that he opted to hold his reportedly small Bitcoin stash despite “selling almost all physical possessions,” as per a series of bizarre tweets posted at the start of May.
Musk also indicated that Tesla “might get into mining” last year.
Elon Musk appears to have revealed his Bitcoin (BTC) holdings while participating in the crypto community’s efforts to educate J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, about Bitcoin.
Sergey Solonin, co-founder of the Qiwi group, and TON investor to the tune of $17 million has decided to reissue his investment as a loan to Telegram, according to a report by Forbes Russia, May 16.
Telegram Open Network troublesFollowing Telegram’s well-documented court battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company missed its April 30 deadline to launch the TON network and was prohibited from distributing its Gram tokens.
Investors were given until the end of Friday, May 15 to decide whether to accept an immediate refund of 72% of their initial investment, or provide the money as a loan, receiving 110% of its value on April 30, 2021.
The hope at the time was that those investors who chose the loan option may have been issued Gram, or another cryptocurrency, once the SEC dispute had been settled. However, Telegram has since publicly abandoned the TON project, as reported on May 12.
Solonin believes 30% of the investment will be convertedSolonin’s decision to take the loan option on his $17 million investment means that he will receive $18.7 million at the end of the term.
He believes that around 30% of the $1.7 billion raised by investors in the 2018 Initial Coin Offering (ICO) will be converted to loans. This would leave Telegram with an obligation to the remaining investors of around $500 million.
I think that should be enough for a year of work, taking into account the risks arising from the settlement of relations with the SEC. I hope that during this time Pavel will be able to come up with sources of income or a way to finance the company further.
While interoperability continues to pose serious challenges for enterprises leveraging blockchain networks, companies may be one step closer to breaking down these barriers.
An open-source project initiated by Fortune 500 company Accenture and Fujitsu joined Hyperledger’s Greenhouse on May 13, 2020. The project, formerly known as the “Blockchain Integration Framework,” spent six months in development in the Hyperledger Lab before joining the Hyperledger Greenhouse as the 16th technology code base. Upon joining the Greenhouse, the project was renamed “Hyperledger Cactus” and now sits alongside notable projects including Hyperledger Fabric and Hyperledger Sawtooth.
The director of blockchain technology at Accenture, Michael Klein, told Cointelegraph that Hyperledger Cactus is an open-source software development kit designed to connect distributed ledger technologies through a plugin:
“Hyperledger Cactus serves as an option for enterprises wanting to connect any DLT to other DLTs through a plugin. Cactus can be used on any permissioned DLT network where you have known identities or validators in an interoperability framework.”
Klein noted that Hyperledger Cactus can be executed on Hyperledger Besu, which runs on the public Ethereum blockchain, along with Hyperledger Fabric, R3’s Corda and Quorum (Ethereum-based).
Why is interoperability important?The executive director of Hyperledger, Brian Behlendorf, told Cointelegraph that there are two layers of interoperability. He explained that the first relates to interoperability within a given blockchain network, noting that everyone on the IBM Food Trust Network, or the Trust Your Supplier network, or other similar networks powered by Hyperledger Fabric, can exchange information efficiently and correctly:
“This is where ensuring everyone is using the same software (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric, or Hyperledger Besu) is the most important piece, as well as setting up a governance structure for the participants on that network to coordinate additional technical, policy and legal issues.”
Secondly, Behlendorf mentioned that interoperability between networks is important, explaining that this is where Hyperledger Cactus operates, as the project works to build bridges between networks even if they are of different protocols (i.e., between Fabric and Quorum), adding: “This means that as a company, an organization can conduct a transaction that spans two networks or reliably and trustfully send data from one network to another.”
A recent article from Cointelegraph Consulting highlights the benefits and challenges associated with creating interoperable blockchain ledgers. Once achieved, these networks can be used for cross-industry scenarios, rather than applied within a single industry.
The article notes that companies like IBM, Oracle and SAP have shown a commitment to solving interoperability issues to drive mainstream adoption of blockchain solutions. However, this is easier said than done. In addition to the technological challenges, which Cactus aims to solve, there are still concerns around governance and network participation.
It’s important to point out that Hyperledger Cactus is a technology solution that was not designed to solve governance problems or the understanding of how network participants should share data. Klein explained:
“This is a technology solution that still requires a human element to ensure success. The idea is that it uses a federated interoperability approach, meaning you can have multiple parties on a DLT network, while an opposing network confirms transactions. Trust is not placed in one organization, governance is still needed.”
Moreover, while Hyperledger Cactus exhibits great potential, Klein noted that the project does not solve interoperability challenges for all blockchain and DLT networks. He explained that this is simply another solution that enterprises can leverage but that there are other options available.
For example, the Fabric Interoperability Workgroup is being leveraged by networks hoping to achieve interoperability across Hyperledger Fabric systems. The goal of this working group is to ensure Fabric services provided by different vendors can work with each other by responding to Fabric blockchain transaction requests and performing various operations, like seamlessly creating and joining channels.
The importance of community and open sourceWhile the recent hype around blockchain technology may make it seem like interoperability is a new challenge, it has always been an issue for enterprises leveraging blockchain solutions. As such, Klein noted that Accenture began working on solving these challenges a while back, saying:
“In early 2018, we began focusing on solving a space of interoperability that we didn’t already see in the market, which is the exchange of custom assets and information between various DLT ledgers. We understood early on that as organizations start to embrace blockchain and DLTs, there would be barriers between sharing data and picking the right platforms to execute projects on.”
In order to alleviate interoperability concerns facing enterprises, Accenture created a trusted “interoperability node” solution to sit in-between DLT systems. A protocol such as this would work to control all capabilities within connected DLT networks.
After receiving patents for various approaches to interoperability, Klein mentioned that Accenture decided to open source their code bases to make these solutions publicly available for enterprises to use. As such, the firm joined Hyperledger Labs in 2019 to raise awareness around their interoperability projects.
Klein further noted that Accenture connected with Fujitsu through Hyperledger Labs, explaining that the Japanese information and technology company shared a similar approach and solution to interoperability challenges. He added:
“We met Fujuistu through Hyperledger Labs and began working on Cactus for about six months. The future vision of the project is now focused on making it production ready for enterprise clients to use.”
According to Behlendorf, Hyperledger Labs is a place where new code bases, like Cactus, are placed to help recruit developers, look for alliances, and to ensure that the legal provenance of codes is established. Behldendorf added that some Labs — not all — are promoted to official projects at Hyperledger, saying:
“Most Labs don’t get that far, but it was always the intent for Cactus, which was previously called the Blockchain Integration Framework, to head in that direction, and germinating in Labs was a way to help other Hyperledger community members to get to know about it before it was proposed to become a full project.”
In addition to relationship building, Hyperledger Labs values open-source frameworks, which Klein mentioned has been a big element for Accenture in terms of allowing companies to come together around shared data constructs: “Blockchain is about unlocking value between organizations and ecosystems, and open source is a great way to make technology available to an entire community.”
The first thing to note is that despite the safe-haven characterization of crypto, the asset class itself in March appeared to be closely correlated with traditional public markets. Additionally, there were some notable crypto funds that went insolvent due to unhedged positions, a leverage mismatch or challenges with conducting proper risk management. Similar to December 2017, some funds were so beneath their high-water mark that the fund managers decided to wind down their fund, issue compulsory redemptions and stop activities.
On average, crypto hedge funds were down among our clients, but not as much as their traditional counterparts. Both categories weren’t down nearly as much as their respective market benchmarks.
Unsurprisingly, we can identify two groupsFunds with market exposure (e.g., long-only funds) mostly mirrored and plunged with the market — although we have seen exceptions — whereas market-neutral crypto hedge funds largely performed with more consistency.
The most stable funds are usually systematic, using a mix of market-neutral strategies, such as statistical arbitrage, and tend to return between 1%–2% per month under any condition. Several of our clients have stuck to these numbers even with the coronavirus crisis, and with the increased opportunity presented by volatility, some of them are even overperforming and delivering alpha.
It’s worth noting that, unfortunately, some of these market-neutral funds have suffered from “poor execution” with their broker/exchanges, which didn’t allow them to perform as they should have. On balance, those funds in that category have greatly minimized losses compared to market-exposed funds.
On that topic, it’s worth noting that overall, the industry as a whole has been very resilient to the crisis: We haven’t seen any socialized losses on any major exchanges, and very few have been deleveraged. Thanks to the digital nature of the crypto space, the industry is coping very well with a “working-from-home” world, with minimal disruption.
Similarly to traditional public markets, the industry expects market-neutral hedge funds to regain momentum as investors seek to lower their exposure to market uncertainty.
This factor, in addition to the current volatility in the markets, may explain why Vauban has never received so many new hedge fund launch inquiries, with a good percentage of these being crypto fund managers. We expect that hedge funds will thrive in the coming years and that there will be investor appetite for such funds.
Crypto hedge funds remain a fantastic opportunity for investors. While there are risks inherent to the industry in its current state that should be taken into account, market-neutral funds that stick to their mandate offer a good opportunity to buy into a consistent return over the long term, which would be very hard to achieve in traditional markets. On the other hand, it is expected that some directional funds will make significant returns for their investors over the short term.
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Rémy Astié is the CEO of Vauban, a financial technology company that specializes in frictionless setup and administration of investment funds. He enjoys writing about digital asset fund structures, among other things.
Cryptocurrency payment processor BitPay has lost a major customer before it even began accepting any payments after a social media backlash.
In a Twitter debate on May 15, computer manufacturer Pine64 said that it had planned to use BitPay to accept cryptocurrency, but would now halt the plans while it searched for an alternative partner.
Pine64: We “no longer intend” to use BitPayThe reason, it said, was an “outcry” among Twitter users over the company’s decision to use BitPay.
A subsequent post read:
We saw the outcry regarding @BitPay and no longer intend to support it. In the coming weeks and months we'll keep exploring options that will work for us and will be convenient for our community.
Those lobbying Pine64 to rethink using BitPay included several high-profile Bitcoiners including Lightning Torch organizer Hodlonaut.
Nicholas Dorier, founder of open-source payment processor BTCPay, took the opportunity to highlight his product’s advantages, something that Pine64 itself subsequently retweeted.
“I strongly advise AGAINST using Bitpay and instead advise that you present your engineers with the option to use BtcpayServer for free and have complete control over your online commerce,” another well-known commentator, Vortex, added.
Bitcoin Cash hits all-time lowsThe distaste for BitPay in Bitcoin circles is longstanding. As Cointelegraph reported, the company’s lack of compatibility with many wallets and seeming attempts to privilege altcoin Bitcoin Cash (BCH), the fifth-ranked cryptocurrency by market capitalization, over Bitcoin (BTC) has led to frequent social media scuffles.
The company has held firm despite the controversies, which include charging a so-called “network cost” for BTC payments, while BCH payments often attract no such fee.
During the spate of wildfires in 2019, BitPay again came in for major criticism after automatically blocking Bitcoin donations to charities.
BCH/BTC chart since inception. Source: CoinMarketCap
Bitcoin Cash meanwhile has seen its fortunes tumble, and currently trades near record lows against Bitcoin.
The question of whether enterprises should use public or private blockchains for business has become extremely relevant today. A recent report from Fortune Business Insights predicted that the blockchain market will reach $21 billion by 2025, highlighting the fact that large companies are adding momentum to the market through new investments.
Unsurprisingly, as more players enter the blockchain arena, information regarding the best blockchain solutions for enterprises is coming up for debate. For instance, during the online Consensus: Distributed Conference, Adam Caplan, the senior vice president of emerging technology at Salesforce, commented that public blockchains are not secure enough for enterprises to leverage.
What does the market need?When asked to elaborate, Caplan told Cointelegraph that while Salesforce customers would like all the benefits that a public blockchain can provide, such as audit trails and full transparency, enterprise customers still require data to be shared selectively:
“Our customers are saying they want to share data with our partners and collaborate more strongly — all the benefits of classic blockchains, but they also don’t want to share information with everyone. They may want to share certain data with companies inside their network, but not outside the network. They also require granular security tools.”
Speaking of their own use case, Caplan said that the Salesforce blockchain caters mainly to business-to-business customers who require different permissions and security settings across a blockchain network. He noted that for these organizations, everything boils down to governance and understanding who can access data. As such, Caplan mentioned that public blockchains for enterprise use are starting to “fade away,” as the hype around enterprise blockchain technology becomes a reality, adding:
“We are now moving past the hype of enterprise blockchain from a few years ago and are focusing more on the business value and ROI blockchain can bring to companies. As we move in this direction, elements such as running your own infrastructure, decentralization and the meaning of consensus starts to fade away, along with the theory of public blockchains for enterprises.”
While this may be the case for Salesforce, Caplan did note that public blockchains do provide security for certain use cases. He mentioned that Bitcoin (BTC) is secure while being entirely public. He further commented that financial use cases involving digital currencies and assets are appropriate models for public blockchains.
Why would enterprises use public blockchains? The question then becomes whether public blockchains can be leveraged to fit a variety of enterprise use cases, even those outside of the financial realm. This is important to consider, especially when recognizing why enterprises would use blockchain networks in the first place.
Findings from an EY report conducted by Forrester Research shows that most companies consider blockchain technology as a solution to improve business performance, preserving data integrity, which could lead to new revenue or business models. Other blockchain use cases include improved efficiencies for supply chain management, payment support processes and digitization of document flows.
However, the report notes that pressure to join a private network started by another company is not a key driver for adopting blockchain technology. And while private blockchains are a popular choice among enterprises, the report highlights the considerable growing interest in public blockchain networks for all of the mentioned use cases.
EY’s global blockchain leader, Paul Brody, elaborated on this, telling Cointelegraph that classic blockchain systems are capable of doing two things that traditional legacy systems cannot:
“First, blockchains can execute transactions reliably and properly without intermediaries. Secondly, they act as an immutable form of record keeping. Both of these features are things that private blockchain networks are not capable of.”
Brody explained that by definition, private blockchain networks require intermediaries. Moreover, he said that these systems will probably never be considered as immutable record storage since there are not enough nodes on independent systems, adding: “Whereas the Ethereum blockchain has 10 thousand nodes, it’s not uncommon for private blockchains to have a few nodes and execute within a single cloud provider infrastructure.”
Clearly, there is much potential for public blockchains to flourish in the enterprise world, yet work remains to ensure security, scalability, regulatory requirements and more. Furthermore, EY has been working with Microsoft and ConsenSys to develop an open-source blockchain project called Baseline Protocol, which runs on the public Ethereum mainnet.
According to Brody, the idea for Baseline Protocol emerged about a year ago when EY was working on another project called Nightfall — a solution to ensure a scalable, inexpensive, reliable and private infrastructure for public transactions. Brody noted that Nightfall removed major obstacles for making public blockchains viable for private transactions (lowering gas fees), yet some challenges remained. Baseline Protocol attempts to mend the remaining challenges associated with enterprises, and according to Brody:
“Public blockchains need verified identity of participants and we wanted to close that gap. Baseline protocol takes the work of Nightfall and adds more elements around private transaction information, like identity management, allowing companies to conduct end-to-end secure reliable public blockchain transactions.”
While progress for Baseline Protocol is still underway, ConsenSys’s lead developer, John Wolpert, mentioned that Baseline can improve contact tracing, specifically addressing security flaws noted in a proposal for a contact tracing system recently made by Google and Apple.
Related: Zero-Knowledge Proofs, Explained
In terms of security, Brody pointed out that Baseline Protocol has solved security challenges associated with public blockchains through zero-knowledge proofs, mentioning that enterprise data never gets stored on-chain. The only information stored on-chain in this instance is links, hashes and mathematical proofs. He further explained that zero-knowledge proofs are key to solving scalability issues on the Ethereum blockchain, adding:
“By December of last year, we could perform 20 transactions on a single block. We have a mathematical roadmap that will allow us to do more than 2 thousand transactions in a single block. Zero-knowledge proofs are a key technology to enable scaling.”
Kevin Feng, the chief operating officer of VeChain, also mentioned that public blockchains have come a long way over the past few years. Feng told Cointelegraph that once enterprises have a better understanding of the benefits of public blockchains, they will see that open networks are better than private ones:
“We have observed the trend that many enterprises are moving to open blockchains. Many of our clients, like Walmart, are using the VeChain blockchain to track information on their products and then digitally certify that data.”
Feng mentioned that VeChain recently partnered with the popular fashion brand H&M to provide supply chain tracing data to customers. He explained that more than 4,000 sustainable products were traced using “My Story” — a traceability platform powered by VeChain and developed by the international classification society DNV GL.
Like Baseline Protocol, VeChain also leverages zero-knowledge proofs. Feng noted that sensitive information is not stored on-chain but rather the hashes or timestamps are placed on the blockchain so everyone can see certain information that took place during specific times.
Feng further pointed out that governance is another major concern when it comes to enterprises using public blockchains but that have different governance mechanisms available, like “proof-of-authority,” where authority nodes are run by enterprises or individuals, rather than relying on mining power.
Danny Brown Wolf, the head of partnerships at Orbs, also told Cointelegraph that a number of enterprises are interested in shifting from private blockchain models to hybrid approaches, and eventually moving entirely to open blockchains.
Wolf explained that there still is concern around “trusted third party” controlling private blockchain networks. “Salesforce acts as the trusted third party, meaning companies must trust Salesforce to handle their data,” she said. Like EY and VeChain, Orbs is also attempting to solve problems around public blockchains for enterprise use, as Wolf noted:
“We designed Orbs to overcome the issues of governance by giving every application it’s own virtual chain, connected to the main chain. This allows for autonomy when it comes to governance, which can be done at a virtual chain level rather than at an infrastructure level. In turn, power is easily maintained by organizations, while still providing strong guarantees of a public blockchain to users and partners.”
The debate boils down to…While both private and public blockchains are clearly capable of catering to enterprises, it may be too early to tell if one is better than the other. Brian Behlendorf, the executive director of Hyperledger and an open-source advocate, told Cointelegraph that it would be inappropriate to say that public blockchains are better for all potential enterprise use cases — just as it would be inaccurate to say public blockchains have no potential uses for enterprises. He said:
“Already, we see some companies that have made the decision to use public blockchains in limited ways — whether it’s taking payment in cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens like baseball trading cards, and even some stablecoin-like usage, such as the Tradeshift/Monerium e-money partnership. We also think there is a lot of potential in public, permissioned ledgers, like the Sovrin Foundation’s identity utility network.”
Although this may be, Behlendorf noted that the vast majority of industries interested in leveraging blockchain technology still have regulatory standards around data residency, privacy protection, auditing and taxes, along with higher performance requirements that any public ledger is capable of currently supporting. Due to these reasons, Behlendorf believes that it will take a long time for enterprises to transact primarily on public blockchains. Echoing Behlendorf, Gari Singh, the chief technology officer of IBM Blockchain, expressed similar concerns to Cointelegraph:
“Generally speaking, permissionless blockchains are not suitable for most current enterprise use cases. Enterprises must adhere to many regulatory and compliance requirements and without knowing who the participants (both validators and client) are, it’s not possible to conform to these requirements.”
Yet, while a private blockchain model may currently seem more suitable for enterprise needs, Brody remains optimistic, noting that private blockchains continue to lack a key element for businesses to successfully function — a working ecosystem — saying:
“Most private blockchains are parties that no one came to. Even those with participants don’t have a robust or competitive service provider network. But Ethereum has an enormous network of service providers. Our goal is to migrate this DeFi network from transactions that are done entirely in the public, into transactions performed privately.”
With the block reward cut in half, miners are relying on Bitcoin (BTC) transaction fees to sustain themselves to a much greater extent.
Miners lost 61% of their revenueMay 10, miners earned 2188 BTC, May 12, this number fell to 852 BTC — a 61% drop. The halving of the block reward forced some miners off the chain, reducing the network hashrate. This in turn led to the increase in block interval, meaning that fewer block processed in a unit of time, decreasing the number of block rewards available to the miners.
Miner Revenue and Revenue From Fees. Source: Glassnode
Mini Death spiral phaseWhat has unfolded thus far could be called a mini death spiral scenario. The only saving grace for miners is that network congestion has led to a sharp increase in the cost of transaction fees — from $0.62 at the end of April to $5.21 on May 15. Currently, as a result of this dynamic, transaction fees account for 17% of the miners’ revenue. This is the highest proportion since January 2018.
Bitcoin Transaction Fees. Source: blockchain.com
Miners revenue denominated in USD has declined from $19.25 million on May 9 to $7.82 million on May 12; a 62% decrease. The next difficulty adjustment will take place in three days. However, live calculation is predicting an increase in difficulty because the hashrate grew substantially prior to the halving. However, by the time it comes around, there will likely be a small decrease in the difficulty, which should help the remaining miners.
Miners Revenue. Source: blockchain.com
It is possible that as Bitcoin matures and each new halving further cuts the block reward until eventually, there are no more new Bitcoins to mine, that miners will have to rely more on the fees. However, higher fees will make the network less attractive for the users.
As Cointelegraph reported earlier, paradoxically, many of the mining industry insiders believe that the drop in hashrate is a bullish sign for Bitcoin as it will make the remaining miners more profitable.
In a recent series of tweets, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin gave a nod of approval to competing blockchain EOS with regard to the niche they are trying to carve out.
“If I were designing a new chain to live alongside Bitcoin and Ethereum, I would take all the political tradeoffs that BTC and ETH aren't willing to take,” Buterin said in a May 15 tweet referring to Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Vitalik labeled EOS aspects of interestListed by Cointelegraph as the fifth most influential person in crypto and blockchain, Buterin holds significant weight in the industry.
Buterin noted quadratic voting-based on-chain governance and all built-in cryptographic procedures as tradeoffs of interest. He also included on-chain oracles for all events, instead of ones that simple relay price moves.
Blockchain identity usage also surfaced Buterin also mentioned potentially adding some form of identification on the network. “Perhaps even an on-chain model of identity, at least for participants who want to participate in governance (non-governing actors would still be fully anon),” he said, although he specified constructing the feature “smarter” than other current platforms.
“This is why I actually have some respect for EOS and co.,” Buterin said in conclusion. “I disagree with DPoS but at least they're trying to develop a cohesive and principled alternative niche,” he added, referring to the delegated proof-of-stake blockchain framework.
Cointelegraph reached out to Buterin for additional details but received no response as of press time. This article will be updated accordingly should a response come in.
Mexican cryptocurrency exchange Bitso joined forces with the crowdfunding platform Donadora to launch a crypto-based donation system. The platform will help gather funds to buy food for the most vulnerable families affected by the COVID-19 crisis.
According to a report published by El Heraldo de México on May 15, each pantry delivered will be worth 150 Mexican pesos. They will have enough food to feed families of between four and six members for a week.
Donation options include both fiat currencies and various cryptos, such as Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and XRP.
Crypto donations gain popularity as a crowdfunding methodThe local exchange stated that crypto donations are a very efficient method for crowdfunding. This is due to their decentralized nature and the fact that anyone in the world can participate in the initiative.
Bitso released the following comments after the announcement:
“Donations through cryptocurrency wallets are easy, fast, and secure. Transactions are reflected in seconds, making it a very transparent method to ensure that your donation was received.”
Initiatives to fight COVID-19 continue to arise in the crypto spaceCointelegraph reported on another crypto crowdfunding campaign in April launched by the Italian Red Cross. The campaign aimed to build an advanced medical post to combat COVID-19 in Italy. This endeavor successfully raised $10,000 in four weeks.
Several crypto firms launched similar initiatives related to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis across the world, such as Binance, BitMEX and the Stellar Foundation.
Data published today from Cointelegraph Markets and Arcane Research found that despite investor concerns over the block reward halving disincentivizing miners and possibly compromising the security of the network, demand for Bitcoin (BTC) continues to rise globally.
Proof of increasing adoption is supported by the total number of functioning Bitcoin ATMs rising to 8,000, a more than 90% increase since 2019. Bitcoin ATM operator Coinstar also reported a 40% increase in Bitcoin ATM use since February of this year.
Real BTC daily volume vs. BTC Price. Source: Messari
Bitcoin gains and daily transaction volume eclipses altcoinsWhen compared against altcoins, Bitcoin also continues to lead in market capitalization and United States dollar transaction volume with a more than $10 billion daily transaction volume. This figure eclipses Ether (ETH) and Litecoin (LTC) which are both seeing daily transaction volumes below $500 million.
Currently for the month of May, Bitcoin's price is up nearly 10%, whereas altcoins such as Ether, XRP and Monero (XMR) are hardly breaking even.
Arcane Research also found that after the halving on May 11, miners are gradually shifting back to the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) network, but both networks have seen drastic drops in their share of total SHA-256 hash rate.
BCH and BSV hash rate shares. Source: Cointelegraph Markets/Arcane Research
Bitcoin Cash dropped from 3.4% to 2.07%, a startling 40% reduction. Meanwhile, Bitcoin SV fell from 2.39% to 1.55%, a sharp 35% decline.
Retail and institutional investors remain bullish on Bitcoin’s future valueBitcoin’s most recent price has occurred on strong volume, a bullish sign as signals investors sentiment is high among retail and institutional investors.
Total BTC Options Open Interest. Source: Skew
In addition to breaking above $10,000 on May 14, this week Cointelegraph reported that the total open interest on CME Bitcoin futures has risen by 1,000% since the start of the month. This is a healthy sign and noticeably different from the low volume recovery from the March 13 crash to $3,750.
Arcane Research also found that significant growth in the peer-to-peer lending markets and an increasing percentage of women represented in crypto sector jobs further indicates that the Bitcoin network and ecosystem continue to make positive strides forward.
Read the full report