The main alteration with Energi 3.0 will be the rebuild as a smart contract platform adapted from Ethereum, making it compatible with dApps written for …
Energi (NRG) aims to be the world’s leading cryptocurrency with the unification of Smart Contracts, Governance, and a self-funding Treasury to ensure longevity and enable rapid growth.
With Energi 3.0 beginning public testing this quarter it features major additions to the platforms capabilities and ability to be used in a real-world context and can be considered the most significant update since their launch in 2018.
The main alteration with Energi 3.0 will be the rebuild as a smart contract platform adapted from Ethereum, making it compatible with dApps written for Ethereum and allow them to simply port over to the new platform.
The Energi Treasury:
With the robust treasury creating a self-sustainable ecosystem of paid developers and defense workers preventing hacking and scammers, the budget will also be allocated towards helping start-ups looking to develop dApps on Energi and to create an incubator program planned for Q4 2019.
Once the 3.0 platform is live, Energi will be able to develop a stablecoin built on Energi and pegged to the price of Gold rather than USD and offer many other benefits to dApps that port from Ethereum to Energi, such as marketing and engineering support.
Looking at the Energi treasury in numbers, currently they are generating around $700,000 USD per month which is comparable to projects such as DASH who are over 40x larger in market cap!
An even more exciting and promising aspect of the treasury is the characteristics of being decentralized with Masternodes voting where to direct the funds and no central body in power. Energi aims to identify the best ways to utilize these funds and outlines with transparency on their website where these funds have been directed.
If you are interested in joining the Energi team click here.
The information discussed by Altcoin Buzz is not financial advice. This information is for educational, informational and entertainment purposes only. Any information or strategies are thoughts and opinions relevant to accepted levels of risk tolerance of the writer/reviewers and their risk tolerance may be different than yours. We are not responsible for any losses that you may incur as a result of any investments directly or indirectly related to information provided. Do your own due diligence and rating before making any investments and consult your financial advisor. The researched information presented we believe to be correct and accurate however there is no guarantee or warranty as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are high-risk investments so please do your due diligence. This interview, review or update article has been compensated for media cooperation and has been sponsored for by the interviewed or reviewed organization. Copyright Altcoin Buzz Pte Ltd. All rights reserved.
If you were around for the 2017 initial coin offering (ICO) boom, you’ll remember an era of “lambos”, “moonshots”, and “100X returns”. If this jargon …
If you were around for the 2017 initial coin offering (ICO) boom, you’ll remember an era of “lambos”, “moonshots”, and “100X returns”. If this jargon makes little sense to you, the ICO was a wildly popular fundraising tool used by blockchain companies, though that popularity has waned significantly in 2019.
The height of this trend was in mid-to-late 2017. Billions of dollars were raised by hundreds of blockchain startups. Unlike the “initial public offering” (the fundraising model used by conventional corporations first offering their stock to the marketplace), ICOs are typically organized without any regulatory oversight.
This allowed new (and often unprepared) companies to raise enormous sums while circumventing regulated fundraising best practices. The coins and tokens that investors received often gained value quickly when traded in cryptocurrency exchanges. Returns of 10X an initial investment (or more) were not uncommon.
Everyone, it seemed, was making money. This motivated thousands of investors/speculators to buy up unproven ICO coins. Hundreds of poorly conceived blockchain projects conducted ICOs during this time. Many of these were cynical cash grabs and frauds, with the companies behind the ICO never intending to bring a useful product the market. An estimated 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission began prosecuting ICOs in 2017. Among completed ICOs that were not charged, there arose anxiety that charges could be forthcoming. ICO scammers had much to fear, but so did legitimate ICO companies. These companies worried that their coins/tokens would be deemed “securities” by the SEC. This would mean that these past ICOs had been unauthorized security sales (basically, selling stocks illegally) – a crime that would put these companies on the wrong side of federal tax and securities law.
Despite an unclear vision for the future of the industry, ICOs like EOS and Telegram ensured that many billions of dollars were raised through the initial coin offering in 2018. However, momentum has largely sloughed away by 2019. In January 2019, only $291 million was raised through ICOs, a 95% decline from the market height of $5.8 billion in March 2018.
There’s no shortage of active ICOs today, but few have the credibility of past record-holders. Much of this is due to the industry’s reputation suffering from scams, as well as deterioration of investor participation. The change in regulatory scrutiny, however, may be the biggest factor in the move away from the ICO, especially in the United States. But this may also hint at the next incarnation of the ICO industry.
Are STOs the New ICO?
From another perspective, ICOs aren’t going away at all; they’re simply taking another form. The security token offering, or STO, has many of the earmarks of the ICO. Just like an ICO, the STO introduces the crypto markets to a new cryptographic token, and the company throwing the STO uses blockchain to accomplish their goals.
However, unlike an ICO, an STO can only be initiated with the permission of regulators. STOs also expressly sell equity ownership of a blockchain company to investors (i.e., the investors buy a small portion of the company, just like with a stock). STOs can only accept investments from registered, government-identified investors.
As you might imagine, fraud is much less likely with an STO than with an ICO. There is much more regulatory oversight at all levels, and the blockchain company behind the STO has a higher degree of responsibility to provide value to the investor (in the form of equity) than companies behind an ICO (which offer no equity). Furthermore, an STO has to individually comply with federal regulators in any nation from which investors are accepted. No more international cash-grab free-for-alls with STOs in 2019.
STOs are, therefore, much more like conventional corporate fundraising tools, such as the issuance of stock through an initial public offering (IPO). STOs, however, still pertain specifically to the blockchain space.
ICOs Still Exist, and STOs Have a Long Way to Go
Despite the changes in this industry, there are still dozens of ICOs in operation and hundreds more waiting to join the party in the next year. The list of upcoming STOs is growing and includes some high-profile offerings like KodakOne and PaxCoin.
From our perspective, it looks like the ICO wave is far from over. ICOs conducted by non-American companies have little to fear from US regulators (apart from China, among the most aggressive in the world). With so much money still to be made from global investors, ICOs still attract scammers and the occasional well-meaning company.
STOs are harder to get off the ground, but they likely have a clearer path forward. Furthermore, if any company wishes to earn significant capital through blockchain fundraising, submitting to STO oversight will prevent them from having to deal with legal challenges years down the road, as many from the 2017 ICO wave are currently enduring.
For our part, we recommend that our readers be very skeptical of any ICO that seems to skirt national regulation. These fundraising efforts will present little in the way of investor protections. In any case, the days of 10X overnight ICO investment returns are mostly behind us, so there’s little to be gained from giving money to noncompliant ICOs.
STOs, meanwhile, have some growing to do if they’re to replace the ICO within the blockchain space and take up permanent residence in the world’s corporate fundraising system. As we believe blockchain and cryptocurrency are here to stay, we think that STOs will become the new status quo for the industry, but in the meantime, ICOs and STOs will co-exist for at least the rest of 2019.
In the Bitcoin fraud domain, nothing caught Bitconnect up the way Ponzi scheme did. Last year, Bitconnect broadcasted the closing of its loaning and …
In the Bitcoin fraud domain, nothing caught Bitconnect up the way Ponzi scheme did. Last year, Bitconnect broadcasted the closing of its loaning and exchanging facilities causing a huge drop of price.
Recently, multiple exchanges proclaimed that Bitcoin SV will be black-listed from their network. The announcement was made after a proclamation by the founder of BSV which stated that he will be litigating the crypto user Hodlnaut for slander and insult. Who has been criticizing wright’s claims of being the Satoshi Nakamoto. The threats came in response to wright’s lawsuit against the social media user. Apparently, it seems as if the key players followed through the warning once Binance announced that it will de-list BSV.
Resultantly, BSV crashed in a hostile way causing a drop of nearly fifty percent after the declaration. Presently, the market came down by thirty percent (30%) since last week where the prices fell from seventy-two dollars ($72.50) to mere fifty-four dollars ($54.83).
In the past, Bitconnect was among the top 20 major cryptocurrencies with a market capitalization dollar value of approximately two and a half billion dollars ($2.60 b). The service provider allowed its consumers to offer the Bitcoin owned by them to their Bitconnect swapping bot to have regular revenue. Previously, the firm presented its shareholders to gross up to forty percent monthly. The company also offered a one percent interest rate collected every day.
Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of ethereum had been doubtful about Bitconnect’s assertions about the profit and called Bitconnect ‘Ponzi Scheme’.
Yeah, if 1%/day is what they offer then that’s a ponzi.
The firm precisely used a hostile promotion approach to encourage its consumers to motivate their networks to be part of the fraud. The consumers were recompensed with a manifold network marketing for all the money they fetch to the grid via a connection.
On the other hand, last year things started rapidly disintegrating. The Bitconnect team detailed that it is planning to close its operations globally. The active finances were declared irrecoverable spontaneously and the assets turned to Bitconnect coins at a cost of three hundred and sixty-three dollars ($363).
This was an initial event followed by multiple dominos causing the company to crash. Consumers swiftly sold their BCC coins back to Bitcoin because the coin was of little worth after the shutting down of the company’s operation.
Play stupid games win stupid prices @CalvinAyre @ProfFaustus
This move dropped BCC bellicosely from the price of two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($255) to just nineteen dollars ($19.28) within a few days. It was a major scam surfacing from the cryptocurrency business its impacts are even experienced today.
Even though the dive of the price drop is not as destructive as that of BCC price drop, if this drop sustained, BSV might turn out the same as BCC. Crypto consumers make up the most intolerant populace in the world. After a development shows emblems of centralism, exploitation or flat lack of knowledge, the users choose to leave the project at once.
However, in case Wright continues a competition in the market, one hopes that the investor might lose access to BSV. In addition, if uncertainty prevails, BSV might b de-listed from all exchanges resulting in an effect similar to BCC’s fate.
Bank of Zambia deputy governor for operations Dr Bwalya Ng’andu has said most central banks around the world are skeptical about cryptocurrencies …
Bank of Zambia deputy governor for operations Dr Bwalya Ng’andu has said most central banks around the world are skeptical about cryptocurrencies because they challenge their control over key functions of monetary and exchange rate policies.
Speaking at the Conference of Western Attorney General Africa Alliance Partnership (CWAG AAP) Workshop on Virtual Currency Investigations in Lusaka yesterday, Dr Ng’andu said despite cryptocurrencies having been suspected of financing crime around the world, the trend was being successfully used in South Korea where three in every ten salaried workers had invested in them.
“…some regulators around the globe have sounded warnings against cryptocurrency and have accordingly taken steps to dissuade their use through regulation. Others have likened them to Ponzi schemes. Central banks in particular have difficulties with them because they challenge their control over the key functions of monetary and exchange rate policy. Economist Stiglitz has also been explicitly uncomplimentary of cryptocurrencies which he describes as a bubble that gives a lot of people a lot of exciting times as it rides up and then goes down. It lacks a socially useful purpose and should be outlawed. He considers it a very expensive means of payment used mostly to buy black market goods without a tether to reality,” Dr Ng’andu said.
He then gave an example of South Korea which had embraced the cryptocurrency technology and pointed out the positives.
“It is estimated that three in every ten salaried workers have invested in cryptocurrencies. The country accounts for 30% of total cryptocurrency trading worldwide and possesses a very developed cryptocurrency exchange system. This is happening against the background of government efforts to introduce strong regulation which would restrict entry by illicit players. However, the regulations which were introduced in 2016 are beginning to thaw pointing to more activity in these digital assets as South Korea seems to be poised to play a critical role in driving the adoption of cryptocurrencies around the global,” Dr Ng’andu said of the trade which has received negative sentiments in Zambia.
He implored law enforcement officers and regulators attending the workshop to enhance their practical and theoretical knowledge of virtual currencies.
“And we expect that this knowledge, will in turn, improve our ability to carry out our work more effectively as investigators, prosecutors and regulators…As we reflect on the possibility that at some time in the future virtual currencies could become a widely used medium of exchange, it is important to understand that the current widespread ignorance relating to cryptocurrency as a concept, to how it works and to the role of block chain technology, which underlies it, is a big issue,” Dr Ng’andu said. “Ignorance surrounding cryptocurrency unfortunately is not the special preserve of the general public because it finds its place even among those of us who are charged with the responsibility of regulating the financial landscape or fighting crime which may have its origins in the use or misuse of virtual currencies. In one sense this workshop should make it possible for us to deal effectively with this challenge of ignorance because it is providing an opportunity for fraudsters to lure people into investing in what are essentially Ponzi or pyramid schemes on the pretext that their money will be invested in digital or cryptocurrency backed assets which will generate high returns in a very short period of time.”
He said the Bank of Zambia had observed a rapid rise in scams that were being perpetrated by fraudsters in the name of cryptocurrencies.
“In a number of such frauds that the Bank of Zambia has dealt with in partnership with the Zambia Police, the Drug and Enforcement Commission and the Financial Intelligent Center, investors were promised returns on their investment, in some cases calculated on the basis of 1.5% per day or a promise to triple their investment within one month. The unfortunate thing is that these schemes have been rapidly subscribed to; the catch being that their money will be invested in cryptocurrencies,” said Dr Ng’andu. “For regulators and law enforcement officers, the development that the cryptocurrency technology can facilitate organised crime is disconcerting because more often than not criminals are quicker on the uptake and tend to understand the way that they can use innovative products and services to defraud unsuspecting users. Sometimes they do this long before the capacity and capability to regulate or police is built. The fact that this happens should not necessarily be an indictment on the likes of us who are in this room. It is just that technology is now introducing new products and services in the market at such a furious pace that regulations and laws, sometimes lag behind and we have to play catch a up game with the law breaker. The broad purpose of this workshop goes beyond dealing with concerns that might arise from shortcomings and risks associated with the failure to prevent crime and abuse of cryptocurrency technology. Some of these risks include as I have said before fraud and the lack of consumer protection against fraud but it can also include money laundering and financing of terrorism activities.”
The duo is also behind the Bitcoin Growth Fund platform that launched an initialcoin offering (ICO) for the MCAP token. The project has been linked to …
India’s Supreme Court has reportedly granted temporary bail to two brothers accused of being among the chief architects of a multi-million Bitcoin (BTC) Ponzi scheme.
Local tech news site Inc24 reported on April 3 that Amit Bhardwaj and Vivek Bhardwaj had both filed an appeal seeking orders for an interim bail in November 2018.
As reported by the news site, the country’s top court has now granted that plea, with Amit required to deposit a total of ₹10 crores (about $1.5 million).
The Bhardwaj brothers were arrested on April 4, 2018, for running an alleged fraudulent scheme that saw almost 8,000 investors lose nearly ₹2,000 crores (roughly $300 million). The two had co-founded the GainBitcoin scheme in 2013 and allegedly used it to defraud unsuspecting victims.
According to defense lawyer Deepak Prakash, the Supreme Court granted Amit Bhardwaj the bail due to his health situation, while Vivek got his ” purely based on the merits of the case.”
Additionally, Amit’s hearing that was set to be heard at the Supreme Court on April 2 was reportedly pushed to April 22. A lawyer for one of the petitioners in the case against Amit confirmed that the matter had not been brought before the court as originally set.
The brothers had also asked the court to cancel the twelve cases filed against them in multiple states in the country. The Supreme Court has however deferred a decision on that appeal to a later hearing, which sources say could be April 27.
Per the Inc42 report, the other three suspects linked to the Bhardwaj brothers’ fraudulent scheme have also had their interim bail applications approved so far. The three conspirators are Ayush Varshney, Rupesh Singh and another identified as Sanchit.
The Ponzi scheme also allegedly roped in three founders of Darwin Lab, a startup that purportedly took a 20 percent cut from the proceeds of the Bhardwaj’-led scheme. Of the three suspects, Sahil Baghla and Nikunj Jain, have been in prison for the past eleven months.
Incidentally, a third suspect by the name Ayush Varshney is reported to have never been detained. However, he allegedly received a temporary bail from the Bombay High Court.
The Bhardwaj brothers ran the Ponzi scheme by claiming that investors would get a guaranteed 10 percent profit per month on their deposits, only for investors to realize that wasn’t happening.
The duo is also behind the Bitcoin Growth Fund platform that launched an initial coin offering (ICO) for the MCAP token.
The project has been linked to the GainBitcoin scam- especially with concerns about potential price manipulation. The token has flatlined since nose-diving towards the end of 2017.
According to XBT.net, the MCAP token’s return on investment (ROI) is -99.93 percent.
Disclaimer: This is not investment advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile assets and are very risky investments. Do your research and consult an investment professional before investing. Never invest more than you can afford to lose. Never borrow money to invest in cryptocurrencies.