PANews_

"A highly active digital asset circulation era is coming." On the afternoon of September 5th, at the 2024 Inclusion·Bund Summit Web3 sub-forum, Yan Ying, Chief Scientist of Ant Group, made a judgment that with the gradual maturity and popularization of Web3 technology, physical assets, data, and entities in the physical world will be tokenized and seamlessly integrated with the digital world. Tokenization will make transactions more efficient, accelerate asset circulation, and stimulate new vitality for economic rise.

The typical practice of 'tokenization' is RWA (Real World Assets-tokenization), which is a form of asset ownership where the ownership of assets is traded on-chain in a digital form (token). Compared to the difficulty and trading difficulty of physical asset equity confirmation, RWA can split physical assets into multiple 'on-chain' digital assets, bringing more liquidity to physical assets with the interoperability of the global blockchain network.

Recently, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has announced an important progress in the first phase of its Ensemble project sandbox, with four tokenization theme cases attracting widespread market attention. Taking new energy charging pile assets as an example, listed company Langxin Technology, with the support of Ant Group and the HKMA Ensemble project, has successfully obtained the first RWA cross-border financing in Hong Kong, with a financing amount of approximately 100 million RMB.

Yan Ying believes that verifying the authenticity of assets and controlling the risks of asset circulation are the two major challenges facing asset securitization, both of which should be solved through technology. She said: "Ultimate performance and security and trustworthiness are the eternal pursuit of web3 technology." Faced with large-scale on-chain asset issuance, technology needs to solidify the foundation of "large-scale issuance" on the one hand, and solve the authenticity challenge of asset "security and trustworthiness" on the other hand.

Based on this, AntChain builds a trusted digital twin technology with blockchain as the core, and a large-scale blockchain open architecture that supports TPS performance of 100,000 transactions, sub-second transaction on-chain time, and PB-level data ledger storage and processing capabilities. In addition, AntChain has built an on-chain/off-chain full trust closed-loop to ensure trust extension with secure and verifiable underlying technologies. It provides efficient, accurate, and comprehensive contract security services through AI-assisted contract auditing tools.

The endorsement of celebrities and social media influencers is often a contrarian indicator financially, especially for those unreliable financial endorsements.

Based on past experience, when the market approaches its peak, fraudulent activities will become rampant.

Fraudsters will redouble their efforts, and various fraudulent methods will emerge endlessly, such as forged exchange websites, large-scale phishing attacks, and those fraudulent projects or Ponzi Schemes that embezzle funds through Rug Pull.

Billions of dollars of Cryptocurrency will be trapped into fiat currency, which will lead to a significant outflow of funds in the market, causing an impact on market liquidity.

4) Google Trends indicator for "buying cryptocurrency"

The common phrase used to be '购买BTC', but it is no longer the case now for various reasons, which we won't go into detail here.

The key point is that this chart lags behind for a few weeks. It does not reflect the current interest in Crypto Assets, but lags behind by about a week.

Here are the charts and their interpretation methods:

When we see parabolic pump trends like 2021, it's good news for those who have already invested, but it means high risk for newbies. That's the nature of the market, and you need to decide which side you want to be on.

Now, this chart shows early investors starting to profit, while new get on board investors face greater financial risk.

In the frenzy stage, it's time to consider selling instead of making unwise investment decisions.

In this high emotional state, you must act swiftly and decisively.

Selling strategies can vary, but just a reminder, completely exiting the investment is not always the most ideal choice.

5) retail investor panic

The widespread panic of retail investors (fear of missing out) is a reliable indicator of market tops. 'Fear of missing out' is a common psychological phenomenon that can lead to unwise investment decisions.

Although fear of missing out can be 'shorted', be careful, as the market may remain irrational for a period of time.

6) The price soared to an unrealistic level (waiting for a parabolic trend)

You all know that you should avoid buying in this situation:

However, at the market peak, volume will always reach its peak.

At this time, most potential investors (usually the target audience of retail investors) will enter the market and buy.

Meanwhile, smart money that bought in early will quickly and silently exit the market because the news and publications they control will still appear positive.

7）Cryptocurrency has become a symbol of social status

Possessing Crypto Assets has become a symbol of social status.

You will see people wearing hats, clothes, and accessories with Cryptocurrency logos on social media. When Cryptocurrency begins to be seen as a fashion, it often means that the market is more driven by social sentiment rather than fundamentals, which typically heralds a market top.

When Crypto Assets suddenly become a symbol of social status, be prepared to 'dumping'.

8) Exchange Malfunction

During periods of increased market activity, major CEX/DEX often experience malfunctions due to a large number of users accessing them simultaneously.

This surge in activity usually occurs before or after the market peaks, when everyone is scrambling to buy or sell.

Although this indicator indicates that the market may have overheated, it is not sufficient to determine the start of the Bear Market solely based on this, other indicators need to be combined for a comprehensive judgment.

9) Cycle Position

The Halving event is a timer for market cycles, and the Bull Market cannot end so quickly. The positive impact of Halving usually takes 12 to 18 months to show.

The price may experience a sudden and significant pump, and the parabolic trend may start at any time within the remaining four months of 2024.

However, during this period, the price may also experience big dump at any time, but these big dumps usually recover quickly, indicating that the parabolic trend is almost inevitable.

So far, there have been moments in every Bull Market that have made investors panic early on. The exchange has made billions of dollars through market fluctuations, so flash crashes are inevitable.

There is no Bear Market yet, and it is almost impossible to appear in 2024, although the profitability of each cycle is lower when the market cycle approaches the limit. The most likely scenario is that these indicators will start sounding the alarm in the first quarter of 2025.

10) Your hairdresser bought Crypto Assets

I have no objection to any profession, and a hairdresser is also an important profession, but if you ignore all other indicators and fail to see that you are in a bubble, then your hairdresser may be the last and only indicator you need.

So, when the price keeps pumping for a long time, remember to go to the hairdresser regularly, like once a month. However, the hairdresser must bring up this topic on their own, otherwise the effectiveness of this indicator may not be guaranteed.

02、Conclusion

This is another prediction I made in 2021:

After the market peaks, Bitcoin will experience a significant drop and then enter a two-year Bear Market.

The current parabolic trend seems to have ended, if it continues to pump, it is very likely to peak next time, but I don't think it will happen again.

I believe the market has peaked and may not touch the high point again until 2024.

— Pantera (March 3, 2022)

Viewing a single indicator alone is not enough to make you feel uneasy. Usually, we need a combination of multiple indicators to trigger an alarm. However, the 10th indicator itself may be an important warning signal.

It is worth noting that none of these indicators currently indicate that the market has peaked. Although there may be a bubble, there is still plenty of pump space before it bursts. There are currently no indicators showing a red light, our current indicator is 0/10, so the possibility of the Bull Market ending here and the parabolic trend not appearing is almost zero.

Once you see most or all indicators appear, it may be too late, so be careful of the Cryptocurrency influencers you follow.

But there is no need to worry too much now, but make sure to study the actual indicators, which will help you make reasonable investment decisions.

Currently, we see all the declines being filled, and interest is slowly rising, with no indicators indicating a clear signal to sell. However, overconfidence may be the eleventh indicator that I have overlooked. So, despite the various analyses and signals we may observe, the situation can change at any time, and all we can do is manage risks effectively.

Author: ZEN, PANews

Recently, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) accused digital sports entertainment and gaming company DraftKings of evading its payment obligations for the Non-fungible Token player license protocol. After abandoning the Non-fungible Token business, DraftKings, which is alleged to have sold unregistered securities, is facing another lawsuit.

Interestingly, in the dispute with the NFLPA, DraftKings' position seems to have changed from refuting to actively acknowledging that "Non-fungible Token is a security".

Abandoning Non-fungible Token Business: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit Denied

At the end of July this year, Draftkings stated in an email to users: "After careful consideration, DraftKings has decided to terminate Reignmakers and our Non-fungible Token market, effective immediately. This decision was not made lightly, and we believe it is the right thing to do."

During the period of the Non-fungible Token craze, Draftkings' Non-fungible Token strategy quickly achieved great success. Its platform released 116 NFT collectibles in about half a year, with total sales reaching $44 million, and the first batch of Tom Brady-themed NFT series sold out immediately upon launch.

And when the hype subsided, like other Non-fungible Token platforms, Draftkings also faced legal troubles. In March 2023, Draftkings was sued, claiming that DraftKings Non-fungible Tokens constituted investment contracts and should therefore be regulated as securities under federal law. DraftKings argued that its Non-fungible Tokens were not securities and attempted to dismiss the case by filing a motion to dismiss the class action. On July 2nd of this year, a federal judge in Massachusetts denied DraftKings' motion. In a 24-page ruling, the court noted that the plaintiffs had sufficient grounds to allege that DraftKings Non-fungible Tokens met the legal definition of investment contracts under the Howey test, as defined by the Supreme Court.

The court also distinguished this case from the Dapper Labs case involving NBATopShot, pointing out that DraftKings actually created a playable fantasy sports game through its Reignmakers product. However, because Reignmakers was launched months after the initial sale of Non-fungible Tokens, this does not negate the reasonable accusation of investment intent.

DraftKings' subtle position: Should Non-fungible Tokens be considered securities or not?

After deciding to abandon the Non-fungible Token business, DraftKings also decided to no longer adhere to the protocol with NFLPA and informed the latter that it would no longer make payments from July 30. Upon hearing this, NFLPA immediately initiated a lawsuit seeking compensation for 'anticipated breach of contract.' The lawsuit also emphasized that the total compensation for the company's five executives since 2021 is $261 million, which is approximately four times the compensation owed to NFLPA's authorized persons. As a result, NFLPA is seeking approximately $65 million from DraftKings.

When canceling the protocol, DraftKings emphasized a provision in the contract that allows termination of the transaction 'in the event that a government, regulatory, or judicial authority ‘determines’ that Non-fungible Tokens constitute ‘securities’.' DraftKings believes that the rejection of its motion by the Massachusetts court is evidence of this situation.

On the other hand, the NFLPA stated that the court's ruling did not determine that Non-fungible Tokens are securities, and its lawyer pointed out, "The motive for DraftKings' decision to refuse to continue to perform the licensed protocol with the NFLPA is simple: the once booming Non-fungible Token market has cooled off." He also added, "Despite DraftKings' best efforts to confuse the public, ultimately this case is very simple. DraftKings cannot use its authorized intellectual property for commercial gain, and this cannot be an excuse for failing to fulfill its obligations. DraftKings must pay the fees it owes."

Blockchain platform Flow and NBA Top Shot developer Dapper Labs were sued in 2021 for allegedly selling Non-fungible Tokens as unregistered securities. After a lengthy legal process, they successfully reached a settlement protocol with the plaintiff and paid 4 million dollars. The plaintiff waived the right to claim that Top Shot Non-fungible Tokens are securities in the future.

However, there is still much controversy over whether Non-fungible Tokens are unregistered securities. Recently, the Non-fungible Token market OpenSea received a Wells notice from the U.S. SEC, which believes that the Non-fungible Tokens on the platform may fall under the category of securities and threatens to sue OpenSea. OpenSea believes that Non-fungible Tokens are essentially creative goods and should not be regulated under securities laws. They have promised to provide $5 million to help Non-fungible Token creators and developers who have received Wells notices to pay legal fees and vowed to defend the interests of the industry.

And for DraftKings, which has already exited the Non-fungible Token industry, it may be more cost-effective to admit that Non-fungible Tokens are unregistered securities, and to learn again from its 'template' NBA Top Shot, and to compensate the collective lawsuit in a certain way, rather than paying tens of millions of dollars to NFLPA. The collective lawsuit against DraftKings is currently entering the investigation stage, and the outcome may become a precedent for whether Non-fungible Tokens are ultimately considered securities and may impact future litigation.

Author: NingNing

The industry cycle resonates with the macro financial cycle, and the encryption industry is currently in a similar overall confusion as in 2019. At this stage, not only is liquidity depleted, but the narrative also seems to be drying up. The market is not only lacking interest in the VC narrative, but also tired of the anti-VC MEME narrative.

Just as in every philosophical crisis, people will return to Plato to find a way out, when the encryption industry is in crisis, we also need to return to Bitcoin, return to Satoshi Nakamoto.

As Cipher, the founder of the RGB++ protocol in the CKB ecosystem, expounded in the latest blog, the encryption industry needs to rethink the path dependence of "on-chain computation" in Ethereum, return to P2P economics, shift computation off-chain, and validation on-chain.

Therefore, in the selection of BTC programmability expansion solutions, CKB respects the 'Consensus' of the BTC community that 'validation is greater than computation', and does not replicate the Rollup solution and the Restaking+AVS solution of Ethereum, but pays tribute to the BTCLighting Network and launches the CKB version of Lighting Network Fiber Network (referred to as CFN).

CFN's official description is based on the next-generation public Lighting Network composed of CKB and off-chain channels. The technical stack it actually uses mainly includes: CKB's Cell (a UTXO that supports Turing Complete), RGB++'s isomorphic bindings and Leap's bridgeless Cross-Chain Interaction, BTC scripts' HTLC (Hash Time Lock) and Lighting Network's State Channels, etc.

A standard CFN payment channel lifecycle is as follows:

Open Channel - Lock Assets - Create HTLC - Update Status - Verify Transaction - Transaction Completed - Close Channel - Submit Final Status

Same as BTCLighting Network, CFN's channels can remain active all the time, and N channels that remain active all the time use the "multi-hop" mechanism to form an off-chain asset payment/clearing network.

However, CFN is not a 100% replica of the Lighting Network. Compared to the Lighting Network, CFN has several key new features:

• Multi-asset support: no longer limited to a single currency, paving the way for complex Cross-Chain Interaction financial applications.
• Programmability: Turing Complete Smart Contracts based on CKB support more complex conditional execution and business logic.
• Cross-Chain Interaction: Native design supports interaction with other UTXO chains (such as BTC)'s Lighting Network.

It is worth mentioning that CFN has reserved space for future upgrades to more advanced payment channel technologies (such as PTLC). This forward-looking design makes CFN more advantageous in technological evolution.

Due to the technical homogeneity between CFN and BTCLighting Network (such as the same Hash Algorithm and time lock script), they naturally have the foundation to achieve Cross-Chain Interaction atomic swaps.

Let's understand this process through a specific example:

• Alice (CKB side) wants to send 100 CKB equivalent of BTC to Bob (BTC side)
• Bob generates a secret S and hashes it H(S) to Alice
• Alice creates HTLC on CFN, locks 100 CKB, with the condition of providing the correct S
• At the same time, corresponding HTLCs are also created on the BTC Lighting Network, locking an equivalent amount of BTC.
• Bob reveals S to claim BTC, and S is also obtained by the intermediate Node
• The Node in the middle link unlocked Alice's 100 CKB on CFN

The atomic Cross-Chain Interaction exchange between CFN and Lighting Network is not limited to the native assets of BTC and CKB, but also supports RGB++ assets, Taproot assets, such as the first meme coin Seal in the ecosystem, Stable Coin RUSD of protocol Stable++ in the BTC ecosystem, etc.

CFN provides a fast and cost-effective transfer channel for RGB++ assets. Users can quickly trade various RGB++ assets on CFN without the need for Settlement on the CKB mainchain every time.

At the same time, RGB++ provides CFN with a rich variety of asset types. This greatly expands the application scenarios of CFN, no longer limited to simple value transfer.

The combination of the two can achieve “BTC-level security + ETH-level functionality + Lighting Network-level speed”. This is a highly competitive combination.

• Cross-Chain Interaction Liquidity Mining: Users who provide Cross-Chain Interaction Liquidity for CFN-supported assets can receive rewards, stimulating the issuance and trading of new assets, such as a meme coin launch platform built on CFN for the BTC ecosystem.
• Atomic Cross-Chain Interaction Lending: Users can lock assets on the BTC network and borrow stablecoins of corresponding value on the CKB network, all without the need to trust a third party.
• Cross-Chain Interaction DEX: Using CFN, you can build a Decentralization exchange that supports fast and low-cost transactions of BTC, CKB, and various RGB++ assets.

If the above potential scenarios can eventually be implemented, the BTC ecosystem can leverage CFN's Cross-Chain Interaction atomic swap capability to achieve native stablecoins, native lending, native DEX, and other Decentralized Finance applications. So, CFN is not just the Lighting Network for the CKB version, but a programmable scalability solution with global significance in the BTC ecosystem.

CFN is about to release the testnet. We can observe the following indicators for its future development:

• The timing of successful interoperability with BTC Lighting Network;
• Cross-Chain Interactionvolume rise curve after Mainnet goes live;
• Quantity and quality of Cross-Chain Interaction DApps developed based on CFN;
• The adoption of RGB++ assets on CFN.

In conclusion, among many BTC programmability extension solutions including Babylon, Merlin, BoB, and Mezo, CFN stands out as a unique presence. It chooses to return to the classic paradigm of BTCLighting Network and innovate from there, thus possessing strong Consensus and high scalability of BTC's native nature. It has the potential to surpass friendly competitors and ultimately win in the future competition of BTCFi infrastructure.

Above.

Author: encryption Weituo

I don't know if you guys have a feeling that, after hearing a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt about ETH, it doesn't quite hit the mark? Since the technology and developer fundamentals are very good, it's normal to have challengers in each round, so why is this round so weak?

Let's use the three-disc theory to penetrate from both the supply and demand sides.

Ethereum Demand Side

The demand side of Ethereum can be divided into two factors: native and external.

Native factors refer to the development of Ethereum technology, which has generated a large number of ETH-denominated split plates, thereby driving the demand for ETH: such as ICO in 2017 and Decentralized Finance in 2020/2021. In this round of market trends, the main narrative should be L2 and Restaking. However, as I mentioned in November last year, L2 ecological projects overlap heavily with the mainchain, which cannot cause explosive trading prosperity. PointFi and Restaking essentially lock the flow of ETH drop, rather than pricing more assets in ETH, and even the pricing power of large restaking projects such as Eigen, Rez, and Ethfi is based on exchange (USDT), not on-chain (ETH) like the previous round of YFI, CRV, and COMP. Users do not need to hold ETH as long as there is no significant amount of new assets priced in ETH. Another native factor is the burning mechanism caused by EIP1559. ETH's main function is the settlement layer, and the clearing and settlement of large-scale Decentralized Finance occur on the main on-chain. Nowadays, L2 and mainchain have highly overlapping functions, resulting in a large amount of such demand being diverted to L2, while the burning caused by these transactions is only a small fraction of the original amount, weakening the demand for ETH.

External factors are mainly ecological external demand and macro. Macroscopically, the previous cycle was a loose cycle, and this cycle is a tightening cycle. In terms of ecological external demand, the previous round was grayscale trust, and this round is ETF. However, grayscale was a mythical animal that could only be bought and not sold. But ETF is different, it can be bought and sold. ETF has been opened for a month, and the total net outflow has reached -140.83K, the vast majority of which is through grayscale. This is completely different from the net inflow of BTC ETF since its opening, which is equivalent to the entire new and old Whales of ETH cashing out through ETF.

Understanding the supply side of Ethereum

Ether itself is a classic dividend plate. Regardless of whether it is in the POW era or the POS era, the main selling pressure comes from new output. But why did problems arise in this round? Because of its production cost structure.

ETH POW era [Before September 15, 2022]

The output logic of ETH is the same as BTC, it is produced by MinerMining

The cost composition of a Miner acquiring ETH:

1. Fixed Cost: One-time non-refundable ETH mining investment, including:

• ETH mining machine cost

2. Incremental Cost: The cost that rises with the time of participation in Mining, including:

• ETH mining electricity cost
• Hosting cost of ETH mining machine (including Mining Farm rental, personnel, maintenance)
• Unexpected costs (including slashing, disasters, etc.) need to be noted that these costs are based on Fiat Currency: whether it is fixed or incremental costs, they need to be paid in Fiat Currency, and these costs are sunk costs that cannot be refunded. Due to the limited lifespan of the Mining Rig, the entire output of the Mining Rig's lifecycle can be seen as a fixed quantity. The cost of obtaining each ETH = total cost in Fiat Currency / total ETH output.

There is a game here: When the market price of Ethereum Fiat Currency is lower than the acquisition cost (shutdown price), the Miner will not sell, because it will lose money.

While the Mining Rig is innovating, each generation of Mining Rig is more expensive. In each market cycle, mining competition becomes more intense, not only the output is dropping, but also the difficulty is increasing. Even the electricity and hosting fees are soaring. The pressure brought by government regulation is increasing as the industry expands. This means that the total incremental cost has increased, indirectly raising the floor price of ETH.

However, in the POS era, this effect has disappeared

ETH POS Era [After September 15, 2022]

The Miner role has disappeared and has been replaced by validators. To obtain Ethereum output, simply stake ETH in the validation Node, and the production cost of ETH has become:

1. validators: - provide the cost of infrastructure (such as personnel, servers)
2. Pledgers: - Opportunity cost of pledging ETH - Fees paid to validators Do you see the difference?

Although validators' costs are also Fiat Currency-based, theoretically they can support an infinite amount of ETH staking and there is no Mining Rig scrap, so the cost of obtaining ETH units can be almost negligible. In addition to opportunity costs, stakers have no Fiat Currency costs for obtaining ETH output, and the fees are also coin-based costs. Therefore, there is no "shutdown price," and stakers will not maintain the lower limit of ETH price like Miners, but can continuously sell and withdraw without limit.

Even if we consider that the average stake Ethereum get on board price is the average ETH price of the previous round, this mechanism cannot constantly raise the floor price of ETH, but ETH is constantly increasing, as long as the increase in the number of Ethereum is positive, the price will continue to be under pressure.

ETH cannot escape the three rounds: today's thunder was already laid in 2018

This is a sad story:

At the end of the ICO era in 2018, a large number of project parties conducting ICOs priced in ETH indiscriminately dumped ETH, with the price dropping to below $100. From the perspective of splitting the market, the splitting rate during the ICO era was extremely high, but there was no DEX that could trade ETH-based cash. Project parties could only dump ICO tokens and exchange ETH for USDT, ultimately leading to a sharp decrease in ICO Beta returns. The opportunity cost exceeded holding assets, resulting in a double kill for Davis.

Perhaps due to the painful experience of ICO in 2018, we saw Vitalik and the foundation constantly emphasizing the roadmap, narrative, and orthodoxy, which formed a group of "core circle" developers and VC. The success of DeFi Summer further strengthened this institutionalization, concentrating chips in the hands of Eth Aligned collective action rather than individuals, thus preventing disorderly splitting and dumping.

However, this ultimately evolved into "to V entrepreneurship", "Halal = overvaluation", which resulted in:

• Low splitting rate: The dev and plate that can handle considerable Liquidity and assets plummet.
• • Market Beta cannot outperform competitors: 'Halal' and 'Ponzi' lead to overvaluation, causing weaker returns for Beta compared to other chains.

Plus, the weakening of burning and the cost-free selling pressure brought by L2 and POS have offset all the efforts made by the Ethereum core to prevent disorderly selling pressure, resulting in today's tragedy.

What have you learned from the lesson of ETH?

1. If the dividend plate wants to be stable, do not innovate on a whim, remember to form a fixed cost and incremental cost priced in gold, and with the increase of asset Liquidity, constantly raise the cost line and raise the lower limit of asset price. If you really can't, go back and look at the BTC cost model again.

2. Splitting the plate to reduce selling pressure is just a delaying tactic. The real purpose is to turn your base currency into a quoted asset, so that holding does not depend on the rise of the base currency itself, thereby expanding the demand side and Liquidity