Analysoor Kurs ZERO

Expert crypto analysts on ‘Macro Monday’ dissected Bitcoin’s economic challenges, citing recession fears and ETF activity. The panel, with Noelle Acheson (filling in for Scott), Lawrence Lepard, Dave Weisberger, and Mike McGlone, then talked about the current economy and its effect on the cryptocurrency market, especially Bitcoin. As expected, there were some interesting insights in the broadcast. Specifically, the latest macro data showed weakness in the economy, with retail sales falling below expectations and higher-than-expected CPI (consumer price index) figures. The discussion touched upon the effects of rising tariffs and layoffs, which were adding to the economic uncertainty. Also, the trend of meme coins, especially after the events in Argentina , seems to be peaking. The panel reflected on the speculative nature of these coins and how they contrast with more substantive cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. They mentioned that the shift in regulatory perspectives following the recent elections may lead to more scrutiny on meme coins and greater regulation in the crypto space. This could ultimately support what is viewed as serious investment in Bitcoin while diminishing speculative tokens. Related: Financial experts Raoul Pal, Howell Discuss Liquidity Cycles and Wealth Transfer: Bitcoin, Gold, and the Future of Money The guests also expressed significant concern about the possibility of an impending recession, citing missed earnings projections by numerous companies as a troubling sign for both the stock and cryptocurrency markets. The conversation also touched on future catalysts for Bitcoin. These included changes in treasury policies, economic recovery stories, and institutional adoption as major Wall Street players begin to provide clients with cryptocurrency services. Additionally, there were talks about whether the current economic situation tilts towards deflation or inflation. Some panelists argued for a deflationary outlook due to global economic trends, while others pointed to government monetary policies and current inflation challenges. The day’s episode also examined Bitcoin’s volatility and its relationships with other asset classes, notably during economic downturns. The discussion focused on how Bitcoin remains a speculative asset and how its correlation with stock markets may affect its performance. Although the panelists overall made good points and shared interesting ideas, the title of the broadcast, “Crypto Bulls Are Giving Up – Is Bitcoin in Danger?” makes it hard to believe that particular part to be true. Related: Wyoming Highway Patrol Considers Bitcoin: ‘Get Off Zero’ Initiative Gains Traction It doesn’t help the narrative that the amount of BTC on exchanges and OTC desks is constantly shrinking. MicroStrategy and BlackRock bought huge amounts lately, and the ETF inflows are still in billions. Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.

🚨NOW: An unknown individual burned 500 $ETH ($1.3M) to Ethereum’s zero address, leaving cryptic messages in Chinese about “mind control.” The same wallet previously burned 70 $ETH with similar messages and has a history of donating to WikiLeaks, according to Etherscan.

India’s Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in Ahmedabad announced on Feb. 15 that it has seized cryptocurrencies worth Rs. 1,646 crore (approximately $190 million) in connection with the Bitconnect cryptocurrency fraud. The search operations, conducted on Feb. 11 and Feb. 15, were carried out under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. According to officials: During the search operations, proceeds of crime in the form of various cryptocurrencies worth Rs. 1646 Crore (approx.) were recovered and seized. In addition to the said cryptocurrencies, Rs.13,50,500 in cash, one car Lexus made and a number of digital devices have also been seized. The ED’s investigation was based on First Information Reports (FIRs) registered by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) in Surat. Investigators discovered that between November 2016 and January 2018, Bitconnect operated a fraudulent and unregistered securities offering called the “Lending Program.” The scheme attracted investors globally, including in India, by falsely promising high returns. The founder of Bitconnect built an international network of promoters who were rewarded with commissions. The ED explained that the company claimed it used a “volatility software trading bot” to generate returns of up to 40% per month, with fictitious returns averaging 1% per day or approximately 3,700% annually. However, Indian officials noted that the accused did not invest the funds but instead diverted them to digital wallets under their control, adding: By tracking numerous web wallets and gathering ground intelligence, ED was able to zero-in-on the wallets and the premises where the digital devices containing said crypto currencies were available. Bitconnect collapsed in early 2018 after being exposed as a Ponzi scheme. U.S. authorities have also charged Bitconnect’s founder and top promoters with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. Glenn Arcaro, the platform’s top U.S. promoter, was sentenced to 38 months in prison and ordered to pay over $17 million in restitution to victims worldwide. Meanwhile, Bitconnect’s founder, Satish Kumbhani, was indicted in February 2022, but his whereabouts remain unknown. Authorities continue efforts to recover funds and hold those responsible accountable for the $2.4 billion cryptocurrency fraud. 免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。

Author: @bridge__harris Compiled by: Baihua Blockchain For the $1 trillion "duopoly" of Visa and Mastercard, stablecoins pose a challenge. Unless these two companies can adapt in a timely manner, they will face increasing pressure due to regulatory changes in cryptocurrency and the fierce rise of emerging competitors. If the Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA) passes, it will require large banks to provide at least one additional network option for merchants, beyond the Visa and Mastercard options currently available for processing credit card transactions. This would weaken Visa and Mastercard's pricing power, and importantly, stablecoin networks may seize the opportunity to compete with them through lower fees. However, it is worth noting that the likelihood of the CCCA passing is very low—only a 3% chance in the Senate and 9% in the House. Therefore, while its passage would be beneficial, it currently seems unlikely. Currently, Visa and Mastercard charge merchants swipe fees of up to 2-3%, which is typically the second-largest cost for merchants after payroll. Unfortunately, small merchants are particularly affected by these high fees. Large corporations like Walmart have enough negotiating power to reduce transaction costs, thus obtaining more favorable rates than small merchants, who are tightly locked into Visa and Mastercard. This is also one reason why Visa and Mastercard have profit margins exceeding 50%: small merchants have no choice but to rely on Visa and Mastercard, as they control 80% of the credit card market. In short, merchants cannot afford the additional costs of breaking free from these two companies—this is what is referred to as a "typical duopoly" (Senator Josh Hawley). A stablecoin network could reduce swipe fees to nearly zero. Merchants hate swipe fees—this is entirely reasonable—if they could choose a low-fee network that does not limit their market size, they would switch without hesitation. The desire for merchants to avoid card processing fees is not a new concept; the key issue is how to incentivize consumers to change their payment methods: "How does the first person to use a new currency succeed, and how about the millionth?" (Peter Thiel) The gradual popularity of Account-to-Account (A2A) payments as a payment method has proven that consumers are willing to change their payment habits under the right conditions. Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures even predicts that by 2025, direct interbank payments in certain areas of the U.S. will exceed the fees of credit card payments. Better regulation, particularly the introduction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Section 1033, which clearly supports government backing of open banking, makes it easier for retailers to offer A2A transactions, helping them avoid card processing fees and providing consumers with more payment options. Moreover, the user experience of payment banks may ultimately be more consumer-friendly—similar to the ShopPay experience. Walmart has already launched a payment bank product, and both large and small merchants are beginning to follow suit. To persuade consumers to choose this payment method, Walmart has added instant transfer features, allowing consumers to avoid multiple pending transactions and thus avoid overdrafts. "New technology makes A2A payments more feasible for small merchants, providing a viable alternative to avoid card processing fees."—Sophia Goldberg, co-founder of Ansa. The demand for cheaper, faster, and more efficient payment methods (i.e., stablecoins) is clearly strong. So the question arises: how does the transition to a stablecoin network actually work? From a functional perspective, do consumers need a differently branded card, or can they continue using their regular Visa/Mastercard cards while merchants have the option to process through other networks due to mandatory regulations? This is not clearly stated in the Credit Card Competition Act, and we can only see how the compatibility of these new networks with cards will ultimately develop. Mass adoption requires meeting one of the following two conditions: 1) providing customers with a strong incentive to switch cards (active adoption); or 2) a backend transition where customers continue using existing cards, but the actual processing occurs on the stablecoin network (passive adoption). One way to align incentives is to launch entirely new stablecoin banks: account holders can enjoy discounts at participating merchants like Amazon and Walmart, who would be happy to offer rewards because they can avoid the 2-3% swipe fees of Visa/Mastercard. Today, customer spending is increasingly concentrated on a few major platforms, so as long as the following conditions are met: 1) the rewards customers receive are sufficient to offset the hassle of switching cards, and 2) the rewards offered by merchants are lower than the 2% transaction fee they pay to Visa/Mastercard, stablecoin banks can achieve a win-win situation. Customers can still earn returns on deposits because stablecoins operate in the background, and credit issuance can also be done in stablecoins. But from a user experience perspective, customers are still just swiping their cards. By then, banks could be completely bypassed: when customers spend at retailers, they are essentially transferring from one wallet to another. Stablecoin banks can make money through processing fees (which are obviously lower than current fees), deposit interest (revenue sharing), and fees charged when users convert stablecoins to fiat currency. Some believe that stablecoin issuers are essentially shadow banks, but for mainstream adoption, a new stablecoin bank that collaborates with merchants from the top down may be the most effective choice. If the incentives are in place, customers will be eager to join. One can look to Brazil's Nubank, which has stood out in a market where banks still dominate and are notorious for charging excessive fees. Nubank successfully attracted a large number of consumers by launching a mobile-first, fully functional product and significantly reducing fees, while traditional banks in Brazil often fail to provide basic financial services in a convenient manner. In contrast, traditional banks in the U.S., while not perfect, have online and mobile functionalities sufficient to make most customers reluctant to switch easily. Nubank's success is attributed to its excellent user experience, and this model could theoretically be replicated in the U.S. However, a successful currency platform is not just about having a great interface; it must also allow users to easily transfer between deposit accounts, stablecoins, and cryptocurrencies, and even enter "buy now, pay later" (BNPL) or other credit products—without having to switch to other platforms. This is the key to Nubank's success and a gap in the U.S. market. However, regulatory issues in the U.S. cannot be ignored: challenger banks looking to replicate the Nubank model (and use stablecoins) will face overlapping regulatory requirements from multiple agencies, including the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and state governments. The feasibility of stablecoin banks ultimately depends on whether a banking license is required, what money transfer licenses (MTL) are needed, and other related regulatory issues. The last company to obtain a national banking license in the U.S. was Sofi (through the acquisition of Golden Pacific Bank), which received the license nearly three years ago in January 2022. Stablecoin banks could consider some innovative paths, such as partnering with existing banks or trust companies insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), rather than directly pursuing a national license. However, without the Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA), any new bank stablecoin payment network—even if licensed—will be limited to non-merchant payments (i.e., B2B and peer-to-peer payments). The bipartisan stablecoin bill recently proposed by Lummis and Gillibrand helps to advance this process. The bill's explicit goal is "to create a clear regulatory framework for payment stablecoins that protects consumers, supports innovation, and promotes the dominance of the dollar." While the bill is undoubtedly an important step in the right direction, its specificity is far less than that of the CCCA, which provides a more detailed action plan for enforcing compliance among banks. One potential obstacle to the success of stablecoin banks is the immense influence of the banking industry in Washington, which is one of the most powerful lobbying forces in the U.S. Therefore, pushing the necessary legislation through Congress will be a hard-fought battle. In 2023, lobbying expenditures for banks, large and small, totaled about $85 million. It is worth noting that considering lobbyists' use of complex entities and methods, the publicly reported lobbying expenditure figures may actually be much higher. The establishment of stablecoin banks first requires a clear regulatory strategy and sufficient funding support to counter the strong lobbying pressure from existing banks. Nevertheless, the potential rewards are enormous. A successful challenger bank could fill the missing comprehensive financial model in the U.S. market, entirely built on stablecoins. If executed properly, this would be the biggest transformation in how consumers, merchants, and banks interact since the internet. Even though this is a trillion-dollar potential market and technically entirely feasible, stablecoin banks still rely on the CCCA, which currently seems difficult to pass. Existing banking powers will fight back with full force, as naturally, the old always opposes the new. But the new will eventually come—at least in some form.

In his latest essay titled “Zero Knowledge Proof,” former BitMEX CEO Arthur Hayes explores the potential of PolitiFi tokens. He argues that these tokens have the potential to reshape political fundraising, revolutionize campaigns, circumvent censorship, and sway election outcomes. Public Sentiment According to the blog post, PolitiFi tokens function as real-time sentiment indicators and decentralized prediction markets. He argues that traditional polling methods are inherently biased and suffer from information asymmetry because people may not always disclose their true political beliefs publicly. On the other hand, meme coins offer an alternative way to measure popularity, enabling individuals to show support for a politician without fear of social repercussions. An example Hayes discusses is the rise of coins like TRUMP, which gained popularity among supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. He explained that the market value of these assets often fluctuates based on a candidate’s perceived chances of winning, showing the connection between financial speculation and political sentiment. He points to blockchain-based platforms like Polymarket, where users can bet on election outcomes. By offering real-time wagers on election results, these platforms have sometimes outperformed traditional polling methods in predicting outcomes. Governments have moved to restrict such platforms. For instance, France banned Polymarket despite not being in an election year, which Hayes attributes to fears of exposing unpopular political realities. On the other hand, political tokens are more difficult to regulate. Hosted on decentralized exchanges, they remain accessible to anyone with an internet connection. The former executive argues that this makes them an ideal tool for measuring political momentum in real-time without government interference. Campaign Financing and Political Engagement Hayes also suggests that these assets could transform political campaign funding. Traditional financing often relies on large donors and corporate backing. Political meme coins, however, enable grassroots financial support through token purchases. If a candidate endorses a token, holders have an interest in their success, creating a financial incentive to support and promote their campaign. Hayes envisions a future where political campaigns use them to mobilize supporters more effectively than traditional advertisements. He points to Trump’s embrace of alternative media, like podcast appearances, as an indicator of how digital engagement is reshaping political outreach. In the next election cycles, he predicts that platforms like X-Spaces and Discord will play a crucial role in political discourse, with meme coins acting as a digital expression of voter alignment. While critics argue that the asset class could lead to market manipulation and financial risks for retail investors, He counters that their transparency makes them preferable to traditional political funding mechanisms. Unlike ordinary campaign donations, meme coin trading allows for an open and verifiable record of political support. The post Arthur Hayes: How PolitiFi Tokens Could Disrupt Elections and Campaigns appeared first on CryptoPotato.