A recent MakerDAO governance vote was influenced by a flash loan.

The Maker community offered to burn MKRs to prevent this type of incident from happening again.

The systems for many DeFi protocols remain centralized, although they claim the opposite

The Trust Project is an international consortium of news organizations based on transparency standards.

Decentralized funding protocols strive to gain recognition of governance tokens. However, new forms of weakness are appearing in the system, and MakerDAO is the latest “victim”.

A recent vote on the governance of MakerDAO was marred by a flash loan that allowed a dominant party to influence the outcome and pass the proposal. The team that made the proposal essentially wanted to whitelist access to MakerDao’s course oracle, and therefore took out a flash loan to manipulate the process.

A flash loan is a loan that is taken out and repaid during the same transaction. It has been used in the past to conduct arbitrage trades , most recently on Bitcoin Bank. In this case, the flash loan was used to influence the token governance vote.

The team detailed these maneuvers on the protocol blog , with the following question: Should the Maker community burn affected MKRs in the event of a governance attack that leads to a redeployment of the protocol?

Does token governance really work?

A DeFi platform named Protocol B wanted to be whitelisted and therefore submitted the proposal on October 23. On the 26th, several transactions took place, allowing the team to secure enough crypto collateral to borrow $ 7 million in MKR, which was used to vote and pass the proposal before being repaid.

While it was not entirely malicious, as the team was transparent in its actions, the move reignited the debate on token governance. Maker has thus launched another proposal to prevent any further exploitation of flash loans.

The purpose of this message is to discourage holders of large amounts of MKR from providing MKR liquidity on lending platforms and AMM platforms until Maker’s governance contracts can be replaced with versions that cannot be attacked by flash loans.

Chris Blec, a finance industry insider who had previously criticized token governance, was just as vehement in the face of this new fiasco.

What a mess.

With each passing day, I am more and more skeptical of tokenized governance.

It’s time for us to start testing tokenless governance. And to reward users who continuously use the product with non-transferable votes.

Less favors for the whales. Power to users.

Power to the whales

The first Uniswap governance vote was also marred by controversy. Its author, Dharma, was one of the biggest carriers of tokens. At the time, he wanted to reduce the quorum, which would give him even more control over the voting process.

Fortunately, in the interest of further decentralization, the proposal did not meet a quorum. She nevertheless garnered 98% of the vote (from a handful of whale accounts).

Other protocols that claim to be decentralized, such as SushiSwap, are also governed by whale accounts. This raises questions about the effectiveness of tokenized governance systems.

As BeInCrypto has previously reported, most DeFi governance systems mirror those of corporations , with large carriers acting as leaders and CEOs.

Cryptocurrency-uitwisseling Luno heeft een Bitcoin- spaarportemonnee gelanceerd die klanten tot 4% jaarlijkse rente op hun bezit biedt.

In een jaar waarin gedecentraliseerde financiën de krantenkoppen hebben gedomineerd en het cryptocurrency-ecosysteem hebben geschud, biedt dit aanbod van een beurs met meer dan 5 miljoen gebruikers in 40 verschillende landen een nieuwe manier voor Bitcoin-gebruikers om rente te verdienen over hun bezit.

Luno is gestaag gegroeid sinds de lancering in 2013 en heeft zijn hoofdkantoor in Londen, ondersteund door regionale hubs in Singapore en Zuid-Afrika. Het bedrijf haalde in september 2020 de krantenkoppen nadat het was overgenomen door de Corona Millionaire.

DCG heeft in 2013 geïnvesteerd in de startkapitaalwervingsronde van Luno en heeft uiteindelijk een volledig belang in Luno verworven door de resterende aandelen van de vooraanstaande Zuid-Afrikaanse hoofdinvesteerders Naspers en Rand Merchant Investments uit te kopen.

Bitcoin-versie van DeFi?

In zijn meest basale vorm kan dit nieuwe aanbod van Luno worden gezien als een vorm van DeFi, aangezien klanten rente verdienen, of ‚ yield farming ‚ in DeFi-termen, voor de Bitcoin die in deze nieuwe spaarportefeuilles wordt gestort.

Klanten ontvangen tot 4% rente per jaar over hun bitcoin-saldo op de spaarrekening. Het bedrijf prijst geen vaste voorwaarden of administratiekosten en de Bitcoin in de spaarportefeuille kan op elk moment naar de normale Bitcoin-portemonnee van een gebruiker worden verplaatst.

De rente die wordt verdiend met de Bitcoin die is opgeslagen in de spaarportemonnee, wordt uitbetaald op de eerste van elke maand. Gebruikers kunnen er ook voor kiezen om hun renteopbrengsten achter te laten in hun spaargeld, dat zal profiteren van samengestelde rente en exponentiële groei.

Als u bijvoorbeeld 1 BTC spaart tegen de maximale rente van 4% per jaar, zou dit 0,04 BTC per jaar opleveren. Dit komt neer op $ 40 tegen de huidige koers van Bitcoin / US Dollar.

Zuid-Afrikaanse investeerders die op zoek zijn naar investeringsalternatieven

De basis van Luno in Kaapstad heeft ertoe geleid dat de uitwisseling een van de belangrijkste platforms is die in Zuid-Afrika worden gebruikt. Na wereldwijd onderzoek te hebben uitgevoerd, bleek dat ongeveer 54% van de deelnemers aan de enquête geen rente verdiende op fiat cash-besparingen.

Nog eens 40% van de mensen die aan de enquête deelnamen, gaf aan ‚geen vertrouwen‘ te hebben in hun lokale nationale munteenheid. 95% van de Zuid-Afrikaanse Luno-gebruikers vertelde het bedrijf dat ze een spaarportemonnee zouden gebruiken die rente op hun Bitcoin-saldo zou opbouwen.

De beurs gaf ook aan dat een groot aantal Zuid-Afrikanen op lange termijn cryptocurrency in bezit heeft.

„Minder dan 5% van de Zuid-Afrikaanse klanten van Luno is van plan hun Bitcoin in de komende zes maanden te verkopen, de meesten zijn zelfs van plan om meer te kopen, dus de spaarportefeuille betekent dat ze rente kunnen verdienen door simpelweg te doen wat ze van plan waren met hun Bitcoin, ”Zei Marius Reitz, GM van Luno Africa.

“Meer dan 55% van de Zuid-Afrikaanse klanten gaf aan geen andere investeringen dan crypto te hebben. Het is belangrijk om investeringen te diversifiëren, gezien hoe nieuw de Bitcoin-industrie is. Degenen die Bitcoin bezitten, zullen de potentiële rente ongetwijfeld aantrekkelijk vinden, ”voegde hij eraan toe.

On the basis of reports from Coinbase, Jeff Horowitz, the company’s compliance officer, is determined to separate himself from the exchange

The CCO’s departure, however, is not connected to the controversial and debatable posting by the company’s CEO, Brian Armstrong, which appeared last week. It all began when some employees asked the company to take a position on social/political issues such as the Black Lives Matter movement, which prompted the company’s executive statement, where Armstrong proclaimed a non-activist and „apolitical“ position. It is rumoured that this post led to the departure of about 5% of the company’s employees (60 employees).

Before joining Coinbase, Horowitz worked with several other Bitcoin Code review companies, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers. At the time of his hiring at Coinbase, Horwitz worked for Pershing, a subsidiary of BNY Mellon specializing in brokerage services.

He was Coinbase’s first CCO – a position he has held since 2018. In his two years with the company, Horwitz has achieved several milestones. His effort has been instrumental in defining the anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines for the stock exchange. In addition, he helped the company meet the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force.

The reports also detail that he played a significant role in hiring JPMorgan as the stock exchange’s banking partner. A spokesman for Coinbase corroborated reports on Horowitz’s departure, saying:

„Since joining the company in mid-2018, Jeff has played an active role in helping to shape cryptomoeda and AML regulation with FATF, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury Department and regulators around the world. We thank him for his service and wish him all the best in the future. As we conduct the search for a new CCO, our Chief Legal Officer, Paul Grewal, will take daily responsibility for our compliance programs, with the support of our compliance leaders“.

The first meeting between the candidates for the presidency of the United States has left several worried.

Watching the first election debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden turned out to be more painful than a toothache. The show was really embarrassing. In a matter of seconds, everything turned into a real mess. Pathetic! We saw a Trump more violent and rude than ever and a Biden much more presidential, but losing patience on several occasions. The moderator, of course, did what he could. But, obviously, it wasn’t enough. The issue became ugly and personal. „Clown,“ „liar,“ „why don’t you shut up, man? „There’s nothing smart about you, Joe.

Have you already bought Bitcoin? Naturally, we all question the strength of a system that seems to be collapsing. Should we buy gold? Should we buy Bitcoin Revolution and Is it wise to trust the dollar right now?

Trump interrupted Biden more than 73 times. And the themes took a back seat. Personal attacks set the tone for the evening. According to several sources, Joe Biden won the debate. In other words, several media outlets conducted polls and Biden appeared to be favored. On the day of the debate, Biden was ahead of Trump in the polls and now after the debate the lead appears to be greater. In fact, the forecasting markets dawned today ahead of Biden over Trump. However, almost everyone agrees that the big loser here is the United States. This debate was a sad thing for American democracy. Definitely the worst presidential debate in its history.

Kryptonian Prediction Markets Turn on Trump after First Debate

During the two-hour debate, phrases like „How to move to Canada“, „How to move to New Zealand“, „How to move to Ireland“ became trends on Google. It is perfectly understandable that people feel incredible frustration with what is happening in the United States. As a Venezuelan, I have seen shows like this in my country. But I never thought I would see them in the United States. We will have to go to Mars, because everything seems to indicate that Third Worldism is now global.

From the beginning this has been a negative campaign and the debate was no different. By „negative“ I mean polarization. There are two sides. The anti-right and the anti-left. Winning is not the priority. The important thing is that the other side loses. The unifying factor of each side is hatred of the other. Many Trump voters don’t support many of the things Trump does or says, but they will vote for him because they don’t want the left to win. On the other hand, Joe Biden’s supporters are not with him because of his charisma. They’re going to vote for him because he wants out of Trump.

During the debate, there was discussion of pandemic management, the economy, the health care system, taxes, climate change, racism, law and order, and voter fraud. All of these topics were addressed very superficially. Of the reactions the day after, the most notable was when Trump refused to condemn white supremacism and militias. „Proud Boys- stand back and stand by“ and then commented that the violence comes from extreme left groups like Antifa.

Proud Boys is an ultra-right-wing group, founded in 2016, by activist Gavin McInnes. The Proud Boys are radically opposed to immigration. It is an organization composed exclusively of white men. In their platform, they promote entrepreneurship, border closures, libertarianism, the right to use arms, the end of social programs (welfare), and a traditional role for women. In the streets, they are particularly known for their violent encounters with leftist activists.

Antifa is short for anti-fascism. It is an umbrella term for extreme left groups such as anarchists, communists, and some social democrats. It is not an organization as such. However, the name has been used by many groups associated with the protests organized by the Black Lives Matter movement.

From a financial standpoint, the most worrisome part of the debate revolves around the issue of election fraud. Trump’s comments on the transition present us with a sea of uncertainties. In other words, Trump may not accept the results of the election. Of course, he is talking about the fact that it may be months before he gets something definitive. That scenario would be fatal for the markets, because it would be weeks of tension and uncertainty.

El retorno aproximado de la inversión de Bitcoin (BTC) si se compra en el momento del lanzamiento (o al precio más temprano conocido) fue de alrededor del 7,615.27% el lunes.

El controvertido debate de cuál es una mejor reserva de valor entre el oro y Bitcoin (BTC) quizás ha aumentado la brecha entre los inversores generacionales de mayor edad y los inversores más jóvenes.

Es evidente como lo ve un comentario del cofundador y director ejecutivo deGeminis intercambio de cifrado Tyler Winklevoss que reclamación (es que Bitcoin es mejor siendo oro que oro

Como es un inversor generacional más joven y ha hecho fortuna gracias a Bitcoin, su perspectiva se puede entender. Por otro lado, un inversor generacional de mayor edad comoPeter Schiff, CEO europac.com, ha afirmado abiertamente que Bitcoin nunca se puede comparar con el oro, especialmente en valor.

Según la analogía de Schiff, Bitcoin es tan volátil en el precio de mercado y no es tangible. Schiff aboga por que los inversores compren oro, ya que es una inversión segura para preservar el valor, como enseña la historia. Otro inversor reconocido, experimentado y exitosoWarren Buffett se ha citado anteriormente diciendo que Bitcoin no tiene valor intrínseco.

Quién tiene razón y quién no, todo depende de sus necesidades.

Bitcoin (BTC) como mejor almacén de valor que el oro

A medida que pasemos por la etapa del ‚gran filtro‘, se sacarán grandes lecciones de la pandemia de coronavirus. Entre ellos se encuentra el tema que involucra a Bitcoin como una reserva de valor, un refugio seguro.

Durante el período anterior al coronavirus, el valor de Bitcoin se derivó principalmente de ‚especulaciones locas‘. Esto se ve especialmente con el rally criptográfico 2017/2018 que vio cómo su precio de mercado se disparó en un año.

Sin embargo, a medida que el mundo se dio cuenta de que el coronavirus quizás llegó para quedarse y tuvimos que aprender y adaptarnos para mantenerlo, el estilo de vida a nivel mundial ha cambiado mucho. La transacción pasó de la dependencia de la moneda fiduciaria a la dependencia electrónica, en la mayoría de los lugares. Los inversores institucionales ahora tienen más confianza en poner su dinero en Bitcoin que en oro. Especialmente durante el período de la pandemia, se ha observado un aumento en los inversores institucionales de Bitcoin.

Además, el valor futuro de Bitcoin ahora se puede predecir a través del mercado de futuros que ha ganado tracción con la mayoría de los inversores institucionales liderados por la escala de grises.

Bitcoin se cotizaba a alrededor de $ 10,438 al momento de escribir este artículo. El activo tenía una capitalización de mercado de aproximadamente $ 193 mil millones, su volumen de las últimas 24 horas se situó en alrededor de $ 31 mil millones y su suministro de circulación fue de 18,496,418 Bitcoins.

El retorno aproximado de la inversión de Bitcoin si se compra en el momento del lanzamiento (o el precio más antiguo conocido) fue de alrededor de 7,615.27% hasta el lunes.

En particular, su mínimo histórico, $ 65, se registró a mediados de julio de 2013. El máximo histórico de Bitcoin, $ 20,089.00, se registró en diciembre de 2017.

Les logiciels malveillants et autres menaces de sécurité continuent de dominer le cycle des nouvelles cryptographiques, car un investisseur Bitcoin Lifestyle a récemment perdu des millions en raison d’une application remplie de bogues. Hier, un utilisateur de GitHub a publié un article sur la plate-forme décrivant comment il avait perdu 1400 BTC, d’une valeur d’environ 16 millions de dollars, au profit d’une application de portefeuille infestée de logiciels malveillants.

Une mise à jour de sécurité malheureuse

L’utilisateur, qui s’appelle «1400BitcoinStolen, a expliqué qu’il avait téléchargé le portefeuille cryptographique Electrum et reçu un message contextuel pour mettre à jour l’application. La mise à jour de sécurité était une exigence avant d’effectuer des virements de fonds, il l’a donc installée et a essayé d’envoyer tous les fonds de son compte.

Malheureusement, les fonds ont été détournés de manière malveillante et sont désormais en possession d’un pirate informatique. L’utilisateur a ajouté qu’il avait contacté Confirm, la société d’analyse de la blockchain, pour l’aider à suivre les fonds, mais qu’il n’avait pas encore reçu de réponse. Electrum est une application de portefeuille cryptographique de premier plan qui fonctionne depuis 2011. Depuis lors, elle a traité plusieurs problèmes de sécurité qui ont mis les fonds des utilisateurs en danger.

En février dernier, plusieurs publications sur Twitter et Reddit ont confirmé que le portefeuille, ainsi que l’application de portefeuille supérieure MyEtherWallet, avaient subi des attaques de phishing. Comme celui-ci, l’attaque de phishing contre Electrum à l’époque se posait également comme une mise à jour de sécurité.

Le portefeuille a ensuite publié un avertissement sur son site Web, informant les utilisateurs que les versions de son portefeuille antérieures à la version 3.3.3 étaient vulnérables aux attaques de phishing. La société a également averti les utilisateurs de ne pas télécharger de versions de son portefeuille provenant de sources inconnues. Deux mois plus tard, The Next Web a signalé que l’échange faisait maintenant face à une attaque de déni de service distribué (DDoS). Selon le rapport, l’attaque a été lancée par un botnet malveillant de plus de 140000 machines dans le seul but de voler la cryptographie des utilisateurs en les dirigeant vers de fausses versions du logiciel du portefeuille.

Pas encore de corrélation avec les événements passés

Les attaquants auraient également implémenté leurs serveurs Electrum personnalisés qui hébergeaient des versions infestées de logiciels malveillants du portefeuille. Une fois que les utilisateurs ont synchronisé leurs portefeuilles avec le serveur malveillant, ils sont invités à mettre à jour leurs portefeuilles avec la fausse version, et les pirates ont accès à leurs fonds.

Contrairement à la première fois, Electrum a souligné que les utilisateurs devraient mettre à jour leurs applications. Thomas Voegtlin, le développeur principal d’Electrum, a déclaré à The Next Web que les utilisateurs les plus vulnérables étaient ceux qui n’avaient pas mis à jour leurs applications depuis longtemps.

La société anti-malware Malwarebytes a finalement signalé que jusqu’à 152 000 portefeuilles avaient été infectés par l’attaque DDoS, avec jusqu’à 4,6 millions de dollars de fonds volés.

On ne sait toujours pas ce qui a causé l’attaque récente, mais cela semble avoir été lié à l’un d’entre eux. Pour le moment, il est également trop tôt pour savoir si les attaques de phishing contre les portefeuilles font un retour. Cependant, compte tenu de la popularité des logiciels malveillants et de la cybercriminalité dans l’espace crypté, il ne serait pas impossible à imaginer. Le monde est actuellement confronté à une vague de cyberattaques. Qu’il s’agisse de Corée du Nord ou d’une organisation qui cherche à gagner de l’argent grâce à la dépendance des entreprises à Internet, tout le monde est en état d’alerte.