Brian Armstrong: Cryptocurrency Boom Will Spawn Millions of Tokens – The Daily Hodl

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong says hes taking a Google or Amazon approach to distinguish solid projects and tokens from those with low value that could tarnish the entire industry.

In an ask-me-anything session for Coinbase Pro on YouTube, Armstrong responds to a question about why he decided to open up the leading US cryptocurrency exchange to more than just Bitcoin, and how he intends to spot low-quality coins and keep them out of the mix. Armstrong, who first explored Bitcoin in December of 2010 when he read the white paper, founded Coinbase in June of 2012.

Coinbase started and we were just Bitcoin, and there was really part of me that was hoping from a simplicity of the product point of view I was like, I really just hope everything is going to be Bitcoin, because then we dont have to give people this idea of choosing different ones or switching between them.

But after input from customers, the Bitcoin-only model changed.

Wed always go talk to our customers, and we see what they want. And it became clear at a certain point that more and more of them wanted to use Ethereum.

We kind of resisted for a while, but then we were like, alright, lets put the second one in there. And then there was a third, then there was a fourth. And now its getting into this place where I dont know how many if we fast forward five years, Im not sure how many protocols there are going to be globally used. That might end up being like fiat currencies, where there are five or six majors and a whole bunch of minor ones. But I do think there will be millions of tokens.

There could be a token for every company or side project or GitHub repo or nonprofit. So I think that ship has sailed at this point. Were going to be in a world with many, many tokens

How do we add the ones that dont tarnish the brand or the whole industry? Because there are a lot of projects out there that are just probably outright scams. Thats not good for anybody. So heres the way I think about this now. I think about it a lot like Google or Amazon.

Armstrong says the general idea is to list everything thats not a scam or harmful to people, while also giving traders and investors the tools to evaluate different tokens and coins.

A good example is Amazon. There might be a product on there that has two out of five stars, and you can choose whether or not to buy it. But if its not like a fraudulent product or something, theyre not actually going to remove it, right?

Similarly, Google theyre going to index the whole web. If they didnt index the whole web and show results for the whole web, it would be an incomplete search engine. But if there is some site that has malware or the HTTPS certificate has expired or whatever, they might show you a warning, and theyre not going to let you do something that actually hurts you.

But theyre not going to try to tell you what you should or should not look at or use on the internet, unless they think its really dangerous. They just think its low-quality. They might rank it lower or give it a lower rating. So thats, I think, the world were moving to with Coinbase, and hopefully that is the best of both worlds.

l

Featured Image: Shutterstock/Yevhen Vitte

See the rest here:
Brian Armstrong: Cryptocurrency Boom Will Spawn Millions of Tokens - The Daily Hodl

Breaking The Safe-Haven Narrative Of Cryptocurrency: What’s Next? – Forbes

For years, the cryptocurrency industry has attempted to propagate a specific narrative around cryptocurrency, which is that it acts as a "safe-haven" asset, a way to park capital in the face of unpredictable, extreme market events, otherwise known as "black swan" events.

The theory could be seen as an argument from ignorance, because it was asserted that crypto was a safe haven primarily because that had not yet been proven false. Without a black swan event, it was easy to claim that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin would remain stable in the face of severe market downturns.

In just the past couple of months, this has all been turned on its head.

In late 2019, articles came out about a "mystery pneumonia," including quotes that "theres no need to panic" and that "it should be not serious [sic]." Soon, the virus spread, becoming an epidemic in China and now a global pandemic.

Investors have panicked, and perhaps rightfully so. The Dow experienced its largest drop since the 2008 recession, and entire industries are crashing down. For instance, the S&P 500 Airlines Industry Index has experienced a more dramatic decline than even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Black swan events and viruses aren't new after all, that's why they have names. We've seen them before, from the Spanish flu to SARS to the Great Recession.

The difference here is that COVID-19 may be the most impactful pandemic we've seen during the digital economy. More and more markets are reliant on the digital economy, and cryptocurrency is more deeply intertwined with the digital economy than anything else.

Without a history of a pandemic in the digital economy to look back to, it's anyone's guess as to how cryptocurrency investors will continue to react to the coronavirus. Without a doubt, the market hasn't seen the full impact of COVID-19 yet.

Unfortunately, cryptocurrency markets have reacted similarly to traditional markets. While true safe-haven assets like gold have remained relatively steady in value, Bitcoin is plummeting alongside its traditional market counterparts.

If the safe-haven narrative is broken, then what's the true narrative? The reality is, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies hold value outside of being a safe haven.

For starters, crypto is just the tip of the iceberg, representing the beginning of the blockchain industry. Investors might be shocked at Bitcoin's recent performance, but keep in mind that Bitcoin does not reflect the industry as a whole.

Other blockchain innovations, such as tokenized fundsand "crypto for good" projects, march on, regardless of Bitcoin's volatility.

For the blockchain industry, this narrative shift is a good thing. The less of a focus on price, the better. The real narrative should focus on innovation and all the improvements blockchain can bring, rather than the ever-changing price.

This is all the more reason to shift our attention away from price for good. Of course, "innovation" is a vague term, and even more so in the blockchain world, so examples are called for.

We find examples aplenty from corporations to governments to startups. For example, Forbes lists 50 billion-dollar corporations innovating on the blockchain, counting giants from Amazon to Walmart. Governments from Dubai to Estonia have made blockchain a core part of their digital strategies.

Perhaps most importantly, everyday people are using the blockchain, and that isn't changing. Sure, price is still critical to pay attention to, and if you're going to invest, do it right and diversify, so you don't suffer from the immense volatility of a single asset, like Bitcoin.

However, price does not have to, and should not, dominate the blockchain narrative. In the future, I hope blockchain headlines will read along the lines of "You Can Contribute To Clean Energy With The Blockchain," and not "Bitcoin Price Is Up/Down."

We have a long way to go, but I believe cryptocurrency's status as a safe-haven asset being tested is helping, not hurting.

See the original post here:
Breaking The Safe-Haven Narrative Of Cryptocurrency: What's Next? - Forbes

3 things that happen to the cryptocurrency markets during times of economic uncertainty – Big Think

Although nobody knows yet what the outcome of the global coronavirus crisis will look like, there is one conclusion on which everyone seems to agree. The economic fallout is going to be significant. Last week, the US government signed off on a $2 trillion relief bill, and governments around the world are printing money in an attempt to stave off a pending financial crisis.

No cryptocurrency has ever gone through a full economic cycle. Bitcoin was born from the depths of the 2008 global financial crisis. Famously, Bitcoin's genesis block contains the headline from The Times on the date that creator Satoshi Nakamoto mined the first ever Bitcoin: "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks."

So, until now, despite rampant speculation, it's been difficult to predict what might happen to cryptocurrencies when the economy takes a nosedive. However, the last couple of months, as the coronavirus has unfolded, have given us an idea of a few significant trends.

The idea of Bitcoin as "digital gold" has been around for a while. It's true that the two assets share some similarities: a price driven by the forces of supply and demand and limitations on supply, for example. However, whether or not investors would treat Bitcoin as a "safe haven" investment during times of turmoil in the stock market hadn't been proven.

On March 12, as the global stock markets plummeted and circuit breakers halted trading on the NYSE, the price of cryptocurrencies also took a nosedive. Bitcoin lost more than 40% of its value the biggest single-day percentage drop in price since 2013.

However, on that day, gold held its price. Critics were quick to point out that the "digital gold" theory had been debunked, but perhaps they were a little too quick. Over the days that followed, gold recorded its sharpest drop in a single week, losing around 12% of its price.

Since then, the price of both assets has recovered somewhat, although Bitcoin to a lesser extent than gold, after recording a more significant decrease. Nevertheless, according to data aggregator Skew, Bitcoin and gold are showing record correlation levels of more than 50%, perhaps demonstrating that in times of economic uncertainty, the concept of Bitcoin as digital gold is more accurate than it initially seemed.

March 12 was a pivotal moment on the cryptocurrency markets across derivatives, too. Before the coronavirus started to take hold, Bitcoin futures had been enjoying something of a moment. According to Skew, total open interest had more than doubled from around $2.2 billion in November 2019, to $5 billion in mid-February.

On March 12 and 13, as the price of Bitcoin dropped precipitously, crypto exchanges liquidated millions of dollars' worth of long positions.

Market leader BitMEX came under particular fire, as it had experienced two 25-minute outages meaning traders had no access to their accounts to top up margin or take any actions to hedge their positions. Traders on BitMEX saw over $1.5 billion of positions liquidated in the space of two days.

Since mid-March, open interest in both crypto-backed futures and options has taken a hit across the board, decreasing back to the same levels seen six months ago.

This drop illustrates the extent of investor panic, withdrawing from speculating even with short positions. It will be intriguing to see how quickly the crypto derivatives markets recover from this blow over the coming months, given that 2019 was a period of massive growth in these markets.

Stablecoins were another asset class that was burgeoning before panic surrounding COVID-19 took hold. Because they're pegged to fiat currencies such as the USD, stablecoins had become the go-to currencies for traders entering and exiting positions. In 2019, the most popular stablecoin, Tether (USDT), had doubled its market cap from $2 billion to $4 billion, and overtaken Bitcoin as the most traded cryptocurrency.

During the market turmoil in March, while the rest of the market tanked, Tether came out smelling of roses. The market cap of USDT gained a further $1.5 billion in the second half of March alone, as Tether Limited attempted to mint enough stablecoins to meet the demand of investors keen to convert their gains or losses to a more predictable asset.

Sam Bankman-Fried, CEO of FTX Exchange and rapidly becoming something of a sage on crypto-Twitter, attributed Tether's March explosion to a flow of OTC originating in Asia, along with investors converting their Bitcoins to Tether as a means of hedging and reducing risk.

The cryptocurrency markets are always notoriously volatile, even when the rest of the economy is sailing in smooth waters.

However, the events in March have provided a flavor of what we can expect from the crypto markets once the traditional markets experience tumult. Whether these trends continue to play out as the coronavirus bites harder, remains to be seen.

Original post:
3 things that happen to the cryptocurrency markets during times of economic uncertainty - Big Think

Is XRP Decentralized? Ripple’s Involvement in the Cryptocurrency – Crypto Briefing

Ripple is adamant that XRP is decentralized. The evidence disagrees.

XRP is a cryptocurrency aimed at reducing the friction between foreign exchange transactions. Like the oil in a car, it helps banks transfer money by increasing the availability, or liquidity, of seldom-used currency pairs.

By lubricating these gears, Ripple claims that it can help reduce the cash that money transmitters and banks need to have on-hand. This cash is then freed up, allowing the company to invest it or use it for other purposes, saving them money.

There is, however, substantial controversy around XRP. The main company behind the cryptocurrency, Ripple, claims that it is decentralized.

XRP Ledger is inherently decentralized, said Ripple CTO David Schwartz. By design, the XRP Ledger is alsoif not more sodecentralized than both Bitcoin and Ethereum.

To further emphasize the decentralized nature of its cryptoasset, the company has attempted to distance itself from XRPs creation. XRP ledger existed before Ripple the company, said Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse. We own a lot of XRP. But its a little bit like saying, Exxon owns a lot of oil.

Like Exxon, Ripple is merely the company that is delivering XRP to the financial engines in need of lubrication, or so they claim. Yet, theres substantial evidence suggesting that XRP is, in fact, almost wholly controlled by Ripple.

Unlike what executives would like investors to believe, Ripple was not gifted XRP from the people who created it. XRP and its ledger were launched in 2013 by current Ripple executive chairman Chris Larsen, as well as Jed McCaleb and Arthur Britto, who later split from the project.

The digital asset was initially created under a corporation known as Newcoin in 2012. A month later, the company was renamed to OpenCoin. Finally, in 2013, the company was renamed again to Ripple Labs and incorporated in California.

This was then merged as a subsidiary under a Delaware corporation known as Ripple Labs in 2014, the same Ripple that operates today.

Further evidence that Ripple created XRP is a trademark filed in 2013, roughly six months after the network was launched. Though originally registered by OpenCoin, Ripple is the current owner of the trademark.

Even the company itself has, in the past, said that it created XRP. For all intents and purposes, Ripple appears to have created XRP.

The line of succession is clear. As said by Preston Byrne, an attorney that specializes in blockchain technology: Yes, Ripple created XRP, they own most of it and it was issued after company formation.

In 2012, Ripple founders Chris Larsen, Jed McCaleb, and Arthur Britto signed an agreement allocating 80% of the total XRP supply to the company while the remaining 20% was split between the three founders.

A few months later XRP Ledger was launched and 100 billion XRP was created and divided between the founders and the company.

These coins were sold over the years to fund the development of the company, secure partnerships, and pay market makers to improve exchange availability. Some seven years later, the company still has control of more than 60 billion of these tokens, more than half the supply. If these were sold at current prices, theyd be worth more than $15 billion.

These coins are sold regularly every quarter, usually to the tune of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Ripple, company insiders, and their partners largely control the XRP supply.

Many investors are frustrated that these sales suppress potential price appreciation. And, theyre probably right.

The final factor that points to the centralization of the XRP Ledger is how its blockchain operates.

Like Bitcoin, the XRP Ledger is composed of a collection of nodes, computers that run the software supporting a blockchain.

However, unlike Bitcoin, XRP does not select blocks of transactions through proof-of-work, a lottery where tickets are acquired using computer power. Instead, it uses its own systemthe Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm, or RPCA.

Another feature that sets proof-of-work and RPCA apart is that nodes running RPCA are uncompensated. Theyre volunteers that incur thousands of dollars of expenses a year (assuming theyre not one of Ripples own nodes).

Out of nearly 1,000 nodes, a group of 33 are selected by the whole group to finalize transactions. This smaller group is called the Unique Node List, or UNL. When 80% of these 33 come to an agreement, a transaction is finalized.

But heres where the problem arisesRipple, the company, selects the default Unique Node List. When a volunteer spins up a node, these are the ones voted for by default to finalize transactions. Theoretically, different nodes outside of those recommended by Ripple could be selected, but thats seldom the case.

Since the launch of the ledger, there are few documented cases of nodes outside of the default UNL gaining access to one of the privileged spots. On top of that, Ripple directly controls six of these nodes and indirectly controls at least four more through grants.

What if someone doesnt like this state of affairs? Schwartz says that someone could fork away from the XRP Ledger should they disagree with the company. That is possible, on paper. But, because of the control Ripple exerts over the ledger this has never happened.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin has had over 100 forks while Ethereum has had at least six forks. These are a testament to the decentralization of the two projects.

Its likely that the answer to whether XRP is decentralized or not could have huge legal ramifications for Ripple (and investors).

If these coins were issued to raise money, then it could attract unwelcome attention from regulatorsthe Securities Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

If the SEC, for example, were to deem XRP a security it could have dire consequences for its usefulness for exchange transactions. In fact, one such case is moving through the California court system right now.

It also has a large impact on investors. If Ripple were to decide one day that it would stop working on XRP, then the token may as well be worthless. In contrast to Bitcoin, because of its many contributors, the loss of any one company would not sink BTC.

In all, these factors point to one conclusion. Ripple experts have enough control over XRP where it would not be considered decentralized.

Original post:
Is XRP Decentralized? Ripple's Involvement in the Cryptocurrency - Crypto Briefing

These are the main factors to consider before investing in the cryptocurrency market – CryptoSlate

Investing has never been easier now that on-chain metrics enable market participants to determine who is on the other side of the trade. While this is only possible in the cryptocurrency market, IntoTheBlock maintains that this data can empower investors worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief, one of the biggest advantages of the cryptocurrency market is transparency. Through on-chain analytics anyone can determine how many investors are in a given asset, when they bought, and what their cost basis is. These key datasets are essential to determine which digital asset to invest in.

IntoTheBlock uses machine learning and statistical modeling to provide a view of a crypto assets profitability and capital stack. Bitcoin, for instance, is a great example of decentralization, which makes it ideal to consider as an investment vehicle, according to the firm.

The flagship cryptocurrency only has one whale that holds 1.4 percent of its circulating supply. This address has approximately 255,100 BTC and belongs to Singapore-based cryptocurrency exchange Huobi. The other 98.6 percent of the total Bitcoin in circulation is distributed among investors and retail investors. The former holds 10.1 percent while the latter keeps 88.5 percent.

Not only Bitcoin is decentralized, but the amount of holders in the network is at all-time highs, according to IntoTheBlock.

The Ownership by Time Held model estimates that nearly 30 millon addresses have a balance in Bitcoin. Currently, almost 63 percent of those addresses are holding 10.8 million BTC for more than a year. This represents a 23.7 percent growth since last year.

IntoTheBlock added:

To give you more accurate information about this we can see that the number of Bitcoins that hasnt been moved in over 5 years is up from 3.6m BTC on April of 2019 to 3.95m BTC on April of this year.

Other assets such as Maker do not provide the same levels of decentralization as Bitcoin and most of its investors will be in the red if they were to sell their tokens today.

In fact, IntoTheBlocks Global In/Out of the Money model shows that 89 percent of the addresses holding MKR are losing money while only 3 percent of addresses are in the money.

On-chain metrics also reveal that of the 57,520 addresses holding Maker, just 13 of them control almost 65 percent of the circulating supply. And, there is one address that holds nearly 25 percent of the circulating supply.

IntoTheBlock maintains that this could suggest that if anyone were to buy MKR, there is one major address would probably be the one dumping their tokens at a profit.

The ability to determine how centralized an asset is, how large holders can manipulate its price, or how confident investors are is only possible with this new asset class. Although this is not enough data to consider whether or not a given cryptocurrency provides a good investment opportunity, counter-party analysis makes this decision easier.

Continue reading here:
These are the main factors to consider before investing in the cryptocurrency market - CryptoSlate

Binance to Launch Its Own Cryptocurrency Mining Pool – CryptoGlobe

eading cryptocurrency exchange Binance is set to launch its own mining pool in the near future.

The move was first reported on by Russian news outlet Coinlife. Reacting to reports the companys CEO Changpeng Zhao ended up confirming the move in a tweet, where he added that Binance will offer users a series of financial products that will include savings, loans, staking, and ways to earn.

Coinlife reported, citing sources familiar with the matter, that Binance has already hired specialists to work on the new cryptocurrency mining pool. CoinDesk cited Jakhon Khabilov, head of the Sigmapool mining pool, saying Binance is offering generous referral bonuses while reaching out to miners in China.

Alejandro de la Torre, vice president of popular mining pool Pooling, noted that exchanges can be motivated to enter the cryptocurrency mining space as its the cheapest way for them to add liquidity to their platforms.

Binances move follows the footsteps of its competitors OKEx and Huobi, which launched their own cryptocurrency mining pools un August and September respectively. As CryptoGlboe reported, OKExs Pool has even taken a stance in EOS security and stability after topping the EOS Block Producer (BP) rankings.

Last month, Binance announced the launch of its own cryptocurrency-backed Visa debit card. The card, called Binance Card, will initially be available in Malaysia before rolling out to the rest of the world, and can be topped up with Bitcoin (BTC) or Binance Coin (BNB) that users hold in their Binance accounts.

Featured image via Pixabay.

Originally posted here:
Binance to Launch Its Own Cryptocurrency Mining Pool - CryptoGlobe

Better Than Bitcoin? Charles Hoskinson Says Cardano Will Become Best Cryptocurrency in the World This Year – The Daily Hodl

The creator of Cardano says the smart contract platform will become technologically superior to Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and every other blockchain in the industry this year.

In a new Periscope video on the future of Cardano, Charles Hoskinson says advancements in smart contracts and wallets in recent years have been revolutionary, and he believes Cardano is pulling all the pieces together to become the most advanced blockchain in existence.

The improvements are poised to make Cardanos native crypto asset ADA the best cryptocurrency on the planet, according to Hoskinson, who also co-created Ethereum.

These are amazing achievements in a very short period of time. They were incredibly expensive in terms of thought, time and money. But they were achievements nonetheless. And they are achievements that have moved the entire state of the industry forward.

So this year is the year you see all those components come together and this is the year you see Cardano basically ascend to the best cryptocurrency in the world. There really is going to be nothing on market thats as good as what were delivering this year. Because at the end of the day we have it all.

Well have a loading system. Well have a smart contract system. Well have a multi-asset standard. Well have an identity standard. Well have the scalability required to meet all of the growth demands that we need. We have a very clear interoperability story. We have a clear idea of how were going to communicate with other systems. We have a great way for academics to get involved. We have a great way for the community to get involved.

And no matter what group youre in, whether youre in the group of people who buy ADA or trade it, whether youre in the group of people who develop on the platform, the people who govern the platform or the people who operate the platform, were going to be best in class in all of those things. And thats what were delivering, and thats what were committed to deliver throughout 2020.

As confident as Hoskinson is in the operational superiority of Cardano, he cautions that this doesnt mean it automatically becomes the most popular or widely used platform in the industry.

That, he says, will depend on the success of the Cardano Foundation and the commercial venture incubator Emurgo.

Its an open debate about what makes us competitive and what will bring new users into the ecosystem and whats commercially critical infrastructure. And thats an ecosystem play. So it means Emurgo has to step up. It means the Foundation has to step up, and this is what they were funded for and why they exist.

Featured Image: Shutterstock/zhu difeng

More here:
Better Than Bitcoin? Charles Hoskinson Says Cardano Will Become Best Cryptocurrency in the World This Year - The Daily Hodl

The Coder and the Dictator – Moneycontrol

Just after midnight one Tuesday in early 2018, the vice president of Venezuela commandeered the nations TV airwaves. Looking composed despite the hour, in a blue suit and red tie, he announced that the government was about to make history by becoming the first on Earth to sell its own cryptocurrency. It would be known as the Petro.

Three blocks away, in the vice presidents sprawling offices, Gabriel Jimnez was sitting blearily at an enormous glass conference table, pounding away at a laptop. Powerful air-conditioners chilled the air to a crisp. Lanky, with big black glasses set between a scruffy beard and a receding hairline, Jimnez had spent months designing and coding every detail of the Petro. Now, alongside his lead programmer, he was racing to make it operational, despite the fact that basic decisions had still not been made.

Just after the vice president signed off the air, his chief of staff burst into the office, furious. Jimnez couldnt understand something about typos on a website, an embarrassment to the nation. The chief brought in two guards, armed with military rifles, and told Jimnez and his programmer that they were forbidden to leave. If they made any attempt to communicate with the outside world, they would be on their way to El Helicoide. It was a distinctly Venezuelan symbol of terror: a futuristic mall project, with car ramps between stores, converted into a political prison and centre of torture.

Below the table, Jimnez furtively texted his wife. Although she had recently left him, he asked her to send him a hug and to tell his father that he was in trouble.

Jimnez was finally released just before sunrise. When he made it to his apartment, he burst into sobs. Before he had time to collect himself, he got a call. The president himself, Nicols Maduro, requested his presence. Jimnez walked to the presidential palace, pushing his way through the crowds outside with a sense of exhaustion and dread.

A few months earlier, the idea that Jimnez would be called before the tyrant who ruled Venezuela would have been unimaginable. Jimnez was just 27, ran a tiny startup, and had spent years protesting the dictator. Maduro had not just mismanaged his country into a financial crisis he had detained, tortured and murdered those who challenged his power.

But whatever Jimnez felt about the regime, he felt just as strongly about the potential of cryptocurrency. When the Maduro administration approached him about creating a digital coin, Jimnez saw an opportunity to change his country from within. If a national cryptocurrency was done right, Jimnez believed, he could give the government what it wanted a way to fight hyperinflation while also stealthily introducing technology that would give Venezuelans a measure of freedom from a government that dictated every detail of daily life.

His friends and family warned him that working with the regime could only end badly. The person overseeing the effort, Vice President Tareck El Aissami, had been called a drug kingpin by the US government and would soon be named to a federal Most Wanted list. Jimnez acknowledged the danger, but he talked about the Petro as a Trojan horse that would sneak in the kind of reforms that he and the opposition had been dreaming about for years.

The years 2017 and 2018 were full of drama for everyone in the crypto world, as the price of bitcoins shot up more than 1,000 percent before crashing. Billion-dollar fortunes were made and lost. But perhaps no one had as perilous a ride as Jimnez. His faith in digital currency transported him from obscurity to the centre of his countrys dark institutions of power. He found himself negotiating directly with Maduro and his top deputies, who often praised his ingenuity before escalating threats to Jimnezs life drove him into exile.

The actual goal of the project was to change the economic model of the oppressive regime, he told The Times recently. This was my mission and my gamble, in a bet that ended costing everything I had in my life: my friends, my partners, my reputation, my love, my company and my country.

Jimnez has been identified as the author of the Petro before, but he has never told his story. This account is based on hundreds of pages of confidential emails, text messages and government documents, as well as interviews with more than a dozen people who were involved with the project. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity because they still live in Venezuela, where openly criticizing the government can quickly lead to prison or death.

Jimnez was part of an educated class that was naturally drawn to the opposition. After college in Caracas, Jimnez spent a few years in the United States studying, getting married and doing what he could to oppose Chvez and his successor, Maduro. He also interned for a Republican congresswoman from Miami who regularly criticised the Venezuelan regime. When reformers won parliamentary elections in 2015, Jimnez felt compelled to return to his country to take part in the political opening.

Jimnez and his wife landed in Caracas in early 2016 and found a nation on the brink. Oil prices had plunged, sending Maduro into a money-printing frenzy. As bolvares became worthless, medicine disappeared, refugees drowned and children starved.

Jimnez was fairly insulated. He had founded a startup, The Social Us, that connected Venezuelan programmers and designers with US companies looking for cheap labour. Like many wealthier Venezuelans, Jimnez kept almost all his money in dollars, but this made transactions a headache. He had to illegally swap currency every few days, and a taxi ride would require a stack of bolvares so thick that most drivers accepted only wire transfers.

The situation rekindled Jimnezs long-running interest in cryptocurrencies. He began paying his employees in a digital coin; even with the crazy volatility of the crypto markets, it was more stable than a Venezuelan bank account, and it wasnt subject to the Maduro regimes diktats. The staff at The Social Us began touting cryptocurrency as a way for ordinary Venezuelans growing numbers of whom were buying bitcoins on the street to deal with practical problems. One project they designed was a payment terminal that bypassed government limits on spending.

Initially, the Maduro regime saw Bitcoin as a threat. The technology, after all, used a decentralised network to create and move money, and no authority was in charge. But then some members of the government noticed that this cut both ways. Cryptocurrency could also be a way for Venezuela to escape sanctions levied by the United States and international organizations.

In September 2017, an official loyal to Maduro floated the idea of a digital currency backed by Venezuelas oil reserves. This was unorthodox: One of the tenets of Bitcoin is that its value does not derive from a natural resource or government fiat, only the laws of mathematics. But the distinction faded in the face of Venezuelas desperation. The official, Carlos Vargas, read about Jimnezs crypto work in a local publication and asked for a meeting.

Soon the hulking form of Vargas arrived at the office of The Social Us. As he consumed an entire bag of potato chips, Vargas flattered the young digital workers, saying they were among the only people in Venezuela capable of creating what he had proposed. The idea was exactly what Jimnez had hoped to hear. The goal was to create a new Venezuelan currency that would move freely over an open network, like Bitcoin. The government would be unable to control or bungle it. Vargas wanted to call it the Petro Global Coin, but Jimnez suggested something simpler: the Petro.

The Social Us put together a short pitch deck for the Petro project. But Venezuela is filled with people proposing crazy schemes, and Jimnez didnt put too much stock in it. Then, in early December, when Jimnez was at a conference in Colombia, he got an urgent text. Maduro had just announced a national cryptocurrency called the Petro. Jimnez threw open his laptop and found a video of the president, in his usual workmans shirt, telling a whooping crowd, This is something momentous.

Jimnez dashed off a message to Vargas: Did they just steal our project?

Vargas replied, This is the project. They just approved it. Come back right away.

The vice president was friendly and curious, and suggested that this was Jimnezs project they were just there to learn from him. El Aissami wanted to know how many petros there would be and whether new ones could be mined like bitcoins. Jimnez thought that the officials didnt have a particularly clear idea of how cryptocurrencies worked.

After the call, Jimnez emailed his employees to be at the office for an early meeting. When everyone had gathered, he stood on a desk and said they should drop all other projects and focus on the Petro. People were free to leave, he said, but if they did this right, it was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to change Venezuela. We will liberate people from government controls, he said.

Jimnez opted to base the Petro on Ethereum, Bitcoins leading competitor, which would allow it to trade in the kind of free, publicly visible market that was otherwise forbidden in Venezuela. No one on the government side seemed to be worried about this or even aware of it.

As promised, Jimnez presented his plans for the Petro in late December, at a daylong conference at the central bank that included a handful of US crypto experts. When Vargas the newly appointed superintendent of Venezuelan cryptoassets got onstage, he seemed to have imbibed Jimnezs heretical views. We talk about the need to transform our system and move to a new economic system, Vargas said.

The real conversation, though, happened after the conference adjourned. Vargas told Jimnez and the Americans that the president himself wanted to meet.

It was night time, and a van took them through heavily armed roadblocks to the military base where the president kept his personal home, known as La Roca. It had a plainness that none of them had expected. An aging Chevy Camaro sat in the courtyard, next to a childs trampoline.

The air conditioner above the door was buzzing. The president asked the vice president if he would fix it. In his Adidas tracksuit, he stood on the couch and whacked the unit a few times. For Jimnez, there was a certain comfort in seeing the lack of luxury, given the privation in the rest of Venezuela.

Maduro was dressed casually, sitting on a couch with his wife, next to other top officials. He shook hands with everyone and made conversation in broken English, praising one American, Nick Spanos, for his appearance in a recent Bitcoin documentary that the dictator said he and his wife had just watched on Netflix.

Maduro told the group with a laugh that his announcement of the Petro had inspired cryptocurrency investors everywhere and helped push bitcoins to an all-time high of $20,000. It was unclear if he was joking, and everyone just chuckled.

When the president gave Jimnez the floor, he went over the basics of the Petro, including an initial issuance of $200 million. Then the finance minister spoke up, and for the first time, Jimnezs plans were challenged. The minister took out a manila folder with a map of the Orinoco Belt and said he wanted the Petro to be backed on an ongoing basis by certain oil reserves there, which were worth orders of magnitude more many billions of dollars.

Jimnez pushed back: It was one thing to tie the Petros initial price to oil, but if it couldnt trade freely after that at whatever price investors felt it was worth then it wouldnt be a revolutionary product. A Petro whose price always reflected oil reserves would essentially be a bond, and recent sanctions made it illegal for Americans to buy those.

The president didnt seem to follow the debate all that closely. As the group dispersed, Spanos did not have a good feeling about Jimnezs future. I thought he would become the scapegoat, he said later. I didnt think Id see this kid again.

Spanos remembers telling Jimnez before leaving Caracas: I wish I had a magic carpet to get you out of here.

As Jimnez watched Maduros televised talks, he was astonished by how much of what he had said at La Roca had gotten through to the president. Maduro mentioned Ethereum, white papers and transparency.

But the speeches also made it clear to Jimnez that he was no longer in control of the Petro. Maduro announced that the currency would, in fact, be tied to a specific block of the Orinoco Belt exactly what Jimnez had argued against. He complained to Vargas but was shot down: You cannot contradict the word of the president. Vargas told Jimnez to rewrite the Petros white paper to reflect Maduros decision and to do it quickly. He and the vice president were about to travel to Turkey and Qatar to begin selling the Petro to investors.

Things deteriorated rapidly. The presidents excitement turned the Petro into a project that everyone wanted to get in on, and in mid-January 2018 a series of meetings at the Ministry of Finance turned contentious. The departments top economic adviser wanted the Petro to have a stable value, controlled by the government, with an option to trade it in for actual oil. Jimnez managed to push back, winning an agreement that oil could be used to create a minimum value the state would promise to honour but that the price would also be allowed to fluctuate on open markets. He also made sure the Petro would exist on an open network of computers, tied to Ether, that would fundamentally limit the governments power to interfere.

Eventually, Jimnez became convinced that he would lose control of the project to the Finance Ministry. When he tried to resist sharing a digital copy of the white paper, he said, the minister told him by phone: You have to understand that this is now a project of the state. If you dont hand over the file, I wont be responsible for what happens to you.

Some of the staff at The Social Us worried that Jimnezs bull-headed desire to make the Petro happen put them all in danger. During another confrontation, Vargas had shown Jimnez blue folders containing intelligence dossiers compiled on the employees; after yet another dispute, triggered in part by the fact that the startup had not been paid anything, the vice president sent word to Jimnez that he now considered him a traitor.

It would have been reasonable at that point to assume that he was headed to prison and that his role in the Petro was over. And yet Jimnez was pulled back into the program in a shambolic series of events. The government told his team that they would need to compete to have a role in the Petros launch against a Russian group of murky origin. Jimnezs employees could find no evidence that they had any significant cryptocurrency experience; Time magazine later advanced a theory that they represented a Kremlin effort to control the Petro.

In any event, the Russians showed little interest in doing any work. Jimnez and his company were left to handle almost everything as the February 20, 2018, Petro launch date approached. That is how Jimnez found himself feverishly coding all night under armed guard and then summoned to the presidential palace early the next day.

I didnt know who my enemies were in there, he said later, recalling the event. I was the guy with no power.

After some chitchat, the president led everyone into a hall that had been converted to a Petro-themed television studio. With a crowd looking on, an emcee called to the stage the Russians and then Jimnez. He was presented with a pen and a contract. It was an agreement he had been refusing to sign for weeks that limited him to a role as a sales agent for the Petro a censure for his small acts of rebellion against the regime. On live television, Jimnez saw no way out. He scribbled his signature and gave a forced grin as photographers moved in.

Jimnez took a seat and wondered what he had just done. The president said that Venezuela had already collected $725 million from investors. He thanked Jimnez by name, as well as The Social Us. Its a company founded and run by young geniuses from Venezuela, the president said. You stay crazy.

The Petro never really got off the ground. On March 19, President Donald Trump signed an executive order barring Americans from using it. The same day, an Associated Press article about Jimnez noted that he had helped create the Petro for Maduro only a few years after interning for an anti-Maduro member of the House of Representatives. The congresswoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, immediately wrote a letter asking the Treasury Department to investigate whether Venezuelan national Gabriel Jimnez meets the criteria to be sanctioned under the appropriate authorities.

In Caracas, Jimnez was barraged by criticism from the political left and right. The Social Us found it impossible to get new business. In July, a lawyer delivered a 68-page document to the National Constituent Assembly, asking that Jimnez be investigated for treason against the homeland.

Jimnez retreated into his apartment, and then, when he could no longer pay the rent, his mothers apartment. Friends say that they rarely saw him. Ultimately, his ex-wife persuaded him to leave Venezuela before the authorities finally decided to arrest him.

In April 2019, he sold his 2007 Toyota Autana and bought a ticket to the United States. When he arrived, he moved in with his father; in a completely separate chain of events, the elder Jimnez was waiting to begin serving a three-year sentence for his role in a money-laundering scheme at a Caribbean bank.

Jimnez spent his days putting together an application for asylum. I possess particularly features, as the creator of The Petro, that make me subject to persecution because the government wants to keep me quiet, he wrote.

Improbably, several countries had begun following Venezuelas lead and talking about launching their own government-sponsored digital currencies. China took the lead, and the European Central Bank said it was moving in the same direction. Venezuela relaunched the Petro a number of times, eventually coming out with a token given to pensioners that had none of the open properties from Jimnezs original design.

In October, Jimnez heard that he got his US work papers. He wept tears of joy. Then he got started on a new project; it involves using cryptocurrencies to help Venezuelans avoid the bolvar.

Jimnez still had essentially no money, but a crypto startup in the San Francisco Bay Area allowed him to work out of its offices, eat from the fridge and stay on a couch in the chief executives apartment. Recently, we met at a restaurant nearby. He pulled out a black notebook, in which he was writing letters of apology to the friends he had lost.

I always thought that I could find a solution, to be able to compensate for my mistakes, Jimnez had written to one of his best friends. I know that some apologies are not enough. I know I even deserve some pain, but believe me that life has taken care of giving them to me.

Time to show-off your poker skills and win Rs.25 lakhs with no investment. Register Now!

Read this article:
The Coder and the Dictator - Moneycontrol

Google is using machine learning to improve the quality of Duo calls – The Verge

Google has rolled out a new technology to improve audio quality in Duo calls when the service cant maintain a steady connection called WaveNetEQ. Its based on technology from Googles DeepMind division that aims to replace audio jitter with artificial noise that sounds just like human speech, generated using machine learning.

If youve ever made a call over the internet, chances are youve experienced audio jitter. It happens when packets of audio data sent as part of the call get lost along the way or otherwise arrive late or in the wrong order. Google says that 99 percent of Duo calls experience packet loss: 20 percent of these lose over 3 percent of their audio, and 10 percent lose over 8 percent. Thats a lot of audio to replace.

Every calling app has to deal with this packet loss somehow, but Google says that these packet loss concealment (PLC) processes can struggle to fill gaps of 60ms or more without sounding robotic or repetitive. WaveNetEQs solution is based on DeepMinds neural network technology, and it has been trained on data from over 100 speakers in 48 different languages.

Here are a few audio samples from Google comparing WaveNetEQ against NetEQ, a commonly used PLC technology. Heres how it sounds when its trying to replace 60ms of packet loss:

Heres a comparison when a call is experiencing packet loss of 120ms:

Theres a limit to how much audio the system can replace, though. Googles tech is designed to replace short sounds, rather than whole words. So after 120ms, it fades out and produces silence. Google says it evaluated the system to make sure it wasnt introducing any significant new sounds. Plus, all of the processing also needs to happen on-device since Google Duo calls are end-to-end encrypted by default. Once the calls real audio resumes, WaveNetEQ will seamlessly fade back to reality.

Its a neat little bit of technology that should make calls that much bit easier to understand when the internet fails them. The technology is already available for Duo calls made on Pixel 4 phones, thanks to the handsets December feature drop, and Google says its in the process of rolling it out to other unnamed handsets.

Here is the original post:
Google is using machine learning to improve the quality of Duo calls - The Verge

Machine Learning Could Make Government More Incomprehensible – The Regulatory Review

Misaligned incentives can encourage incomprehensibility.

The precept of the people, by the people, for the people demonstrates not only that citizens must choose leaders through accountability processes and institutions, but also that each citizens decision-making must be as informed as possible. This vision can only be accomplished through the availability of valid and relevant information that must be understandable to all audiences.

Over the last two decades, policy experts have hoped that novel technologies would be used to make information more meaningful, but many of these expectations are still unfulfilled. In her book with Will Walker, Incomprehensible!, Wendy Wagner demonstrates that various legal programs are built on the foundational assumption that more information is better, ignoring the imperative of usable and meaningful communication.

The design of many legal programs favors the production or reporting of undigested information, which is in turn passed along to an unequipped, disadvantaged audience. Wagner argues that although there are numerous procedural steps required for Congress to pass laws, there are no institutional controls that require a bill to be comprehensible to other members of Congress. This suggests that even today there remains an endemic, fundamental problem of unintelligibility.

The principle of governmental transparency is only fulfilled when information is relevant and understandable to a general audience. Unintelligible information or the mere release of unprocessed data does not fulfill the principle of transparency. On the contrary, it opens the doors wide for parties with technical expertise to profit from their strategic advantages over the less empowered. This concern is particularly relevant in the face of modern challenges, such as misinformation and the lack of actors that process information on behalf of citizens.

Automating government processes through machine learning would have uncertain implications in this regard, especially when the inner workings of those processes are unintelligible and might not benefit the average citizen, as Wagner argues.

Scholars have argued that machine learning can meet the laws demands for transparency and does not contravene the principles of nondelegation doctrine, due process, equal protection, and reason giving. It also can enhance efficacy, efficiency, and legitimacy in government. Principles of fair algorithmic governance, however, go beyond mere disclosure and understandability of the technical aspects of machine learning resources, such as the source code, data, objective function, parameters, and training data sets. Algorithmic governance is rooted in the very ecosystem over which those technical resources are applied and operate.

Thus, even if these technical resources are put into the open, they will introduce even more confusion if they are applied to a convoluted law that can only be understood by selected partieswith a narrow exception for machine learning that is applied to make laws more meaningful to a wider audience. Applying algorithm-based decisions to an ecosystem of unintelligible laws or regulations that favor a few knowledgeable stakeholders will compound any endemic problem, particularly if these very stakeholders further their agenda through their knowledge of machine learning. This situation would worsen the already fragile ecosystem to which Wagner refers.

The future of machine learning in government is therefore uncertain, because the technology is applied where processing help is needed, but also where it is convenient for stakeholders with great knowledge and agendas that might not be aligned with the average citizen.

According to Cary Coglianese, algorithms will likely be applied more often to assist, rather than to supplant human judgment. Indeed, the judiciary in the United States has been cautious and rather slow to utilize algorithms, mainly applying them to areas of risk assessment and dispute resolution. The majority of these tools are based on statistical approaches or conventional supervised learning logistic regression models, rather than unsupervised learning models.

Administrative agencies, on the other hand, seem to be way ahead of the judiciary. They have already employed full-fledged machine learning tools for various regulatory taskssuch as identifying cases of possible fraud or regulatory violations, forecasting the likelihood that certain chemicals are toxic, identifying people by facial-recognition when they arrive in the United States, prioritizing locations for police patrols, and more. As in the criminal justice system, none of this artificial intelligence has fully replaced human decision-making, with the exception of processes like the automation and optimization of traffic light and congestion avoidance, which has relegated humans to a supervisory control role, common of the automatic control field.

The application of machine learning to a government process is one of the last stages of a continuum in which algorithms become increasingly complex. This continuum starts with the processing of data which can offer meaningful visualizations, proceeds with the utilization of statistical approaches that can provide even more insights, and continues with the utilization of full-fledged machine learning approaches. The use of machine learning in governmental settings has not escaped controversy, particularly on the issues of bias, prejudice, and privacy that can arise from imperfect data. In addition to the fundamental issues Wagner addresses, various aspects of machine learning do not seem to be proper in early stages of this continuum, bringing a certain degree of pessimism about the application of machine learning in such an imperfect context.

My concerns are not unfounded. One example of the possible application of machine learning to an imperfect context is model legislation, also referred to as model bills. Unsuspecting lawmakers across the United States have been introducing these bills designed and written by private organizations with selfish agendas. For lawmakers, copying model legislation is an easy way to put their names on fully formed bills, while building relationships with lobbyists and other potential campaign donors. Model legislation gets copied in one state capitol after another, quietly advancing hidden agendas of powerful stakeholders. A study carried out by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic, and The Center for Public Integrity found that more than 2,100 bills that became law in the last eight years had been almost entirely copied from model legislation.

Although the process of adopting model legislationor algorithmic objects, as I call them, because they could be re-utilizedcould be perfectly appropriate for bills with a proper purpose, the model bills passed into law often pursue the goals of powerful groups. Some of these bills introduced barriers for injured consumers to sue corporations, limited access to abortion, and restricted the rights of protesters, among others.

According to the study, model legislation disguises its authors true intent through deceptive titles and descriptions. The Asbestos Transparency Act, for example, did not help victims exposed to asbestos as its title implied; it was written by corporations who wanted to erect more obstacles for victims seeking compensation. The HOPE Act made it more difficult for people to get food stamps and was written by a conservative advocacy group. In all, these copycat bills amount tothe nations largest, unreported special-interest campaign, driving agendas in every statehouse and touching nearly every area of public policy, note two reporters involved with the Center for Public Integrity in its recent study.

Open Government Data, a technical and policy stance favoring publicly available government data which will facilitate the upcoming adoption of machine learning, is another area of concern. Very expensive initiatives and data portals in the United States have raised expectations but have failed to change agency resistance to openness or invigorate public participation. On the contrary, these initiatives have created barriers to access by favoring individuals and organizations with highly technical skills.

The problem of unintelligibility is not limited to the United States. An assessment of international government portals indicates that data-oriented technologies are not being used to make things more understandable, signaling to the myopic work of influential international organizations that have pushed for expensive technical implementation while leaving aside the needs of disadvantaged audiences in spite of the explicit warnings a decade earlier.

These are a few challenges the regulatory community must address to be ready for the eventual application of machine learning. Wagner is right to highlight these challenges, and her book pinpoints suggestions for addressing them at a fundamental level.

Martin J. Murillo is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and works as a control systems engineer, political scientist, and data scientist on the application of machine learning to government and politics.

Excerpt from:
Machine Learning Could Make Government More Incomprehensible - The Regulatory Review