Can the early success of major crypto exchanges propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market?submitted by mickhagen to genesisblockhq [link] [comments]
This is the first part of Crypto Banking Wars — a new series that examines what crypto-native company is most likely to become the bank of the future. Who is best positioned to reach mainstream adoption in consumer finance?
While crypto allows the world to get rid of banks, a bank will still very much be necessary for this powerful technology to reach the masses. We believe a crypto-native company, like Genesis Block, will become the bank of the future.
In an earlier series, Crypto-Powered, we laid out arguments for why crypto-native companies have a huge edge in the market. When you consider both the broad spectrum of financial use-cases and the enormous value unlocked through these DeFi protocols, you can see just how big of an unfair advantage blockchain tech becomes for companies who truly understand and leverage it. Traditional banks and fintech unicorns simply won’t be able to keep up.
The power players of consumer finance in the 21st century will be crypto-native companies who build with blockchain technology at their core.The crypto landscape is still nascent. We’re still very much in the fragmented, unbundled phase of the industry lifecycle. Beyond what Genesis Block is doing, there are signs of other companies slowly starting to bundle financial services into what could be an all-in-one bank replacement.
So the key question that this series hopes to answer:
Which crypto-native company will successfully become the bank of the future?We obviously think Genesis Block is well-positioned to win. But we certainly aren’t the only game in town. In this series, we’ll be doing an analysis of who is most capable of thwarting our efforts. We’ll look at categories like crypto exchanges, crypto wallets, centralized lending & borrowing services, and crypto debit card companies. Each category will have its own dedicated post.
Today we’re analyzing big crypto exchanges. The two companies we’ll focus on today are Coinbase (biggest American exchange) and Binance (biggest global exchange). They are the top two exchanges in terms of Bitcoin trading volume. They are in pole position to winning this market — they have a huge existing userbase and strong financial resources.
Will Coinbase or Binance become the bank of the future? Can their early success propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market? Is their growth too far ahead for anyone else to catch up? Let’s dive in.
BinanceThe most formidable exchange on the global stage is Binance (Crunchbase). All signs suggest they have significantly more users and a stronger balance sheet than Coinbase. No other exchange is executing as aggressively and relentlessly as Binance is. The cadence at which they are shipping and launching new products is nothing short of impressive. As Tushar Jain from Multicoin argues, Binance is Blitzscaling.
Here are some of the products that they’ve launched in the last 18 months. Only a few are announced but still pre-launch.
Can they create a cohesive & united product experience?
Binance WeaknessesBinance is strong, but they do have a few major weaknesses that could slow them down.
Binance Wrap UpI don’t believe Binance is likely to succeed with a homegrown product aimed at the consumer finance market. Their current product — which is focused heavily on professional traders and speculators — is unlikely to become the bank of the future. If they wanted to enter the broader consumer market, I believe it’s much more likely that they will acquire a company that is getting early traction. They are not afraid to make acquisitions (Trust, JEX, WazirX, DappReview, BxB, CoinMarketCap, Swipe).
However, never count CZ out. He is a hustler. Binance is executing so aggressively and relentlessly that they will always be on the shortlist of major contenders.
CoinbaseThe crypto-native company that I believe is more likely to become the bank of the future is Coinbase (crunchbase). Their dominance in America could serve as a springboard to winning the West (Binance has a stronger foothold in Asia). Coinbase has more than 30M users. Their exchange business is a money-printing machine. They have a solid reputation as it relates to compliance and working with regulators. Their CEO is a longtime member of the crypto community. They are rumored to be going public soon.
Coinbase StrengthsLet’s look at what makes them strong and a likely contender for winning the broader consumer finance market.
Coinbase WeaknessesLet’s now look at some things that could hold them back.
Coinbase Wrap UpAt Genesis Block, we‘re proud to be working with Coinbase. They are a fantastic company. However, I don’t believe that they’ll succeed in building their own product for the broader consumer finance market. While they have incredible design, there are no signs that they are focused on or capable of internally building this type of product.
Similar to Binance, I think it’s far more likely that Coinbase acquires a promising young startup with strong growth.
Honorable MentionsOther US-based exchanges worth mentioning are Kraken, Gemini, and Bittrex. So far we’ve seen very few signs that any of them will aggressively attack broader consumer finance. Most are going in the way of Binance — listing more assets and adding more pro tools like margin and futures trading. And many, like Coinbase, are trying to attract more institutional customers. For example, Gemini with their custody product.
Wrap UpCoinbase and Binance have huge war chests and massive reach. For that alone, they should always be considered threats to Genesis Block. However, their products are very, very different than the product we’re building. And their approach is very different as well. They are trying to educate and onboard people into crypto. At Genesis Block, we believe the masses shouldn’t need to know or care about it. We did an entire series about this, Spreading Crypto.
Most everyone needs banking — whether it be to borrow, spend, invest, earn interest, etc. Not everyone needs a crypto exchange. For non-crypto consumers (the mass market), the differences between a bank and a crypto exchange are immense. Companies like Binance and Coinbase make a lot of money on their crypto exchange business. It would be really difficult, gutsy, and risky for any of them to completely change their narrative, messaging, and product to focus on the broader consumer market. I don’t believe they would ever risk biting the hand that feeds them.
In summary, as it relates to a digital bank aimed at the mass market, I believe both Coinbase and Binance are much more likely to acquire a startup in this space than they are to build it themselves. And I think they would want to keep the brand/product distinct and separate from their core crypto exchange business.
So back to the original question, is Coinbase and Binance a threat to Genesis Block? Not really. Not today. But they could be, and for that, we want to stay close to them.
Other Ways to Consume Today's Episode:
Download the app. We're a digital bank that's powered by crypto: https://genesisblock.com/download
The purpose of ContributionDAO is make sure every contribution is showed clearly, compactly and quantitatively. It can help to avoid the vague effect of heavily-marketing-buzzword when PReps announce their contribution.Thank you for your support :)
It could be used as a tool for official democratic voting provided by ICON which reflect the final decision of ICONists.
Shreemoon Rajbhandarisubmitted by Shreemoon to loopringorg [link] [comments]
My Intern Experience
During my time as an undergraduate, one of the key experiences recommended is to do an internship. Gaining work experience as an intern overseas will improve a skill set in my area of interest. Working somewhere as culturally different and economically significant as China is a talking point in any interviews. There are many reasons that made me choose to do an internship in China. Definitively the best part of the experience has been living out of your comfort zone. Encountering new situations and experiences, that increase my self awareness, my capabilities and also to discover my weaknesses.
Over the past 2 years, we have seen many digital currencies/cryptocurrencies being introduced globally.These have added the aspect of using this financial ecosystem to eventually solve social issues. This could be the application of Blockchain technology in areas like logistics/supply chain to food security. Eventually, there would be many more areas where blockchain and related technology developers would be needed. It's emerging to change the way we solve the many roadblocks that we face.
Blockchain is considered to be one of the most trending topics. This is the right time for me to learn about the technology and start implementing. Blockchain is a notion that can be implemented directly or indirectly to any sector as such. Only two months prior, I had a minimal amount of knowledge about blockchain innovation, and my insight into blockchain comprised distinctly of an obscure comprehension of bitcoin and cryptographic money all in all.
During my internship, I was given investigation material to help assemble my base comprehension of Loopring and the blockchain innovation that it depends on. In the wake of beginning at Loopring, I have been given significantly more prominent chance to learn. While my comprehension of blockchain is still new, it has improved extensively since my first day at the organisation.
In this post, I would like to talk about two cryptographic methods aiming to give privacy to blockchain technology ; the zk-SNARKS and zk-STARKS protocols are two significant examples. We will look into their advantages and disadvantages, comparison between two protocols, and conclusion.
ZK-SNARKS vs ZK-STARKS
Along with the countless benefits of the Internet from which we can benefit, when we use it for social media or business company purposes, privacy is at greater risk. Approximately 90 million of Facebook users information were damaged by Cambridge Analytical data. The Wall Street stated that “ this is just the beginning, and the results are expected to grow”. The Equifax data breach revealed information on social media channels from private users. Thus, birth dates were exposed to the majority of the populations. Due to the Uber hack, data from over 55 million customers were also shared and exposed.
Privacy has consistently been seen as a valuable element within the cryptocurrency community. There is always a growing focus on improving privacy within the cryptocurrency space. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and many other cryptocurrencies are all actively searching for the most convenient approaches to increase their security. It is the antecedent to fungibility, which is vital for a broadly used form of money. Additionally, most crypto-asset holders do not want their transaction history to be completely public to the world. Among the different cryptographic methods aiming to give privacy to blockchain technology; the zk-SNARK and zk-STARKS protocols are two main significant examples.
Two leading technologies today offer their cryptocurrencies - Monero and zcash— and strive to address protection issues. Monero uses the technology of Ring Confidential Signature. By contrast, Z-Cash uses zk-SNARK( Zero-Knowledge transparent knowledge argument), a technology that provides the ability to conduct anonymous transactions.
In recent years, zk-SNARKS has exploded as the most promising technology to solve blockchain privacy. It is a technology derived from proofs of zero-knowledge, a type of proof that anyone with a verification key can check this “proof” without disclosing the information itself. If the statement holds, a verifier will be convinced by a correct proof. If the statement is false, it is true that no prover can convince a verified statement.
zk-SNARK stands for :
- Zero-knowledge : if the statement is true, there is nothing the verifier learns beyond the fact that the statement is true.
- Succinct : The proof size needs to be small enough in a few milliseconds to be verified.
- Non-interactive :Only one set of information is sent to the verifier for verification, therefore there is no back and forth communication between the prover and verifier.
- Argument of Knowledge : A computationally soundproof: soundness runs counter to a prover leveraging polynomial-time, i.e. limited computing. Also, Without access to the witness (the private input needed to prove the statement), the evidence can not be constructed.
zk-SNARKS aims to provide fast, scalable solutions to ensure financial security. Therefore, transaction encryption is possible.When zk-SNARK is applied to a cryptocurrency, it implies you can conceal the majority of the transaction data information. This incorporates the sender address, collector address, just as the transaction sum amount. zk-SNARKS enables us to shroud the majority of this data information, while likewise enabling the system to affirm and verify the transactions. It amplifies security while maintaining consensus. In the realm of blockchain, it is one of the most exceptional blockchain level protection innovation being used.
With the launch of version 3.0, Loopring’s decentralised protocol solution struck a noteworthy milestone in early May- adding off-chain scaling and fee optimisation using zk-SNARKs. Low fees, liquidity, transparency and security are the key goal of the loopring solution. Loopring says the new Loopring 3.0 based zk-SNARK will increase trade speeds and on-chain activity efficiency tenfold. The data previously stored on-chain in Loopring 3.0 is now stored off-chain in a Merkle tree and then used as required in zk-SNARKS, updating the tree.
Be that as it may, there are a few issues with zk-SNARKS. The main problem has been the need for a trusted setup. zk-SNARKS rely on a permission private key. This essentially undermines the entire purpose of decentralised public blockchain. By introducing the need to trust a person rather than code, you threaten the entire concept of trustlessness. In theory, a prover with sufficient computational power could create fake proofs, and this is one of the reasons why many consider quantum computers as a threat to zk-SNARKs (and blockchain systems).
Last year zk-SNARKS were incorporated on a MIT Tech Review list of the top 10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2018 among AI advancements. zk-SNARKS allows both a tremendous speedup in verifying the correctness of a computation while at the same time it hides the private details from prying eyes. Some of the potential uses citied in MIT article were verifying you’re over 18 without having to share your date of birth, and providing you have a enough money in your back account as collateral without having to give away account details like your exact balance. It establishes trust which you need to interact on the blockchain. Zk-SNARK proofs are as of now being used on Zcash, on JP Morgan Pursue's blockchain-based payment system, and as an approach to safely validate customers to servers.
The more developed version of zk-SNARKS is called zk-STARKS which stands for :
Argument of Knowledge
zk-STARKS verifications are currently being touted as the better than ever form of the convention, tending to a considerable lot of the past disadvantages of zk-SNARKs. It has demonstrated an approach to accomplish a similar degree of privacy as zk-SNARKS without the requirement for the trusted setup. Starks are practically superior to Snarks as they require weaker crypto suppositions, they don't require a trusted setup and are post-quantum resistant. zk-SNARKs are based on Elliptic-Curve Cryptography, which is susceptible to advances in Quantum-Computers. zk-STARKs, on the other hand are Post-Quantum system meaning that even if Quantum-computers become powerful and ubiquitous they will not have an advantage, compared to classical computers, in breaking zk-STARKs. Anyway they have a noteworthy downside, as in the proof being too enormous. Their problem is their storage requirements. STARKs are doubly scalable, which means the proof verification is exponentially faster than the original computation’s time but the drawback is the size of the proof they create being too large, possibly 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more than those produced by zk-SNARKs. One example : StarkWare solves the inherent problems of scalability and privacy of blockchains. Using STARK technology, they generate a full proof-stack to produce and verify computer integrity tests. They utilise STARKs to batch transactions into a single proof that is verified on Ethereum. Matt Taylor states that the present iteration of StarkDEX demonstrates the viability of using STARKs for the scalability of Layer-2 by showing a substantial rise in the amount of blockchain transaction.
The idea of zk-STARKS was proposed by Eli-Ben Sasson, a professor at the Technion-Israel institute of Technology. zk-STARKS provide proofs that can be verified a lot quicker than zk-SNARKS. At the present time, Z-cash and Ethereum are on the whole considering to utilize zk-STARKS. zk-STARKS have solved the trusted setup issue. They have totally expel the requirement for multiple parties to create the private key required for the string. Rather everything needed to produce the proofs is public and the verifications are generated from arbitrary numbers. zk-STARKS actually removed the necessity in zk-SNARKS for unbalanced cryptography and rather utilizes the hash fuctions like those found in Bitcoin mining. In addition, they ought to have longer timeframe of realistic usability as far as their crytographic resilience than zk-SNARKS. However, there are some impediment of zk-STARKS, the main issue with zk-STARKS is their size. The verifications it uses are basically too enormous to use in many blockchains as they stand. As indicated by Vitalik Buterin, zk-STARKS will result in proofs of a couple of hundreds kilobytes versus the 288 bytes seen in zk-SNARKS.
The Difference Between zk-STARKS and zk-SNARKS.
Source : The Medium - Coinmonks
The complexity of communication : With the computation’s expanded complexity, the zk-SNARKS communication complexity also increases linearly, whereas zk-STARKs develops in the opposite direction and grows slowly as the computation size grows.The graph above shows that the communication required by the zk-STARKs to complete the calculation rises much slower than zk-snarks as the underlying evidence increases in complexity.
Source : The Medium - Coinmonks
The complexity of the verifier : zk-STARKs slightly widening with the development in computation size. On the other side, for confirmation evidence, zk-SNARKs requires less time than zk-STARKs. zk-STARKs, for instance need up to 100 ms to verify and zk-SNARKs need only up to 10ms. The graph above illustrates the the time taken by the zk-STARK to verify an evidence rises very slowly compared to the zk-SNARK as the underlying evidence increases in complexity.
Overall these two protocols have excellent potential in the cryptocurrency globe and can be a breakthrough avenue for mainstream implementation. Both conventions are truly needed steps to protect our privacy.
submitted by GTE_IO to u/GTE_IO [link] [comments]
News by Coindesk: Max Boonen
Carrying on from an earlier post about the evolution of high frequency trading (HFT), how it can harm markets and how crypto exchanges are responding, here we focus on the potential longer-term impact on the crypto ecosystem.
First, though, we need to focus on the state of HFT in a broader context.
Conventional markets are adopting anti-latency arbitrage mechanismsIn conventional markets, latency arbitrage has increased toxicity on lit venues and pushed trading volumes over-the-counter or into dark pools. In Europe, dark liquidity has increased in spite of efforts by regulators to clamp down on it. In some markets, regulation has actually contributed to this. Per the SEC:
“Using the Nasdaq market as a proxy, [Regulation] NMS did not seem to succeed in its mission to increase the display of limit orders in the marketplace. We have seen an increase in dark liquidity, smaller trade sizes, similar trading volumes, and a larger number of “small” venues.”Why is non-lit execution remaining or becoming more successful in spite of its lower transparency? In its 2014 paper, BlackRock came out in favour of dark pools in the context of best execution requirements. It also lamented message congestion and cautioned against increasing tick sizes, features that advantage latency arbitrageurs. (This echoes the comment to CoinDesk of David Weisberger, CEO of Coinroutes, who explained that the tick sizes typical of the crypto market are small and therefore do not put slower traders at much of a disadvantage.)
Major venues now recognize that the speed race threatens their business model in some markets, as it pushes those “slow” market makers with risk-absorbing capacity to provide liquidity to the likes of BlackRock off-exchange. Eurex has responded by implementing anti-latency arbitrage (ALA) mechanisms in options:
“Right now, a lot of liquidity providers need to invest more into technology in order to protect themselves against other, very fast liquidity providers, than they can invest in their pricing for the end client. The end result of this is a certain imbalance, where we have a few very sophisticated liquidity providers that are very active in the order book and then a lot of liquidity providers that have the ability to provide prices to end clients, but are tending to do so more away from the order book”, commented Jonas Ullmann, Eurex’s head of market functionality. Such views are increasingly supported by academic research.
XTX identifies two categories of ALA mechanisms: policy-based and technology-based. Policy-based ALA refers to a venue simply deciding that latency arbitrageurs are not allowed to trade on it. Alternative venues to exchanges (going under various acronyms such as ECN, ATS or MTF) can allow traders to either take or make, but not engage in both activities. Others can purposefully select — and advertise — their mix of market participants, or allow users to trade in separate “rooms” where undesired firms are excluded. The rise of “alternative microstructures” is mostly evidenced in crypto by the surge in electronic OTC trading, where traders can receive better prices than on exchange.
Technology-based ALA encompasses delays, random or deterministic, added to an exchange’s matching engine to reduce the viability of latency arbitrage strategies. The classic example is a speed bump where new orders are delayed by a few milliseconds, but the cancellation of existing orders is not. This lets market makers place fresh quotes at the new prevailing market price without being run over by latency arbitrageurs.
As a practical example, the London Metal Exchange recently announced an eight-millisecond speed bump on some contracts that are prime candidates for latency arbitrageurs due to their similarity to products trading on the much bigger CME in Chicago.
Why 8 milliseconds? First, microwave transmission between Chicago and the US East Coast is 3 milliseconds faster than fibre optic lines. From there, the $250,000 a month Hibernia Express transatlantic cable helps you get to London another 4 milliseconds faster than cheaper alternatives. Add a millisecond for internal latencies such as not using FPGAs and 8 milliseconds is the difference for a liquidity provider between investing tens of millions in speed technology or being priced out of the market by latency arbitrage.
With this in mind, let’s consider what the future holds for crypto.
Crypto exchanges must not forget their retail rootsWe learn from conventional markets that liquidity benefits from a diverse base of market makers with risk-absorption capacity.
Some have claimed that the spread compression witnessed in the bitcoin market since 2017 is due to electronification. Instead, I posit that it is greater risk-absorbing capacity and capital allocation that has improved the liquidity of the bitcoin market, not an increase in speed, as in fact being a fast exchange with colocation such as Gemini has not supported higher volumes. Old-timers will remember Coinsetter, a company that, per the Bitcoin Wiki , “was created in 2012, and operates a bitcoin exchange and ECN. Coinsetter’s CSX trading technology enables millisecond trade execution times and offers one of the fastest API data streams in the industry.” The Wiki page should use the past tense as Coinsetter failed to gain traction, was acquired in 2016 and subsequently closed.
Exchanges that invest in scalability and user experience will thrive (BitMEX comes to mind). Crypto exchanges that favour the fastest traders (by reducing jitter, etc.) will find that winner-takes-all latency strategies do not improve liquidity. Furthermore, they risk antagonising the majority of their users, who are naturally suspicious of platforms that sell preferential treatment.
It is baffling that the head of Russia for Huobi vaunted to CoinDesk that: “The option [of co-location] allows [selected clients] to make trades 70 to 100 times faster than other users”. The article notes that Huobi doesn’t charge — but of course, not everyone can sign up.
Contrast this with one of the most successful exchanges today: Binance. It actively discourages some HFT strategies by tracking metrics such as order-to-trade ratios and temporarily blocking users that breach certain limits. Market experts know that Binance remains extremely relevant to price discovery, irrespective of its focus on a less professional user base.
Other exchanges, take heed.
Coinbase closed its entire Chicago office where 30 engineers had worked on a faster matching engine, an exercise that is rumoured to have cost $50mm. After much internal debate, I bet that the company finally realised that it wouldn’t recoup its investment and that its value derived from having onboarded 20 million users, not from upgrading systems that are already fast and reliable by the standards of crypto.
It is also unsurprising that Kraken’s Steve Hunt, a veteran of low-latency torchbearer Jump Trading, commented to CoinDesk that: “We want all customers regardless of size or scale to have equal access to our marketplace”. Experience speaks.
In a recent article on CoinDesk , Matt Trudeau of ErisX points to the lower reliability of cloud-based services compared to dedicated, co-located and cross-connected gateways. That much is true. Web-based technology puts the emphasis on serving the greatest number of users concurrently, not on serving a subset of users deterministically and at the lowest latency possible. That is the point. Crypto might be the only asset class that is accessible directly to end users with a low number of intermediaries, precisely because of the crypto ethos and how the industry evolved. It is cheaper to buy $500 of bitcoin than it is to buy $500 of Microsoft shares.
Trudeau further remarks that official, paid-for co-location is better than what he pejoratively calls “unsanctioned colocation,” the fact that crypto traders can place their servers in the same cloud providers as the exchanges. The fairness argument is dubious: anyone with $50 can set up an Amazon AWS account and run next to the major crypto exchanges, whereas cheap co-location starts at $1,000 a month in the real world. No wonder “speed technology revenues” are estimated at $1 billion for the major U.S. equity exchanges.
For a crypto exchange, to reside in a financial, non-cloud data centre with state-of-the-art network latencies might ironically impair the likelihood of success. The risk is that such an exchange becomes dominated on the taker side by the handful of players that already own or pay for the fastest communication routes between major financial data centres such as Equinix and the CME in Chicago, where bitcoin futures are traded. This might reduce liquidity on the exchange because a significant proportion of the crypto market’s risk-absorption capacity is coming from crypto-centric funds that do not have the scale to operate low-latency strategies, but might make up the bulk of the liquidity on, say, Binance. Such mom-and-pop liquidity providers might therefore shun an exchange that caters to larger players as a priority.
Exchanges risk losing market share to OTC liquidity providersWhile voice trading in crypto has run its course, a major contribution to the market’s increase in liquidity circa 2017–2018 was the risk appetite of the original OTC voice desks such as Cumberland Mining and Circle.
Automation really shines in bringing together risk-absorbing capacity tailored to each client (which is impossible on anonymous exchanges) with seamless electronic execution. In contrast, latency-sensitive venues can see liquidity evaporate in periods of stress, as happened to a well-known and otherwise successful exchange on 26 June which saw its bitcoin order book become $1,000 wide for an extended period of time as liquidity providers turned their systems off. The problem is compounded by the general unavailability of credit on cash exchanges, an issue that the OTC market’s settlement model avoids.
As the crypto market matures, the business model of today’s major cash exchanges will come under pressure. In the past decade, the FX market has shown that retail traders benefit from better liquidity when they trade through different channels than institutional speculators. Systematic internalizers demonstrate the same in equities. This fact of life will apply to crypto. Exchanges have to pick a side: either cater to retail (or retail-driven intermediaries) or court HFTs.
Now that an aggregator like Tagomi runs transaction cost analysis for their clients, it will become plainly obvious to investors with medium-term and long-term horizons (i.e. anyone not looking at the next 2 seconds) that their price impact on exchange is worse than against electronic OTC liquidity providers.
Today, exchange fee structures are awkward because they must charge small users a lot to make up for crypto’s exceptionally high compliance and onboarding costs. Onboarding a single, small value user simply does not make sense unless fees are quite elevated. Exchanges end up over-charging large volume traders such as B2C2’s clients, another incentive to switch to OTC execution.
In the alternative, what if crypto exchanges focus on HFT traders? In my opinion, the CME is a much better venue for institutional takers as fees are much lower and conventional trading firms will already be connected to it. My hypothesis is that most exchanges will not be able to compete with the CME for fast traders (after all, the CBOE itself gave up), and must cater to their retail user base instead.
In a future post, we will explore other microstructures beyond all-to-all exchanges and bilateral OTC trading.
Fiber threads image via Shutterstock
https://preview.redd.it/snu5032svgf11.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa168566f5cbb4ff7335ae810c1eef7103673acfsubmitted by iTradeBit to u/iTradeBit [link] [comments]
Decentralization is the process of distributing authority in decision-making without the involvement of a centralized body. One of the most attractive features of the crypto currency is the lack of control by other parties. In peer-to-peer systems, such as the bitcoin network, the transfer of funds is carried out by verifying transactions directly by network miners. However, the idea of decentralization is not fully implemented with respect to crypto- exchanges. The vast majority of transactions in crypto-space are conducted on centralized trading floors. Daily trading volumes at leading crypto-exchanges such as Binance, Huobi, Bitfinex reach $ 2 billion.
Centralized exchanges: advantages and disadvantages
Centralized exchanges are managed by an organization that monitors all platform operations, such as service, security and development. The business model of a centralized exchange is similar to the business model of a traditional stock exchange, which charges fees for trade in exchange for access to the market. This type of exchange acts as an intermediary third party, which connects buyers and sellers with each other.
We can say that centralized exchanges are one of the easiest ways of access for those who are little acquainted with digital currencies. Centralized exchanges provide additional services to their customers, which are not yet available on decentralized exchanges, such as margin trading, stop loss and lending.
Some centralized exchanges act as gateways that allow trading in digital currencies. Trading platforms that support fiat currencies are usually subject to regulation by the authorities of the country, and therefore must comply with the rules of KYC and AML.
The fact that their activities run counter to the decentralized world of the detachment is critical. Often, trust in centralized exchanges does not lead to anything good. This is evidenced by numerous hacking, during which customers lost millions.
Mt. Gox is the simplest example of a centralized exchange, which in 2014 terminated customer service due to vulnerability in the platform security system. The damage amounted to 650,000 bitcoins.
To solve this problem somehow, today, when the industry becomes more regulated, many centralized exchanges resort to insurance of their assets.
Decentralized exchanges: advantages and disadvantage
Decentralized exchanges offer independent bidding. Through the use of smart contracts, a decentralized exchange is able to operate autonomously. Smart contracts allow buyers and sellers to trade directly, without the need for intermediaries - this allows them to support the decentralized spirit of blockchain technology.
Decentralized exchanges are quite new and still constitute only a small part of the total volume of digital currency trading, but they are gradually gaining popularity.
The IDEX exchange is currently the largest decentralized application (dApp) on the Ethereum network.
Despite the fact that transactions are decentralized, such exchange platforms still have a centralized authority that controls their work. Decentralized exchanges need developers who have experience in writing complex dApps that are necessary to simplify decentralized transactions. They also charge a fee for using the site, although the fees are often smaller than on their centralized counterparts.
One of the advantages is that the tokens of the initial offers of coins (ICO) are often first placed on the sites of decentralized exchanges, and only after centralized ones. Compared to decentralized platforms, centralized ones require a higher degree of technical development before they can safely integrate a new coin into their site.
At the same time, decentralized exchanges also require higher technical knowledge for use than can frighten crypto-space newcomers. Typically, they lack the convenient functionality, focused on customer service (for example, the lack of margin trading).
At the moment, some decentralized platforms are already considering the possibility of implementing functions such as margin trading (for example, Lendroid), however, so far there is no real launch and they are all still in the ICO phase or at the product implementation stage.
One of the obstacles faced by decentralized exchanges on the way to mass adoption is the possibility of trading only to tokens belonging to the platform. For example, decentralized exchanges based on Ethereum, can only offer Ethereum network tokens. Atomic swaps, which allow the exchange of digital currencies between blockchains, can ultimately lead to the creation of decentralized exchanges that will offer a wider range of assets outside the platform on which it is native.
Which exchanges are better?
When it comes to comparison, there are so many valid arguments for centralization, how many and against. Each has unique properties, as well as its pros and cons. In the end, it depends on the individual and personal preferences. The best option will be the use of two types of exchanges: centralized - for withdrawal to Fiat, plus decentralized - for tokens that have not yet been added to the sites of large exchanges. The number of users using decentralized exchanges, and therefore volumes, is only a small part, due to the presence of a complex user interface and lack of diversity of assets.
Of course, the counter-argument is that some of the top exchanges – like Binance and Huobi – are so large that they should be on top of their regulation and checks and balances. These big exchanges are held to higher standards of KYC, AMl and other financial balances in order to try and stop the scourge of illicit cryptocurrency actions. That being said, a recent study from Chainanalysis ... P2P (peer-to-peer) is emerging as a great venue for buyers and sellers of cryptocurrencies using their local currencies. It is a platform where you can buy or sell bitcoin with naira.Is just like trading bitcoin on WhatsApp groups as some do. But using Binance P2P have a lot of advantages: Binance P2P has zero fees. With BNB competing with Bitcoin, Binance “does not enable anything new,” said Tomaino. That said, there still is a bullish case for BNB token. Tomaino argues that if Binance continues to maintain its dominance in the cryptocurrency exchange industry then the token will likely succeed. This is contingent on Binance evolving with improvements in decentralized exchange (DEX) services, Tomaino ... Binance Coin, a widely-used utility token issued by Binance, was one of the best performing cryptocurrencies of 2019. Despite BNB’s impressive Q1 performance, Nick Tomaino, founder of crypto venture fund 1confirmation, thinks it’s the right time to short. During the first three months of 2019, Binance Coin (BNB) was arguably the best performing cryptocurrency. While giving his views about CBDC, the Binance boss CZ stated that the currency’s formation could threaten the advancement of Bitcoin. The exec responded to the question about how the digital yuan initiative of the People’s Bank of China is affecting the crypto world, raised during a video interview with Jeff Roberts, Fortune’s senior writer. Dennoch gehört das Argument der Geldwäsche und Terrorfinanzierung unter Behörden und Bitcoin-Kritikern weltweit noch immer zu den Beliebtesten, wenn es darum geht, Bitcoin zu kritisieren. Das Krypto Analyse-Unternehmen Chainalysis ist dem Mythos in seinem „2020 Crypto Crime Report“ auf den Grund gegangen. In einem Vorab-Blogbeitrag zu ihrem Bericht schreibt das Unternehmen, dass zu den ...
[index]          
Cheapest Way to Buy Bitcoin सबसे सस्ता बिटकॉइन यहाँ खरीदें The PIT Exchange by Blockchain - Duration: 15:29. Coin Gyaan 2,425 views 15:29 💙Phemex $112 Extra Bonus: https://phemex.com/web/user/register?group=74&referralCode=I4IEK 💛Binance Futures 10% Discount: https://www.binance.com/en/futures/... Bienvenido! Si te gusto el video dale Like y Suscribite! Welcome! If you like please like and subscribe! Our team of producers, editors, writers are producin... Using my Bitcoin bought Camaro SS to make sense of the Bitcoin vs FIAT mindset. Binance is putting our crypto community at RISK! Get the world's first ELITE ... Bitcoin Technical Analysis & Bitcoin News Today: Binance will launch Bitcoin leverage trading. This mean that Binance will compete with BitMEX and Bybit. Also, I'll use technical analysis on the ... 09:25 Binance & the Tether Cartel 11:54 Binance is Not Reducing Tether USDT Holdings 13:02 You Can't BS A BS'r: Binance Will Fail 13:48 Stop Using Binance! 14:12 Outro 📺Watch These Videos Again📺 The latest bitcoin news and more! The data suggests a new bitcoin trend (2020) related to the relationship between bitcoin price and people's likelihood of spending their BTC. ChainLink's LINK ... Sign in to make your opinion count. Sign in. 440 ... One fundamental metric just reached levels not seen since just before the intense 2017 Bitcoin rally up to $20,000. Binance has completed its ... Binance users can now buy crypto using their Visa and MasterCard debit and credit cards. Using Koinal, Binance clients can buy five cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Litecoin ... Bitcoin Sinhala Tutorials: https://bitcoinsinhala.com අද video එකෙන් කතා කරන්නෙ binance exchange එකට කොහොමද bitcoin deposit කරන්නෙ ...