PubMatic releases OTT and CTV solution to enable better video streaming ads – AdNews

Getty

Digital technology company PubMatichas launched a new programmatic offering that enables connected TV (CTV) and over-the-top (OTT) ads to run seamlessly and improve the revenue that media owners get from their streaming video ads.

PubMatic co-founder and CEORajeev Goel flagged the new product earlier in the year, telling Business Insider that the company had put 40 people to work on building it.

OpenWrap OTT is a header bidding solution thatwill makeit easier for publishers to sell and advertisers to access OTT and CTV inventory.

Until now, header bidding did not exist at scale for OTT inventory.

The new product has been developed to fix problems around ad frequency, ad pods and publisher yields,while also providing a "TV-like" experience for ads in OTT environments.

Some of thead pod challengesit will solveinclude frequency capping, competitive exclusions and back-to-back ads.

An ad pod is a group of ads that play back-to-back in one commercial ad break, and the PubMatic solution is aimed at enabling marketers to better control when and how their ads run, especially not in the same pod as a competitor.

OpenWrap OTTis built on the open source software stack PreBid and will see PubMatic take on competitor, the recently merged Telaria and Rubicon Project.

PubMatic vice president of video Jonas Olsen says the solutionoffers publishers and advertisers the next phase in programmatic advertising.

The first priority for publishers and advertisers is to deliver a great, TV-like experience. OpenWrap OTT delivers for the viewer first, which in turn drives the business goals of our clients, Olsen says.

Powered by Prebid, our independent solution offers the next generation in programmatic advertising for the rapidly emerging OTT and CTV channels.

In the US, clients including Kidoodle.TV, Limpid, Glewed TV, Interpublic Group (IPG) and MediaMath have already signed on to use OpenWrap OTT.

Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au

Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.

Read more from the original source:
PubMatic releases OTT and CTV solution to enable better video streaming ads - AdNews

Layer 2 Will Make Bitcoin as Easy to Use as the Dollar, Says Kraken CEO – Cointelegraph

In aninterviewTuesday with Bloomberg, Kraken CEO Jesse Powell claimed that layer-twosolutions will in time make Bitcoin (BTC) as easy to use as the United States dollar.

In addition to improvements in Bitcoins utilitarian nature, Powell suggested that the eventual timing of institutional investors getting on board would rely on a herd mentality,and recommended Bitcoin as a hedge against the U.S. Federal Reserves current manipulation of the dollar.

Powell trumpeted Bitcoins success as a store of value. The predictable nature of issuance has seen many flock to BTC as a hedge against traditional asset classes, and Powell suggested that long term, he believed it would surpass gold.

However, just like gold and even cash, he said that people will not need to transfer physical Bitcoin on the blockchain. Cash apps such as PayPal and Venmo allow movement of fiat currencies in non-physical form, and layer-twosolutions will, in time, provide easy-to-use tools to similarly interact with Bitcoin:

Pretty soon all of the technology behind Bitcoin will just disappear and itll be just like the U.S. dollar where no one really understands how it works but everyone uses it.

Powell continued that the past three months had seen a massive influx of new accounts from all investortypes: hedge funds, wealth managers, retail investors and day traders. However, the long-promised flood of institutional investment will rely on a herd mentality, he said.

The revelations of respected fund managers, such as Paul Tudor Jones who said that up to 2% of his portfolio was in Bitcoin, will encourage others to come on board, eventually building to a critical mass of institutional players.

Regarding the potential manipulation of cryptocurrency markets by whales, Powell pointed out that traditional markets were also being manipulated:

Look at the Fed buying junk bonds from failed United States corporations. Its a joke. The market is manipulated. Theyre printing trillions of dollars to pump up the value of publicly traded stocks. You cant price anything in dollars any more. Inflation is going to be out of control very soon here. Personally I would be buying bitcoin as a hedge against that inflation.

Go here to read the rest:
Layer 2 Will Make Bitcoin as Easy to Use as the Dollar, Says Kraken CEO - Cointelegraph

Top Investors Unfazed: Bitcoin Is On Track For Explosive Rally To $50k – Forbes

Prominent investors and analysts in the industry now expect Bitcoin to hit $50,000 and secure a $1 trillion market cap in the next several years.

Billionaire investors, including the Winklevoss twins, echoed a similar thesis since 2019, anticipating Bitcoin to be considered as gold 2.0 eventually.

The Winklevoss twins believe Bitcoin is undervalued until it hits a $7 trillion market cap. (Photo ... [+] by Astrid Stawiarz/Getty Images)

The leading theory behind ambitious price predictions for BTC between $50,000 and $100,000 is that Bitcoin will account for a significant portion of golds market share.

High-profile investors predict that Bitcoin will inevitably compete against gold to become an established store of value.

Chris Burniske, partner at Placeholder formerly of Ark Invest, said:

Why Bitcoin above $50,000? As discussed in May 2019, if BTC is half as volatile in this cycle as it was in the last, we would still expect it to cross $50K and $1 trillion in network value. $1 trillion has been a long time coming for this macro-asset.

Gold is a universal store of value that investors typically turn to in times of global economic uncertainty and financial turmoil.

The perception of Bitcoin as a store of value and a hedge against inflation is improving with growing institutional adoption, showing a glimpse into how BTC can co-exist with gold.

Similarly, in 2019, the Winklevoss twins emphasized during an interview with CNBCs Seema Mody that Bitcoin is highly undervalued until it hits a $7 trillion market cap.

The Winklevoss twins, who famously own over a billion dollars in cryptocurrencies, said that people are becoming increasingly comfortable with Bitcoin as it builds more trust.

They said:

Our thesis is that Bitcoin is gold 2.0 and so until it has a market cap of $7 trillion, which is the size of gold, it's a very undervalued asset. So I think people are just waking up to that. People get more comfortable with Bitcoin when they keep hearing gold 2.0, it's a store of value, its characteristics are better than gold, and also the longer it is here, it is harder to call it a fad, and it's more here to say. So I think it just builds confidence and trust.

If Bitcoin hits a market cap of $7 trillion as the Winklevoss twins predict, the price per Bitcoin will surpass $333,000.

According to the newest data from Ark Invest, the market capitalization of gold is now at $9 trillion.

Considering that, Ark Invest analyst James Wang said Bitcoin could see its valuation surge to $800 billion if it takes merely 15% from golds market share.

An $800 billion valuation would place the price of Bitcoin at $38,095.

Potential market capitalization of Bitcoin depending on the markets it targets.

In a world with 10,000 cryptocurrencies, bitcoin simply refuses to die. Maybe its unique combination of technical and 'belief' networks endows it with some durable value. How much? We slice it three ways, and a $1T is not off the mark, Wang said.

Before late 2018, there was a lack of trusted custodians, strictly-regulated futures exchanges, and over-the-counter (OTC) desks dealing with cryptocurrencies.

Since the fourth quarter of 2018, the infrastructure in the cryptocurrency market started to grow, facilitating growing demand from both retail investors and institutions.

The crucial factor that would decide the trajectory of Bitcoins growth over the upcoming years is whether the industrys infrastructure will continue to grow at a rapid pace or become stagnant.

For now, renowned investors are seemingly expecting important developments in the Bitcoin market in the medium to long-term.

Continued here:
Top Investors Unfazed: Bitcoin Is On Track For Explosive Rally To $50k - Forbes

First Mover: Negative Rates or More Money Printing Bitcoin May Benefit Either Way – CoinDesk

Whether or not the Federal Reserve eventually cuts interest rates to negative levels, it might be a case of heads: bitcoin wins, tails: bitcoin wins.

So far this year, the Fed has created about $3 trillion of new money, an amount equivalent to more than 70% of the total assets created since its founding in 1913. The question now is what the Fed will do next if the economy fails to recover quickly from the devastation of the coronavirus and markets enter a new tailspin.

Youre readingFirst Mover, CoinDesks daily markets newsletter. Assembled by the CoinDesk Markets Team, First Mover starts your day with the most up-to-date sentiment around crypto markets, which of course never close, putting in context every wild swing in bitcoin and more. We follow the money so you dont have to. You cansubscribe here.

One strategy Fed officials led by Chair Jerome Powell say they wont pursue? Cutting benchmark interest rates below zero. In a summary of economic projections published by the Fed last week, not a single official projected negative rates.

Cryptocurrency analysts have said negativerates are merely a form of ultra-loose monetary policy, which should eventually push inflation higher. That could be a catalyst for higher prices for bitcoin, seen as a hedge against inflation similar to gold.But bitcoin might trade higher even if the Fed rejects negative rates outright since the U.S. central bank would instead probably just inject trillions more of freshly-created dollars into the financial system. Reluctance to go negative means more QE reliance, saidMarc Ostwald, chief economist at London-based ADM Investor Services.

The Feds money injections in response to the coronavirus crisis have helped push up bitcoin prices by 30% so far this year on speculation that inflation will eventually arrive.

Extremely accommodative policy is bullish for bitcoin, saidRich Rosenblum, founder of cryptocurrency trading firm GSR.

The Fed is alreadyinjecting about $120 billion a monthinto the financial system by purchasing U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, and the pace would likely increase if markets suddenly turned lower.

Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, who pushed the central bank intothe money printing exercise known as quantitative easing, or QE, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, has argued the practice can substitute for further rate cuts.

Quantitative easing and forward guidance can provide the equivalent of about three additional percentage points of short-term rate cuts, Bernanke said in January.

Federal Reserve officials have faced questions about the potential for going negative after theyslashed benchmark rates close to zero in March.

As recently as this month, according to Bank of America economists, traders in the market for futures contracts on the Feds main interest rate were betting that the central bank might go negative as soon as 2021.

Negative rates have attractedincreasing attention among foreign central banks, including the Bank of England and European Central Bank. The Bank of Japans main short-term lending rate is already negative, at -0.1%.An economist with the Federal Reserves St. Louis brancheven said recentlythat U.S. monetary policy officials should consider negative rates, to help bring about a sharper and broader economic recovery.

One concern over negative interest rates is they might squeeze commercial banks profit margins, since lenders would likely have to reduce rates on loans while struggling to convince depositors to pay banks to hold their savings.A negative interest rate policy also might force banks to pay interest to the Fed for parking spare cash at the central bank.The objection is that financial market plumbing becomes more troublesome with negative rates, said Michael Englund, principal director and chief economist at Action Economics LLC.

Yet another concern is the convoluted incentives of negative rates might be counterproductive, such as whittling down the monthly incomes of elderly savers who depend on fixed incomes from their retirement savings. That might lead them to spend less, slowing the economic recovery.Low rates have winners and losers, Englund said, such as punishing senior citizens.Ostwald says the Fedmight instead adopt a policy known as yield-curve control where officials establish caps for yields on bonds of varying maturities.

The practice, which typically involves purchasing bonds to keep yields from rising too quickly, is considered yet another form of monetary policy accommodation. Analysts in the market for gold, seen as a traditional inflation hedge, have speculated thatyield-curve control could be bullishfor the yellow metal.

Rosenblum, at GSR, says negative rates would likely be even more bullish for bitcoin simply because theyre so unusual, and would be seen by many people as a strong beacon for something being broken.

Printing new money via QE is not as palpable as seeing a negative interest rate, Rosenblum said. Seeing your savings literally drop by X% each month would be something completely new.

For bitcoin investors already enjoying gains from the Feds ongoing QE, negative rates might just represent an additional source of upside.

Tweet of the day

Bitcoin watch

BTC: Price: $9,540 (BPI) | 24-Hr High: $9,579 | 24-Hr Low: $9,044

Trend:Bitcoin is taking a pause after Mondays sharp reversal higher from $8,900 to $9,500.

The top cryptocurrency by market value is currently trading near $9,540, having logged a session high of $9,579 during the early European trading hours, according to CoinDesks Bitcoin Price Index.

While the recovery has been impressive, the resistance of the trendline connecting the June 1 and 10 highs is still intact. A violation there would imply an end of the pullback from recent highs above $10,400 and open the doors once more to $10,000.

Konstantin Anissimov, executive director at the cryptocurrency exchange CEX.IO, believes strong resistance at $10,000 will not let the bulls through without a fight. The cryptocurrency has failed multiple times in the last two months to keep gains above $10,000.

A notable pullback may be needed to recharge bulls engines for a clear move above $10,000. Without new fundamental growth drivers it will be much easier for Bitcoins prices to return to $8,100 levels, build up a foundation for further growth, and only then take another shot at getting past $10,000, Anissimov said.

The probability of a drop to $8,100 would increase if prices find acceptance under $8,900. That would invalidate the strong dip demand signaled by Mondays long-tailed bullish hammer candle.

Prices may also fall if the global equity markets again drop sharply on coronavirus fears. Bitcoins positive correlation with stocks has strengthened in the last few days.

From a technical analysis standpoint, Mondays bullish hammer candle has established $8,900 as the level to beat for the bears.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

Excerpt from:
First Mover: Negative Rates or More Money Printing Bitcoin May Benefit Either Way - CoinDesk

The Difference Between Blockchain and Bitcoin – UKTN

Many people are making a huge amount of money through cryptocurrencies nowadays. However, there has been extensive debate regarding the use of cryptocurrencies for money making. That debate is majorly based on two essential terms, bitcoin and blockchain. The surprising part is that despite the ongoing debates and the fact that a lot of people are making money out of it, theyre still confused between the two.

It is pertinent to mention here that Blockchain is the technology while bitcoin is the first successful application of that technology, which rose to popularity in 2009. This article would categorically differentiate between the two and explain their use in the world of cryptocurrencies.

To begin, we need to understand each term with a contextual background.

Blockchain is a computerized digital payment gateway that allows record transactions between two parties constantly and correctly. To further simplify, blockchain is a distributed ledger technology, which restricts to bitcoin; in fact, any digital asset. It enables multiple parties to transact, share valuable data, and pool in their resources in a secure yet tamperproof manner.

Many in and out of the industry assume that blockchain is the latest technology. However, that is not the case, blockchain can be traced back to 1991, but it only became popular after the advent of cryptocurrencies.

Here is why blockchain may be difficult to understand or perhaps regulate. Blockchain is decentralized, made up of three important concepts, blocks, miners, and nodes.

Foodtech startup Grocemania announces nationwide expansion

Each chain comprises Blocks, which is central to blockchain technology. They contain all the relevant information about a transaction. Each block has a unique nonce and hash and is stored not only linearly; in fact, chronologically, always at the end of the blockchain. As the chain increases, it is tough to go back and manipulate or disrupt the chain.

Miners are the ones that create multiple blocks, which is an incredibly complex task considering the composition of a neighborhood.

Nodes are significant in understanding the decentralization system within the blockchain. Through nodes, no one organization can own the blockchain, which helps blockchain to maintain integrity and prevent a breach of privacy through any systematic or unsystematic exchange of information.

Bitcoin is one of the earliest cryptocurrency to use blockchain technology in facilitating peer to peer payments. Through a decentralized network, bitcoin offers a reasonably low transaction fee compared to popular payment gateways.

Language learning app Memrise scores $15.5m Series B

The first and foremost thing is to get a bitcoin wallet, software to send, receive, and securely store funds. You can download it on your phone, PC, or any equivalent digital device for that matter. The second part is to earn bitcoins through trading, to play online games like Bitcoin blackjack, or requesting bitcoin payments from a client. Bitcoin is not like any other currency governed under a central banking system.

Bitcoins are not stored physically on any platform, and it uses a mathematical algorithm to protect a string of numbers stored in public and a private key. In layman terms, the public key is equivalent to a bank account number, while a private key is equivalent to an ATM pin. A bitcoin is divisible to 8 decimal places with the smallest unit known as satoshi named after the currency`s pseudo founder Satoshi Nakamoto.

As complex as it sounds, bitcoin is not a problematic currency to understand. It is far more convenient to pay or get paid. All one has to do is to create a bitcoin wallet and put the address into any digital currency platform.

If youve recently found the world of cryptocurrencies, it is perhaps understandable to mix up bitcoin and blockchain, but there are some significant differences between the two.

South Yorkshire tech firm Metalysis closes 20m funding round

If youre someone who uses online payment gateways to send, receive, or store currency, you need to understand the relation between bitcoin and blockchain. However, blockchain has several uses other than regulating bitcoins.

Blockchain can help execute smart contracts; blockchain can automatically release agreed-upon payments. It can help you maintain a transparent system of record, audit supply chains, or provide you with proof of insurance.

Now that you are pretty clear between blockchain and bitcoin, there is one industry that has lately adopted blockchain technology: the online gambling industry. Developers use blockchain technology to develop games on a decentralized ledger. No matter what, youre playing from lotteries to online poker, slots, or perhaps sports betting. Blockchain enables a data-driven yet the secure dispensable system for gamblers to pursue trustworthy transactions through bitcoin over traditional banking payment gateways.

Now here is the thing with crypto gambling, in regular online gambling, you register, enter your bank details, the merchant verifies, and the process goes on. With bitcoin, you can start betting, and the merchant knows that your payment is not going anywhere.

Blockchain continues to dominate our internet spaces. It is perhaps essential to exercise caution when dealing with cryptocurrencies. For example, if you are pursuing crypto gambling, make sure you use trustworthy service providers. Often online casino websites use third-party service providers to convert you bitcoin deposits into local digital currency.

Bitcoin and blockchain technology remains mostly under or unregulated throughout the world due to innate complex structures. Therefore be careful while using bitcoins in any online transaction.

On a positive note, despite the intricacies, both offline and online casinos worldwide are adopting blockchain technology and accepting bitcoin payments. Soon this technology will take over traditional payment gateways such as Visa and PayPal. More importantly, it can change the way we process payments for casinos; making them safer and easier.

Go here to see the original:
The Difference Between Blockchain and Bitcoin - UKTN

Will India Ban Crypto? 5 Exchange Executives Shed Light on the Truth | Regulation – Bitcoin News

There has been some confusion over whether India will ban cryptocurrency, including bitcoin, following recent reports of a note being circulated by the government. News.Bitcoin.com interviewed executives of five cryptocurrency exchange platforms in India to find out the truth about the news.

Talks of the Indian government banning cryptocurrency have resurfaced following a report by the Economic Times of a note being circulated by the finance ministry regarding a crypto ban. However, the report is unverified and the news outlet only cited an unnamed government official as the source of the news. Nonetheless, it has many people associate the note with the draft bill submitted to the ministry last year by an interministerial committee that proposes a ban on cryptocurrency.

Unocoin CEO Sathvik Vishwanath explained to news.Bitcoin.com on Tuesday that The movement of the note is the procedural next step after the committee has submitted the report mid last year. Emphasizing that This is also the needed step towards regulation for crypto in India, he said:

A blanket ban is unlikely Given that the supreme court did hear all aspects of crypto within India and abroad and have taken a stance to support the industry, the old report may be considered outdated. From the information that we have, the industry players will be invited to intervene while forming the regulation for crypto.

Wazirx CEO Nischal Shetty strongly believes that the Indian government will not ban cryptocurrency. He told news.Bitcoin.com Tuesday: Im positive that India will not take a regressive stance on crypto by putting a blanket ban. When it comes to regulation, Im sure that India will follow the footsteps of developed countries like Japan, USA, UK, Australia, and more which have embraced crypto.

Pointing out that the news which is based on a note does not clarify whether the finance ministry intends to work upon the old draconian crypto bill or whether they plan to work on bringing a new bill, he affirmed: I dont think theres anything to worry about the note as of now.

Another Indian crypto exchanges CEO, Shivam Thakral of Buyucoin, also does not think the Indian government will take the approach of banning cryptocurrency. I personally think that the Indian government would come out with certain crypto pro regulations very soon, they wont ban cryptocurrency since India is a part of G-20 [which] recommended its members to adopt FATF rules to regulate cryptocurrencies, he told our newsdesk.

Giottus cofounder Arjun Vijay also shared with news.Bitcoin.com:

India generally looks for a precedent when it comes to creating complex laws. With none of the developed economies having banned cryptocurrencies, it is going to be very difficult for Indian government to roll out a feasible plan for banning cryptocurrencies completely.

Discussing the likelihood of a crypto ban in India, Vijay stated that the government is faced with two major issues. Firstly, If India bans crypto, they need to be able to enforce the ban, he remarked. Because of the nature of the product, it would be very difficult for our government to track cryptocurrency holders and implement the ban. On the other hand, a regulation will grant them access to data with which they can efficiently govern/track/tax the cryptocurrency usage. Secondly, he noted that If India bans crypto, but crypto becomes mainstream, [India will be] missing out on millions of dollars of revenue and job creation opportunities.

Coinswitch Chief Business Officer Sharan Nair reiterated to news.Bitcoin.com that The news of a possible crypto ban in India is not a new development. This bill was proposed a year and a half back. He opined: What needs to be considered is that a lot of positive developments have happened in the Indian crypto space since then, namely the supreme court lifting the banking ban on crypto and multiple Indian crypto companies raising funds and ever-growing customer enthusiasm. We are hopeful that the authorised bodies would consult all stakeholders in this matter before coming to a decision.

In March, the Indian supreme court quashed the banking ban by the central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), after many hearings. The RBI subsequently confirmed in a response to a Right to Information (RTI) application by Unocoin cofounder B.V. Harish that there is no ban on cryptocurrency exchanges, businesses, or traders in India. The Indian government and the central bank have independently indicated that cryptocurrency, including bitcoin, is legal in India.

The five exchange executives also shared with news.Bitcoin.com how Indians are reacting to reports of the possible ban on cryptocurrency and whether they are seeing any change in trading behavior on their platforms.

There have been speculations about crypto ban in the past as well. There are more than 5 million crypto users in India, and Im confident that our prime minister wont let us down, Wazirxs CEO stressed, elaborating:

The day the news broke out created a mild panic among the community. However, we have not seen any difference in the trading behaviour on Wazirx since then.

Unocoin also has not seen any changes in trading activities on its platform. We have not seen any change in the trading behavior but our customer care has received numerous calls asking our comments about the article. We continue to monitor the user activity on the platform since the news broke and now it is already a few days, it is unlikely to cause any noticeable change henceforth, the CEO told news.Bitcoin.com.

The impact is also minimal at Coinswitch and Buyucoin. We havent seen any changes in the trading behavior as such but there has been a lot of queries. Users want to know what will be the future course of action for them and for us as an exchange, Coinswitchs executive revealed.

We didnt see any impact of that news in the trading behavior and people on our platform are trading as usual also it was unverified news as the source was not identified and hence people didnt take it seriously as similar news were out in the past, Buyucoins CEO detailed.

Giottus cofounder expressed:

Similar news has come multiple times in the last four years, but nothing concrete has followed.

So old hands are unfazed with this news and it has been business as usual for them, the Giottus executive clarified. For the new users, they are having some doubts regarding this proposal and we had to educate them on how the concept is still in its early stage and there is a long way ahead for this internal cabinet note to be converted into a bill. And in these tough times, the customers also understand that the government has other priorities.

The exchange executives further shared their thoughts with news.Bitcoin.com on how a ban on cryptocurrency would affect India. Wazirxs CEO asserted:

Were in the middle of an economic meltdown, and millions of people have lost their jobs due to covid-19. Crypto is one of the very few sectors that is hiring today. Its in Indias best interest to encourage such a fast growing sector. A ban would lead to projects and talent to move out of India, and affect the economy adversely.

He additionally described: It will also discourage venture capitalists to invest in Indian startups. We dont want that. Wazirx and Binance have a $50M fund exclusively to invest in Indian blockchain and crypto ecosystem. There will be many more funds that will be launched for crypto ecosystem in India. Im sure our government wouldnt want to lose out on such large capital investments in the country.

Buyucoins CEO concurred, noting that crypto adoption in India is increasing at a rapid pace, so banning it would be a complete loss of control over cryptocurrency-related activities and other monetary benefits Indian government could get.

Unocoins CEO chimed in: I would consider it to be very inefficient. Presently the significant crypto activity is happening through exchanges and every exchange is doing their KYC and AML checks which are forming anchor points on the blockchain. Crypto ban would push all activities underground. It would be like punishing the legitimate business and industry for being afraid of the bad actors.

Coinswitchs executive foresees a drastic effect. In his opinion, Many companies will either shut shop or move to other countries with crypto-friendly laws. The whole innovation around public blockchain infra in India will come to a standstill. It will also have a futuristic impact on the global crypto/blockchain industry as India is an important market.

Giottus cofounder outlined the effects of a crypto ban in some detail. We see India losing out on multiple fronts if a ban is ultimately enforced in India, he began. Firstly, he expects that Some of the users will leave crypto forever, while some will continue trading in cash and become untraceable. This will lead to a parallel economy being created that is unregulated. Because of the very nature of crypto, it would be a big headache for law enforcement authorities to track and trade these activities.

Secondly, he emphasized that Indians will miss out on the biggest investment opportunity of this century, if bitcoin continues to do what it has been doing so far. Moreover, he pointed out that India is one of the major exporters of software services and this forms one of the biggest contributors of foreign exchange and tax revenue for the country. If crypto/dapps were to become mainstream, Indians will be missing out on a huge opportunity in terms of job creation and revenue.

What do you think the Indian government will do about crypto? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Read disclaimer

More here:
Will India Ban Crypto? 5 Exchange Executives Shed Light on the Truth | Regulation - Bitcoin News

When’s the first bitcoin blockbuster going to hit our screens? – The Upcoming

Whens the first bitcoin blockbuster going to hit our screens?

They say that money makes the world go round and its certainly been the driving force behind countless movie plots over the years. This is all too understandable: after all, it can symbolise so many aspects of humanity and the power balance between individuals in society. There are also the rapid reversals of fortune for characters that both the acquisition and loss of money can bring about.

The movies that are made on the subject also often reflect the times that were living in, and this is especially relevant in periods of great economic growth or upheaval. This fact has led some people to wonder when the first major movie about the bitcoin boom will be made.

The bitcoin price explosion of 2017, when a single coins value rose from under $1,000 in January to over $19,000 in February, surely has some incredible stories to be told about it. In fact, this could be the perfect moment to tell them as some believe we may be on the verge of the next big boom.

As to what kind of film it would be, there are a number of options if previous examples of the genre are anything to go by. For most people, the classic modern-day movie about money is Wall Street. Released in 1987 and directed by Oliver Stone, its gone down in history for introducing the phrase, greed is good. This was memorably delivered by the films anti-hero Gordon Gekko although the moral of the story was that it can land you in jail eventually. The 2010 sequel Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was made in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and presented Gekko in a more sympathetic light as he worked to make amends for his previous actions.

Wall Street also featured in the more recent exploration of stock trading, The Wolf of Wall Street, starring Leonardo Di Caprio. He played the larger than life and real-life Jordan Belfort in a compelling, arguably long (at three hours) tale of wild financial excess. However, making a bitcoin film about any particular character could be problematic.

This is because the essentially anonymous nature of the cryptocurrency means that we never get to hear about the big characters who have been successful speculators. Also, many people dabbling in cryptocurrency use individual sites like the Bitcoin Trader UK. This is an almost fully automated system powered by AI, which may offer a certain level of success for traders, but perhaps wouldnt make such great cinema.

Of course, it could also go down the line of a classic biopic like The Social Network. Instead of focusing on Mark Zuckerberg, however, this would be the story behind the creation of bitcoin by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto. There are so many stories circulating about who he is and what he is really like that it could be the crypto equivalent of Searching for Sugar Man.

However, whichever direction the first bitcoin movie goes, its sure to be an intriguing tale that could even become an all-time classic.

The editorial unit

Visit link:
When's the first bitcoin blockbuster going to hit our screens? - The Upcoming

There are now 8,000 Bitcoin ATMs globally – Decrypt

The number of Bitcoin ATMs worldwide has surged by 150% in the past two years, according to data from Norwegian financial services company AksjeBloggen.

Since the introduction of the first Bitcoin ATM in 2013, more than 8,000 machines have now been installed in over 75 countriesa sure fire indication of healthy growth in the cryptocurrency industry.

In just the first six months of this year, more than 1,713 ATMs were installed. The vast majority of them are in North America.

To begin with, the number of installations saw sluggish growth, data from Coin ATM Radar reveals. But, by January 2017, around 1,000 Bitcoin ATMs were springing up every year. By the start of 2020, there were 6,352 ATMs in operation.

Healthy growth in the ATM sector comes at a price. ATMs look set to become a target for regulation, as governments around the world seek to put the screws on money laundering, according to blockchain forensics firm Ciphertrace.

The startup released a report, earlier this month, suggesting that 88% of funds from US-based Bitcoin ATMs sent to exchanges in 2019 ended up offshore.

According to Ciphertrace, the amount of money wired to high-risk, overseas exchangeswhich are more likely to be used for money launderinghas doubled every year since 2017. Authorities are concerned that ATMs present the simplest method of currency conversion, and are boon for money laundering, as they allow for transactions between two fiat currencies, underpinned by Bitcoin.

In Canada, regulators are already cracking down on Bitcoin ATM transfers, and recently passed a law mandating operators to report all transactions above $10,000 Canadian dollars (about $7,400).

Notices alerting customers to scam transactions, have also appeared on machines in Canada.

Germany, Spain and the US also have Bitcoin ATMs in their sights, as conduits for tax evasion and money laundering.

In 2019, US citizen Kunal Kalra laundered $25 million through his own DIY Bitcoin ATM. Such high profile cases, combined with the surge in funds sent to high-risk exchanges, put ATMs firmly on the regulatory hit list.

Read more:
There are now 8,000 Bitcoin ATMs globally - Decrypt

Julian Assange indictment fails to mention WikiLeaks video that exposed US ‘war crimes’ in Iraq – The Guardian

US prosecutors have failed to include one of WikiLeaks most shocking video revelations in the indictment against Julian Assange, a move that has brought accusations the US doesnt want its war crimes exposed in public.

Assange, an Australian citizen, is remanded and in ill health in Londons Belmarsh prison while the US tries to extradite him to face 18 charges 17 under its Espionage Act for conspiracy to receive, obtain and disclose classified information.

The charges relate largely to the US conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Assanges publication of the US rules of engagement in Iraq.

The prosecution case alleges Assange risked American lives by releasing hundreds of thousands of US intelligence documents.

One of the most famous of the WikiLeaks releases was a video filmed from a US Apache helicopter, Crazy Horse 1-8, as it mowed down 11 people on 12 July 2007 in Iraq. The video starkly highlights the lax rules of engagement that allowed the killing of men who were neither engaged with nor threatening US forces.

Two of those Crazy Horse 1-8 killed in east Baghdad that day were the Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and a driver/fixer, Saeed Chmagh, 40.

Their Baghdad bureau chief at the time, Dean Yates, said the US military had repeatedly lied to him and the world about what happened, and it was only when Assange released the video (which WikiLeaks posted with the title Collateral Murder) in April 2010 that the full brutal truth of the killings was exposed.

What he did was 100% an act of truth-telling, exposing to the world what the war in Iraq looks like and how the US military lied The US knows how embarrassing Collateral Murder is, how shameful it is to the military they know that theres potential war crimes on that tape, Yates said.

The Australian barrister Greg Barns is legal adviser to the Australian Assange Campaign, which works closely with Assanges UK representatives, including his legal team. The campaign lobbies Australias federal government to both press its closest ally, the US, to withdraw the charges and to push Britain to ensure Assanges safety.

He said while the US indictment against Assange did not explicitly mention Collateral Murder it is very much part of the broader prosecution case [because of what it illustrates about the US rules of engagement] and it is one of the many reasons to oppose what is happening to Assange.

Collateral Murder shows unlawful killing by Australias closest ally, Barns said.It is something we deserve to know about.Its publication was, and remains, clearly in the public interest.

The Tasmanian Greens senator Peter Whish Wilson, a founding member of the multi-party Parliamentary Friends of the Bring Julian Assange Home Group, said: The omission of the leaked Collateral Murder footage from the indictment surprised me, but on reflection of course its not in the US Governments interests to highlight their own injustices, deceit and war crimes.

The US prosecutions case is focused on indicting and extraditing Julian for putting US or Coalition lives at risk, but what about the many lives they put at risk through their supposed rules of engagement?

Collateral Murder exposed the loss of innocent lives at the hands of the US military, and the coverups, lies and deceit that refused to acknowledge this fact.

See the original post here:
Julian Assange indictment fails to mention WikiLeaks video that exposed US 'war crimes' in Iraq - The Guardian

‘All lies’: how the US military covered up gunning down two journalists in Iraq – The Guardian

For all the countless words from the United States military about its killing of the Iraqi Reuters journalists Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, their colleague Dean Yates has two of his own: All lies.

The former Reuters Baghdad bureau chief has also inked some on his arm a permanent declaration of how those lies fucked me up, while he blamed first Namir unfairly and then himself for the killings.

The tattoo on his left shoulder features a looped green ribbon bearing the words Iraq, Bali and Aceh. At opposite points of the ribbon is etched PTSD and Fight Back, Moral injury and July 12 2007.

Yatess experiences covering the 2002 Bali bombings and the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 seeded his post-traumatic stress, but 12 July 2007 is the day that changed his life irrevocably while violently ending Namirs and Saeeds. Its also the day that linked him by a thread of truth to the WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, who would, three years later, become the worlds most infamous hacker-publisher-activist with his release of thousands of classified US military secrets.

They included a video WikiLeaks titled Collateral Murder, filmed from a US military Apache helicopter as it blasted to pieces Namir, 22, and Saeed, 40, and nine other men, while seriously wounding two children.

The US continues its legal efforts to extradite Assange from a British prison, where he is remanded in failing health, to face espionage allegations. Instructively, the detailed, 37-page US indictment against him makes no mention of Collateral Murder the video that caused the US government and military more reputational damage than all the other secret documents combined, and that launched WikiLeaks and Assange as the foremost global enemy of state secrecy.

Is the US concerned that referring to the video will give rise to war crimes charges against the military personnel involved in the attack? Certainly, bringing the video into the prosecution case against Assange could only vindicate his role in exposing the US militarys lies about the ghastly killings.

Early on 12 July 2007 Yates sat in the slot desk in the Reuters office in Baghdads red zone. He was ready for the usual: a car bomb attack while Iraqis headed to work, a militant strike on a market, the police or the Iraqi military. It was quieter than usual.

Yates recalls: Loud wailing broke out near the back of our office I still remember the anguished face of the Iraqi colleague who burst through the door. Another colleague translated: Namir and Saeed have been killed.

Reuters staff drove to the al-Amin neighbourhood where Namir had told colleagues he was going to check out a possible US dawn airstrike. Witnesses said Namir, a photographer, and Saeed, a driver/fixer, had been killed by US forces, possibly in an airstrike during a clash with militants.

Yates emailed the US military spokesman in Iraq and telephoned a senior Reuters editor to tell him the news.

While the bureau was in a crisis of anger and mourning, Yates still had to write the early stories about the two men killed on his watch. He initially wrote that they had died in what Iraqi police called American military action.

Yates says: Pictures taken by our photographers and camera operators showed a minivan at the scene, its front mangled by a powerful concussive force There was much we didnt know. US soldiers had seized Namirs two cameras, so we couldnt check what hed been photographing.

By early evening the military spokesman still had not replied. Yates pressed him for a response and for the return of Namirs cameras. Just after midnight, the US military released a statement headlined: Firefight in New Baghdad. US, Iraqi forces kill 9 insurgents, detain 13.

It quoted a US lieutenant as saying: Nine insurgents were killed in the ensuing firefight. One insurgent was wounded and two civilians were killed during the firefight. The two civilians were reported as employees for the Reuters news service. There is no question that Coalition Forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force.

Yates, shaking his head, says: The US assertions that Namir and Saeed were killed during a firefight was all lies. But I didnt know that at the time, so I updated my story to take in the US militarys statement.

It was a shocking time for locally engaged staff of foreign news organisations in Baghdad. On 13 July, the day of Namir and Saeeds funerals, Khalid Hassan, a New York Times reporter/translator, was shot dead.

After the funerals Yates pressed the US military for Namirs cameras and for access to cameras and air-to-ground recordings involving the Apache that killed his colleagues.

On 14 July, Yates learned that militants had murdered a Reuters Iraqi text translator.

In an effort to save employees lives, he began collaborating with other foreign news organisation managers to engage with the US military to better understand its rules of engagement.

We dealt with them in good faith, he says. What a joke that turned out to be.

On 15 July the US military returned Namirs cameras. Namir had photographed the aftermath of an earlier shooting and, a few minutes later (just before his death), US military Humvees at a nearby crossroads. There were no frames of insurgent gunmen or clashes with US forces. Date and time stamps show that three hours after Namir died his camera photographed a US soldier in a barrack or tent. The troops who mopped up the killing scene evidentlymessed around with his cameras afterwards.

Reuters staff had by now spoken to 14 witnesses in al-Amin. All of them said they were unaware of any firefight that might have prompted the helicopter strike.

Yates recalls: The words that kept forming on my lips were cold-blooded murder.

The Iraqi staff at Reuters, meanwhile, were concerned that the bureau was too soft on the US military. But I could only write what we could establish and the US military was insisting Saeed and Namir were killed during a clash, Yates says.

The meeting that put him on a path of destructive, paralysing eventually suicidal guilt and blame that basically fucked me up for the next 10 years, leaving him in a state of moral injury, happened at US military headquarters in the Green Zone on 25 July.

Yates and a Reuters colleague met the two US generals who had overseen the investigation into the killings of Namir and Saeed.

It was a long, off-the-record meeting. The generals revealed a mass of detail, telling them a US battalion had been seeking militias responsible for roadside bombs. They had called in helicopter support after coming under fire. One Apache had the call sign Crazy Horse 1-8.

They described a group of men spotted by this Apache, Yates says. Some appeared to be armed and Crazy Horse 1-8 had requested permission to fire because we were told these men were military-aged males and they appeared to have weapons and they were acting suspiciously. So, we were told those men on the ground were then engaged.

The generals showed them photographs of what was collected after the shooting, including a couple of AK-47s [assault rifles], an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] launcher and two cameras.

I have wondered for many years how much of that meeting was carefully choreographed so we would go away with a certain impression of what happened. Well, for a time it worked, Yates says.

There was some discussion about what permitted Crazy Horse 1-8 to open fire if there was no firefight. One of the generals insisted the dead were of military age and, because apparently armed, were therefore expressing hostile intent.

Yates says: Then they said, OK, we are just going to show you a little bit of footage from the camera of Crazy Horse 1-8.

The generals showed them about three minutes of video, beginning with a group including Saeed and Namir on the street.

We heard the pilot seek permission from the ground to attack. After the pilot receives permission, the men are obscured. The chopper circles for a clear aim.

Yates says: When the chopper circled around, Namir can be seen going to a corner and crouching down holding something his long-lens camera and is taking photographs of Humvees. One of the crew says, Hes got an RPG Hes clearly agitated. And then another 15, 20 seconds the crew gets a clear line of sight Im watching Namir crouching down with his camera which the pilot thinks is an RPG and theyre about to open fire. I then see a man I believe to be Saeed walking away, talking on the phone. Then cannon fire hits them. Ive got my head in my hands The generals stop the tape.

The generals downplayed a slightly later incident when they said a van had pulled up and Crazy Horse 1-8 assessed it as aiding the insurgents, removing their bodies and weapons.

At some point after watching that footage it became burnt into my mind that the reason the helicopter opened fire was because Namir was peering around the corner. I came to blame Namir for that attack, thinking that the helicopter fired because he made himself look suspicious and it just erased from my memory the fact that the order to open fire had already been given. They were going to open fire anyway. And the one person who picked this up was Assange. On the day that he released the tape [5 April 2010] he said that helicopter opened fire because it sought permission and was given permission. And he said something like, If thats based on the rules of engagement then the rules of engagement are wrong.

Reuters asked for the entire video. The general refused, saying Reuters had to seek it under freedom of information laws.The agency did so, but its requests were denied.

During the next year, Yates checked when it might be released. All the while he and other executives from foreign news organisations continued their good faith meetings with various US generals to enhance the safety of their Baghdad staff.

On the anniversary of Namirs and Saeeds killings, Yates wanted to break the off-the-record agreement with the generals. He argued that enough time had passed for the Pentagon to give Reuters the tape. His superiors insisted the agreement be honoured. A passage in the article he wrote for the anniversary read: Video from two US Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in Baghdad on July 25, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing.

Yates stayed in Baghdad until October 2008. He did not get the full video. Reuters continued to ask for it. Yates was reassigned to Singapore. He displayed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, including noise aversion and emotional numbness. He avoided anything to do with Iraq and had trouble sleeping.

On 5 April 2010, when Wikileaks released Collateral Murder at the National Press Club in Washington, rendering himself and WikiLeaks household names (and exposing how the US prosecuted the Iraq war on the ground), Yates was off the grid,walking in Cradle Mountain national park on a Tasmanian holiday with his wife, Mary, and their children.

Namir and Saeed would have remained forgotten statistics in a war that killed countless Iraqi combatants, hundreds of thousands of civilians and 4,400-plus US soldiers had it not been for Chelsea Manning, a US military intelligence analyst in Baghdad. In February 2010 Manning, then 23, discovered the Crazy Horse 1-8 video and leaked it to WikiLeaks. The previous month Manning had leaked 700,000 classified US military documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. Assange unveiled the Crazy Horse 1-8 footage (a 17-minute edited version and the full 38-minute version remain on WikiLeaks Collateral Murder site). The video was picked up by thousands of news organisations worldwide, sparking global outrage and condemnation of US military tactics in Iraq and launching WikiLeaks as a controversial truth-teller, publisher and critical enemy of state secrecy. WikiLeaks later made public the cache of 700,000 documents.

Collateral Murder is distressing viewing. The carnage wrought by the 30mm cannon fire from the Apache helicopter is devastating. The video shows the gunner tracking Namir as he stumbles and tries to hide behind garbage before his body explodes as the rounds strike home.

The words of the crew are sickening.

There is this, after Namir and others are blown apart:

Look at those dead bastards.

Nice.

And this:

Good shootn.

Thank you.

Saeed survives the first shots. The chopper circles, Saeed in its sights, as he crawls, badly injured and desperate to live.

Come on buddy all you got to do is pick up a weapon, the gunner says, eager to finish Saeed off.

A van pulls up. Two men, including the driver (whose children are in the back), help the dying Saeed get in.

There is more urgent banter in the air about engaging the van. Crazy Horse 1-8 promptly attacks it.

Oh yeah, look at that. Right through the windshield.

Two days after Assange released the video, Yates emerged from Cradle Mountain. It was hours before he turned on his phone and checked emails, finally learning of Collateral Murder in a local newspaper.

I thought, No, this cant be the same attack that leads on to all this other stuff that we never knew about This was the full horror Saeed had been trying to get up for roughly three minutes when this good Samaritan pulls over in this minivan and the Apache just opens fire again and just obliterates them it was totally traumatising.

Yates immediately thought: They [the US military] fucked us. They just fucked us. They lied to us. It was all lies.

The day Collateral Murder was released, a spokesman for US Central Command said an investigation of the incident shortly after it occurred found that US forces were not aware of the presence of the news staffers and thought they were engaging armed insurgents.

We regret the loss of innocent life, but this incident was promptly investigated and there was never any attempt to cover up any aspect of this engagement.

Edited into the story Reuters published about Collateral Murder was that line from Yatess first anniversary article: Video from two US Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in Baghdad on July 25, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing.

Reuters outraged Iraqi staff were under the misapprehension Yates had seen the whole video.

I hate to admit it, but this was my chance to set the record straight and I didnt do it, Yates says. I just, I dont know, didnt have the courage to do it I shouldve picked up the phone and said to [Reuters] we cannot let this go and we have to say what we knew.

In one email to a senior editor that night, Yates wrote: I think we need to push the issue of transparency strongly with the US military When I think back to that meeting with two generals in Baghdad I feel cheated they were not being honest We met afterwards with the military several times to work on improving safety for reporters in Iraq.

The editor replied: I appreciate how awful this is for you. Take good care; rest assured that were not letting this drop.

Then Yates let it go.

How shameful it is to the military they know that theres potential war crimes on that tape

He moved to Tasmania, endured PTSD and eventually, after three inpatient stays at Austin Healths Ward 17 in Melbourne (a specialist unit for PTSD) grappled with his emotional pain the moral injury now articulated in his shoulder tattoo over the deaths of Namir and Saeed. Reuters paid for his treatment in Ward 17 and agreed to create the role of head of mental health and wellbeing strategy for him when he could no longer work as a journalist (he has now left the company).

It was in Ward 17, in 2016 and 2017, that he came to understand the moral injury he was enduring by unfairly blaming Namir for making Crazy Horse 1-8 open fire. The other element of his moral injury related to his shame at failing to protect his staff by uncovering the lax rules of engagement in the US military before they were shot and for not disclosing earlier his understanding of the extent to which the US had lied. Yates made peace with Namir and Saeed and himself.

Assange, he says, brought the truth of the killings to the world and exposed the lie that he and others had not.

What he did was 100% an act of truth-telling, exposing to the world what the war in Iraq looks like and how the US military lied.

Of the US indictment against Assange, Yates says: The US knows how embarrassing Collateral Murder is, how shameful it is to the military they know that theres potential war crimes on that tape, especially when it comes to the shooting up of the van They know that the banter between the pilots echoes the sort of language that kids would use on video games.

Fight Back, read the words inked on to Yatess left shoulder.

Amid the continuing attempt to extradite Assange to the US, many more words are likely to be spoken about the events of 12 July 2007, the lies of the US military and their exposure through Collateral Murder.

Original post:
'All lies': how the US military covered up gunning down two journalists in Iraq - The Guardian