The new listings come after Binance CEO Changpeng Zhaomade it abundantly clear that he is not a fan of projects forking and. As a result, CZ has decided to leave BCHABC and BCHSV as the symbols associated with the new Bitcoin Cash projects.
Despite its CEO’s disdain for the Bitcoin forks, Binance revealed in its most recent announcement that trading for BCHABC/TUSD, BCHABC/PAX, BCHABC/USDC, BCHSV/TUSD, BCHSV/PAX and BCHSV/USDC will begin on January 22 at 10:00 AM (UTC).
The addition of these stablecoin trading pairs comes as Binance is expanding its dedicated stablecoin market, USDⓈ, which now includes a number of popular stablecoins as base pairs.
Disclaimer: This article’s author has cryptocurrency holdings that can be tracked here. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as investment advice. Always conduct your own due diligence before making investments.
… of a bubble in initial coin offerings (ICOs), a largely unregulated crowdfunding method involving digital money, as well as the bitcoin cash “hard fork”, …
One year can make a lot of difference in the roller-coaster world of cryptocurrencies.
At the start of 2018, China’s Huobi Group offered one senior executive the highest year-end bonus of 300 bitcoin, worth around US$3 million at the time. Now the digital-asset exchange is letting people go, after bitcoin plunged 80 per cent from its peak.
But despite trading volumes shrinking to just a tenth of its record at one point, the Beijing-based company is still profitable each month, according to Livio Weng Xiaoqi, CEO of Huobi Global, the company’s main exchange business.
“We do not know how long the bear market will last, so it is still possible that we will struggle to survive,” Weng said in an interview at his Beijing office. “We have to plan in advance and spend money carefully.”
He declined to specify Huobi’s revenue, but said it is mostly generated from transaction fees.
Exchanges are among the first and most obvious victims of the prolonged bear market in cryptocurrencies, which have wiped out more than US$600 billion in the total value of some 2,000 digital tokens since January 2018, according to data from CoinMarketCap, which ranks cryptocurrencies by their market value.
Last year’s market crash has been blamed on the bursting of a bubble in initial coin offerings (ICOs), a largely unregulated crowdfunding method involving digital money, as well as the bitcoin cash “hard fork”, which led to a split in the fourth-largest cryptocurrency into two separate entities due to fundamental disagreements among its developers.
The cryptocurrency crunch has begun to bite. Leading ventures like Beijing-based Bitmain, the world’s biggest maker of specialised computers used for creating new units of digital money, and Switzerland-based software production studio ConsenSys have all announced plans for lay-offs.
While Huobi is still seeking to expand its main exchange business, which contributes over 70% of its total revenue, the company is cutting staff in loss-making units like venture funding and news aggregation, according to Weng.
Earlier this month, Huobi shut down its subsidiary in Shenzhen, which hired about 30 people to research and build new applications. The Huobi Info news app is now maintained by just a few staff, down from a couple of dozens at its peak. In total, the company still has a workforce of 1,300 employees globally, after cutting about 100 positions over the past weeks, Weng said.
Founded in 2013, Huobi was at one point the world’s biggest bitcoin exchange by trading volume, as the platform offered zero transaction fees to attract risk-loving Chinese retail investors. In September 2017, Beijing’s ban on cryptocurrency trades forced Huobi to migrate its exchange business to Singapore.
Huobi hosts a daily trading volume of US$370 million, about half of the trades on leading exchange Binance, according to CoinMarketCap.
More than 70 per cent of Huobi Global users are Chinese who live outside China or use a VPN service, judging from their user interface language settings. They are followed by Russian and English speakers, Weng said.
“Our greatest advantage over competitors is that we have licenses in all major countries – we are the only one among top global exchanges,” Weng said.
Regulators around the world are gearing up to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges, especially when they deal with real money. Aside from its main digital-asset trading platform, Huobi has obtained licenses to operate fiat-to-crypto exchanges in markets including the US, Japan, and Europe. By comparison, Binance has quit the US and Japan amid regulatory concerns, and instead expand into smaller nations like Malta and Uganda.
“Despite their success overseas, I think it would be very hard for them [Huobi] to compete with US exchanges locally,” said Joyce Yang, founder of New York-based Global Coin Research, which focuses on Asia’s cryptocurrency space.
“They can have a very successful business focusing on Asia and China, and they should really just double down there,” Yang said. “But in the exchange space, everyone is trying to hedge themselves and compare themselves with each other.”
Huobi rolled out a new platform for futures trading in December to challenge the likes of OKEx and BitMEX, and claimed to have accumulated over US$20 billion in trading volume within a month.
The company released a new app earlier this month called Huobi Chat, which is a mix of cryptocurrency wallet and messenger app, and aims to attract 1 million users within the first 50 days of its launch. Red banners hanging over Huobi’s Beijing offices remind employees of that target, and describe them as an “iron army”.
At the end of the day, such efforts need “a window of opportunity, another bull run, to pay off”, Weng said.
Research in behavioral economics over the past few decades has shown that people’s decisions often deviate from those of “homo-economicus,” the …
Research in behavioral economics over the past few decades has shown that people’s decisions often deviate from those of “homo-economicus,” the selfish rational agent who is the hero of most economic theory textbooks. These deviations (also known as “decision biases”) often lead to suboptimal outcomes in the individual and the societal levels and have become the target of various policy interventions.
For instance, in 2017, Bitcoin reached $10,000. While the figure $10,000, by itself, doesn’t deliver much beyond the fundamental price information, this number had significant psychological implications. Because humans generally think in round numbers, hitting the $10,000 threshold has become an important event that made it to the front page of the evening news.
Behavioral economists have characterized many other systematic decision biases that unlikely reflect arbitrary mistakes. But what is causing them?
Contemporary humans face decision problems that are quite different from those that our ancestors had encountered. Deciding whether to go hunting or foraging for grains is different from choosing between 30 types of barbecue sauce on the supermarket shelf; forecasting tomorrow’s rainfall based on today’s weather is not the same as predicting tomorrow’s Bitcoin prices based on today’s market. As our brains have evolved in environments that do not resemble modern markets, we might rely on assumptions that are no longer optimal when making economic decisions.
In contrast to financial decision-making, humans seem to make reliable judgments and decisions in the perceptual domain. Although sensory illusions are pervasive in carefully controlled experiments under unnatural settings, people are remarkably good at making sense of perceptual information as they navigate the chaotic world outside the laboratory. Past documentation of a visual illusion in the field, a photo of a blue dress that seemed white to the majority of the population, was regarded with so much astonishment, that it became a worldwide internet sensation overnight. As our brains have evolved in an environment governed by the same regularities that operate today (i.e., mechanical, optical, and acoustic physical laws), we still benefit from relying on the same computations that our ancestors’ brains had used when making decisions that translate sensory information into perceptual judgments and motor actions.
Bitcoin 2017 as an example for faddish human behavior
The year 2017 was a good one for Bitcoin. While the world was Bitcoin crazed, one Nobel Prize winner economist felt that Bitcoin offers a psychological experiment more than it provides investment opportunities.
“I’m interested in Bitcoin as a sort of bubble. It doesn’t mean that it will disappear, that it’ll burst forever. It may be with us for a while,” Noble Prize winner Robert Shiller, professor of economics at Yale University and co-founder of the Case-Shiller Index, told CNBC’s “Trading Nation.”
“To me, it’s interesting as another example of faddish human behavior. It’s glamorous,” he added.
The Bitcoin rush took Shiller back in history when the tulip mania was in swing. It was the 17th century, and the prices of tulip bulbs peaked to new heights, but later crashed in 1637. This was the first recorded event that demonstrated a bubble due to buyers’ frenzy that threw the prices higher than the real value of the product.
Many decision processes in the financial domain have parallels in the perceptual domain. Our sensitivity to light intensity and auditory loudness follows logarithmic laws that resemble the manner in which we encode monetary rewards. We perceive the luminance and size of objects about their surroundings, in a way that resembles framing effects in economic decision-making. Even the compromise and the attraction effects, well-documented phenomena in consumer decision-making, were recently documented in the perceptual domain. These findings suggest that decision biases might arise because our brains apply computational techniques that successfully solve perceptual problems, also when making economic decisions.
A recent study, co-authored by Cary Frydman (USC) and yours truly, investigated the common mechanism across the economic and perceptual domains in the context of a specific decision bias, the extrapolative formation beliefs, also known as the belief in the “hot hand”. People often rely on past observations when forecasting the future, even when they contain no credible information. This tendency is thought to underlie market-level phenomena such as over-reaction to news and creation of a price bubble, like in the case of Bitcoin.
Intriguingly, extrapolative belief formation is also often found in laboratory experiments of perceptual decision-making: people respond faster and more accurately to sensory stimuli that continue an apparent pattern, even when explicitly told that the sequence is completely random. In the study, Cary and I used a within-subject design, where each participant took part in decision-making tasks from both the economic and perceptual domains.
Our goal was to investigate whether people use a common computational mechanism of belief formation when making both types of decisions. This was a test of a 16 years old idea of the above mentioned Robert Shiller, who wrote in his seminal book “Irrational Exuberance”:
“The same human pattern-recognition faculty that we used when we learned to ride a bike or to drive a car, giving us an intuitive sense of what to expect next, shapes our expectations for the market.”
Uncovering the origins of economic decision bias using perceptual judgments
In the perceptual decision-making task (figure below), we asked participants to make a series of perceptual decisions. Every round of the task started with the appearance of a fixation cross in the middle of the screen, which after 800 milliseconds was replaced by either a circle or a square. The chance of seeing either shape was always 50% and did not depend on the history. Participants had to classify the shape by pressing the “left” button when it was a circle, and “right” when it was a square. They received money whenever they classified the shape accurately, and the faster they did so.
We found that when a shape continued a “streak” of similar shapes (for example, a circle appeared after three other circles), participants were more likely to classify it correctly, and were also faster when doing so. This suggests that the participants were implicitly forming expectations about the identity of the next stimulus based on past observations, despite being explicitly told that the sequence was random.
In the economic task (figure below), participants saw a series of events that represented “performance surprises” of a publicly traded firm. These events could be either “positive” or “negative.” Each round, we asked participants to decide how much they were willing to pay for a stock that would be worth $100 if the next performance surprise were “positive,” but $0 if it were negative. In this case, it was optimal for them to pay the dollar amount that equals the probability that (according to one’s belief) the next performance surprise would be positive. The participants did not know that the actual sequence of performance surprises was completely random: the actual probability of seeing either a positive or negative surprise was 50% and did not depend on the history at all.
In this task, Cary and I found that after a sequence of several “positive” performance surprises, participants were willing to pay more for the stock, and the longer the streak was, the more they were willing to pay. After a sequence of “negative surprises, they were willing to pay less, and again, the longer the streak was, the less they were willing to pay. This suggests that just participants were forming expectations about the future based on past observations, and were doing so in a similar fashion to the perceptual task.
Most intriguingly, we found a reliable correlation between the degree of extrapolative beliefs across the perceptual and economic tasks. In other words, people who responded faster and more accurately to a “circle” that preceded a series of other circles (compared to a “square” that preceded a series of circles), despite being explicitly told that the shapes appeared at random, were also more likely to bid more money for a stock of a firm that had a recent streak of positive performance surprises
Our findings may partly explain the pattern of prices in the “psychological experiment” of Bitcoin trading in 2017. As the price went up, more and more people were eager to buy Bitcoin, thinking that the rise will continue. The same happens these days, in the bear market of 2018-2019, as the volume of sellers increases as Bitcoin price goes down – leading to a negative momentum which is unrelated to the currency’s fundamental value.
These results illuminate the origins of extrapolative belief formation in economic decision-making. Humans might be relying on low-level automatic processes that play a role in perceptual decision-making when forming their economic judgments. If this is the case, the formation of extrapolative beliefs might be a cognitive process which is difficult to suppress.
Be the first to know about our price analysis, crypto news and trading tips: Follow us on Telegram or subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Gemini Dollar (CURRENCY:GUSD) traded 0.6% lower against the US dollar during the 24 hour period ending at 16:00 PM E.T. on January 21st.
Gemini Dollar (CURRENCY:GUSD) traded 0.6% lower against the US dollar during the 24 hour period ending at 16:00 PM E.T. on January 21st. Gemini Dollar has a total market capitalization of $91.22 million and approximately $140.52 million worth of Gemini Dollar was traded on exchanges in the last 24 hours. During the last seven days, Gemini Dollar has traded 0.8% lower against the US dollar. One Gemini Dollar token can now be purchased for approximately $1.00 or 0.00028033 BTC on popular cryptocurrency exchanges including DEx.top, The Rock Trading, HitBTC and Bibox.
Here is how related cryptocurrencies have performed during the last 24 hours:
XRP (XRP) traded down 0.6% against the dollar and now trades at $0.32 or 0.00008941 BTC.
Tether (USDT) traded 0.3% lower against the dollar and now trades at $1.01 or 0.00028409 BTC.
Stellar (XLM) traded 1.5% lower against the dollar and now trades at $0.10 or 0.00002895 BTC.
TRON (TRX) traded 5.3% higher against the dollar and now trades at $0.0253 or 0.00000710 BTC.
Bitcoin SV (BSV) traded 0.1% lower against the dollar and now trades at $75.44 or 0.02113272 BTC.
Binance Coin (BNB) traded up 0.6% against the dollar and now trades at $6.58 or 0.00184294 BTC.
NEO (NEO) traded 0.5% lower against the dollar and now trades at $7.58 or 0.00212438 BTC.
VeChain (VET) traded up 3.7% against the dollar and now trades at $0.0041 or 0.00000116 BTC.
TrueUSD (TUSD) traded 0.5% lower against the dollar and now trades at $1.01 or 0.00028361 BTC.
Augur (REP) traded 7% lower against the dollar and now trades at $16.68 or 0.00467363 BTC.
Gemini Dollar Profile
Gemini Dollar’s genesis date was September 9th, 2018. Gemini Dollar’s total supply is 91,148,180 tokens. Gemini Dollar’s official website is gemini.com/dollar. The official message board for Gemini Dollar is gemini.com/blog. Gemini Dollar’s official Twitter account is @GeminiDotCom. The Reddit community for Gemini Dollar is /r/Gemini and the currency’s Github account can be viewed here.
Buying and Selling Gemini Dollar
Gemini Dollar can be traded on the following cryptocurrency exchanges: The Rock Trading, Bibox, DEx.top and HitBTC. It is usually not possible to purchase alternative cryptocurrencies such as Gemini Dollar directly using U.S. dollars. Investors seeking to acquire Gemini Dollar should first purchase Ethereum or Bitcoin using an exchange that deals in U.S. dollars such as Changelly, Gemini or GDAX. Investors can then use their newly-acquired Ethereum or Bitcoin to purchase Gemini Dollar using one of the aforementioned exchanges.
Receive News & Updates for Gemini Dollar Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and updates for Gemini Dollar and related cryptocurrencies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE CryptoBeat newsletter.
Join now to receive first access to our EXCLUSIVE reports and updates.
Screenshot of a breaking news alert e-mail from Q2 2017
Please check your email to confirm your subscription
Something went wrong
We hate SPAM and promise to keep your email address safe
The different states in the US have definitely different approaches and attitudes when it comes to cryptocurrencies. Some US states, like New York, for example, are very pro-crypto, introducing legislations and initiatives to promote the use of cryptocurrencies. Other states, like Ohio, are already accepting Bitcoin for certain tax payments.
The latest example of a US state that comes forth with probably a revolutionary idea is Wyoming. In short, Wyoming has introduced a special legislation regarding the legal status of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin can soon have the same legal status as fiat money.
Wyoming is taking an interesting and strategic step in its efforts to become a cryptocurrency heaven for businesses. While certain countries such as Estonia and Malta have already established themselves as cryptocurrency heavens, Wyoming is poised to become the “Silicon Valley of cryptocurrencies” if the legislation on Bitcoin’s legal status is passed in the House.
According to Forbes and other press, Coinbase, the largest US cryptocurrency exchange resumed its operations in the state after a long “break”. Wyoming has already passed two important bills for the regulation of cryptocurrencies in mid January of 2019.
The bill, according to Forbes, will allow Bitcoin to have a legal status just like regular money. Banks will be able to take custody of the cryptocurrency, if needed. There will be some balance between regulation and “deregulation”.