Category: Cryptocurrency News

The identity of the hacker or hackers behind an exploit that removed more than 100,000 Bitcoin from Bitfinex in 2016 had only been the subject of speculation until Aug. 3.

The media outlet claimed the public and press had a right to receive information on a “central participant in a financial scheme that defrauded investors of billions of dollars”.

According to data released by the Ukrainian government, cryptocurrency firms offering services in Ukraine have failed to contribute over $81 million in taxes to the country’s budget in the past decade. This comes after the country passed a crypto bill into law in 2022 that amends its tax code to allow the country to generate taxes from cryptocurrency transactions. A Huge Loss In Revenue For Ukraine In a notice released on Wednesday, the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine stated that unrelated cryptocurrency exchanges were responsible for the loss of approximately 3 billion hryvnia in taxes (roughly $81 million) between 2013 to 2023.  Related Reading: MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor Says Spot ETF Approvals Have No Bearing On Bitcoin Strategy The country’s foremost regulator noted that it had evaluated the trading actions of exchanges founded by residents of the country, which had $55 billion in Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Tether (USDT) volume in rough estimates over the same period.  Speaking to local media following the announcement, Deputy Director of the Economic Security Bureau Andriy Pashchuk stated that there were different perspectives on “how these transactions should be taxed and (the bureau) will act in accordance with the provisions adopted by the deputies.” He opined that while these issues drag on, the country keeps losing “..tens of millions in taxes every month.” Crypto Tax Losses Follow Passage Of Landmark Bill The recent loss of revenue follows the recent passage of the legislation “On Virtual Assets” by the Ukrainian parliament in 2022. The law was enacted amid the growing adoption of cryptocurrencies as a valid means for conducting transactions.  The bill, which was signed into law in March 2022 by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy,  sought to create a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency transactions in the country. Total market cap continues to decline | Source: Crypto Total Market Cap on Tradingview.com At the time of passing the bill, the government stated that it was looking to amend the country’s civil and tax codes to accommodate the new legal framework. However, as of August 2023, no such amendments have been executed.  Ukraine also brought some minor amendments to the legislation in September 2022 to ensure that the law was in sync with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto Asset (MiCA) regulation.  Related Reading: Here’s Where The Price Of LUNC Will Land This August, According To This Algorithm Since then, many crypto users in Ukraine have taken to Telegram to ask whether they would be mandated to provide “backpay” of taxes based on transactions over the last decade. Some noted the government’s failure to properly adopt the regulations despite the passage of the law in 2022. According to one Telegram user with the username Vini2010w, had the government adopted the law, “everything would have been settled a long time ago.”  Ukraine has been heavily reliant on cryptocurrency donations amid the ongoing war with Russia. About $225 million in cryptocurrency donations have been pledged in support of the country since 2022 following Russia’s invasion. The vast majority of the donations were made in Ethereum and Bitcoin, the two most popular cryptocurrencies and the largest by market cap.  Featured image from Bitcoinist, chart from Tradingview.com

submitted by /u/FragNiner [link] [comments]

This is the continuation of a series of posts I've been making on the Terms of Service (ToS) of exchanges. See the TL;DR for the exchanges in the title, but also for Binance, Kraken, Coinbase, Crypto.com, OKX, MEXC, Gate.io, Huobi, Nexo and ByBit at the end. After a judge has ruled that customer's assets do…
Read more

submitted by /u/ChillyMathew [link] [comments]

In an analysis, Anders Helseth, Vice President at K33 Research, has mounted a strong case against the viability of the Uniswap (UNI) token. His analysis pivots on the intriguing dynamics of the decentralized finance (DeFi) market, fundamentally challenging the current valuation and future potential of UNI. Helseth begins his argument with a seemingly straightforward question: “The Uniswap protocol generates significant trading fees, but will the UNI token ever capture its (fair) share?” His conclusion is emphatically negative. Is The Uniswap (UNI) Token Worthless? For context, UNI is a governance token for the Uniswap protocol, a decentralized exchange that earns a 0.3% fee on trades. However, as Helseth points out, the entire trading fee currently goes to liquidity providers, with UNI holders standing to gain only if governance votes permit fee dividends to UNI holders. Related Reading: Uniswap Delists HEX Token After SEC Deems It An “Unregistered Security” Even in a slow DeFi market, the fully diluted value of the UNI token is 15 times the annualized trading fees paid when using the protocol, currently around $6 billion. If the UNI token could capture all trading fees, it would arguably present an irresistible buy. However, Helseth makes a compelling argument to the contrary. “The UNI token currently captures 0% of the 0.3% trading fee, which entirely goes to liquidity providers,” Helseth says, emphasizing the token’s current lack of intrinsic value. The crux of his argument revolves around three players in the DeFi space: the users, the protocol (and hence UNI token), and the liquidity providers. According to Helseth, the interplay between these actors is detrimental to the UNI token’s potential for revenue generation. Helseth explains: The entire protocol can be exactly copied within minutes at virtually no cost. This argument implies that all the power lies with the liquidity providers in the fight for trading fees. The primary concern for users is liquidity and cost-effectiveness. If the same protocol can be replicated at a whim, users would inevitably gravitate towards the version with the most liquidity – to minimize slippage when executing trades. This dynamic significantly empowers liquidity providers who, unlike UNI holders, hold real, valuable tokens. Related Reading: Uniswap Launches UniswapX Protocol, Sparking 3% Surge In UNI’s Price In addition, even though switching to another smart contract may entail some costs, these are relatively low, reinforcing the bargaining power of liquidity providers. Concluding, Helseth states: “Given this relatively low cost of switching from the users’ perspective, we cannot conclude with anything else than that the power lies with the liquidity providers. Hence, even though the Uniswap protocol generates significant trading fees, we believe the potential for the UNI token to capture any of this revenue to be almost non-existent.” At press time, the UNI price stood at $6.19 after being rejected at the 200-day EMA yesterday. Featured image from Guarda Wallet, chart from TradingView.com