FreeBitco.in Review How I made 1.16₿ equals $20000 on Max

03-30 23:44 - 'Here is someone paying for lunch in Venezuela where $1 USD equals $107,000 Bolivar, thanks to the government and hyperinflation. This is why bitcoin and gold will win.' (twitter.com) by /u/NirpUmbrella removed from /r/Bitcoin within 191-201min

Here is someone paying for lunch in Venezuela where $1 USD equals $107,000 Bolivar, thanks to the government and hyperinflation. This is why bitcoin and gold will win.
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: NirpUmbrella
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Here is someone paying for lunch in Venezuela where $1 USD equals $107,000 Bolivar, thanks to the government and hyperinflation. This is why bitcoin and gold will win.

Here is someone paying for lunch in Venezuela where $1 USD equals $107,000 Bolivar, thanks to the government and hyperinflation. This is why bitcoin and gold will win. submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

If scaling improvements to the protocol concern you, you're in the wrong place

This is rbtc, the subreddit for people who wanted to scale and improve Bitcoin but were censored out of rbitcoin.
Recently, a fair amount of noise has been generated from a few comments made by Jonathan Toomim regarding reducing the block interval.
Reducing the block interval is something that I and many others have assumed would eventually happen. Like the block size limit, the block interval is not a sacred cow variable, but is instead a "safe enough for now" guess that Satoshi pulled out of his ass.
A few things should be said about the block interval:
  1. Can't do instant txns - It probably can't ever be reduced low enough to permit reliable "instant" transactions without a significant penalty to orphan rate, which would be bad.
  2. Can be reduced without penalty - It definitely can be reduced by several factors of two, and maybe even by an entire order of magnitude, without any significant penalty to orphan rate.
  3. Reducing block interval is a scaling improvement - Reducing the average block interval by half offers an equivalent scaling benefit to doubling the block size. Reducing it by an order of magnitude offers equivalent scaling benefit to increasing the block size limit by 10x. A 10x improvement in block interval would be the equivalent to increasing the current BSL to 320MB.
  4. Reducing block interval is a usability improvement - while it is true that reducing block interval is unlikely to facilitate "instant" transactions at the register, it is also true that many other applications would see a usability improvement. An easy example is more quickly moving coins on and off exchanges. But every transaction would see a reduction in confirmation wait times, which is an unqualified win, even at the register. Every application that uses the blockchain would see a UX benefit, however marginal, because other things equal, faster is always better.
Past this, I want to point out that, at this moment, there is literally no plan at all to reduce block interval. None.
All that's happened is just the beginning of some discussion. That's it. A few comments in a reddit sub. Nothing more.
Folks, we have to be able discuss improvements without people freaking out at the mere hint of discussion.
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

XMR Atomic Swaps Now Support PART | Anonymous Decentralized Marketplace Integration Coming Soon

XMR Atomic Swaps Now Support PART | Anonymous Decentralized Marketplace Integration Coming Soon
Hey guys,
Cryptoguard from Particl here. We're happy to announce that we've recently added PART atomic swap support to the xmr-btc-atomic-swap protocol on mainnet and have pushed the protocol on Particl's Github.
The ability to atomically swap XMR <> PART opens up a lot of doors for the advancement of anonymous eCommerce solutions and solidifies the sustainability and resiliency of decentralized marketplaces, a strong win for all proponents of free market, personal freedom, and self-determination.
For those not aware of Particl, it is Bitcoin-based blockchain (currently 0.19.1.1, about to release 0.20) with a native currency (PART) that has a variable level of privacy (public, blind (CT), and anon (RingCT)).
We've built a completely decentralized, trustless, and unstoppable marketplace where you can buy and sell anything online without using any third-party, without paying any fee (other than regular crypto transactions), and without leaving any sort of digital footprint behind. The entire marketplace experience, just like its transactions/sales, is private by default thanks to a combination of CT, RingCT, stealth addresses, Tor, SecureMessaging/BitMessage, and etc. The marketplace has been on mainnet for a year now, as an open Beta, and we're about to push our biggest update since launch—a brand new desktop application as well as a completely refactored marketplace. This will dramatically improve the user experience and the performance, making the private decentralized marketplace as user-friendly as it's ever been.
We now plan on adding native XMR <> PART swap support into the desktop client and marketplace application, allowing anyone holding XMR to easily buy and sell anything on a decentralized marketplace that respects your privacy. It also ensures that you can now get in and out of Particl's ecosystem without having to go through any third-party such as an exchange or payment processor.
XMR <> PART support will add a tremendous level of privacy to the marketplace and expand on what's possible to do now with Monero.
Here's a mockup of what an XMR <> PART swap engine may look like in Particl Desktop's Swap module (independent module from the marketplace).
WIP, not a screenshot but a mock up, final look may differ
Additionally, we're equally happy to announce that we will be adding XMR <> PART support to the marketplace and Particl Desktop application as soon as Particl V3, the upcoming massive release, is out on mainnet. The integration will use both StealthEX and SimpleSwap exchanges to provide you with an easy way to swap coins before atomic swaps are pushed to the client, once ready.
---
We'd like to thank everyone involved in the development of the XMR <> BTC swap protocol that made this possible, especially h4sh3d for cracking the code on how to execute an XMR <> BTC atomic swap and the Monero community for funding the research.
The ability to swap XMR and BTC together is probably one of the biggest wins in crypto since the last few years, and we're super excited to see all that's going to be possible from now on. Let's keep pushing crypto forward and make it as private as it should!
submitted by CryptoGuard to Monero [link] [comments]

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

What I see when I see a student with ADHD

I have ADHD.
I was diagnosed at age 12. What happened is I got to middle school, and my life fell apart. It came on like a typhoon. Things seemed alright as I started, but I still remember that October when my family went to sixth-grade check-in.
My twin sister went first. The meeting lasted about four minutes. She and my parents left with smiles all around and talk of getting In N Out on the way home. Then it was my turn.
Every teacher I had stood in a circle. They seemed...different. One by one, they went around and told me that I was shit. Some were nicer than others, but everyone had the same message to convey:
Doesn't complete his homework all the way
Distracts others trying to learn
Unable to follow along in class
Not sure if he can keep up
I then heard my grades: C-, D+, C+, A in PE, C, and an F in Social Studies.
I don't remember being ashamed or embarrassed or anything. I remember being confused. I had gone to school every day and tried hard and thought I was doing what the teacher asked. Nope. Guess I wasn't.
Nobody had much advice for me. They just wanted me to know that I sucked. And that my parents should understand so. I don't know if my parents freaked out or punished me or what. But they weren't happy.
The last to go was my social studies teacher, Sven.
He asked me if I knew how to read.
I politely nodded my head.
But he wasn't sure. He talked about all the symptoms he had seen from me. To counter, I pulled a grad-level book on the Cold War off a shelf and read a page aloud while trying not to cry. People were even more confused.
Some estimate that a child with ADHD will receive 20,000 more negative comments before the age of 12 than a non-ADHD child will. I can't speak to that exactly, but I can say that this was not the only time I've had a room full of people upset with me for reasons I never saw coming. It doesn't get much easier.
Sven caught up to us as we walked to the car. He was cagey with his reasoning, but he told us that there might be something up with my brain. He recommended I get tested by a psychiatrist and see what she had to say. I've since come to my conclusions where he got such an idea.
The testing was fun. I've always liked tests. Didn't mention it, but they also thought I couldn't read in 2nd grade. Lol. That one went away after I took a standardized exam and scored in the 99th percentile of the nation in reading. I thought standardized tests were fun, you see.
I moved a bunch of colored balls into colored holes and tried to remember what color things were after 10 minutes and everything else you might expect. I didn't know what I was even doing, but I felt I could hang.
Three weeks later, I got my results. The only part I remember is that my psychiatrist noted that in her entire career, she had never met someone who scored higher on specific tasks and yet lower on others. My chart looked like OJ Simpson’s polygraph.
I could keep going, and in another article, I will. But this is how I got diagnosed. And the key to all of it was Sven. Everything makes perfect sense after the fact, but only when you realize that a single teacher served as the link that completes the narrative. I do not know where I am today without him.
I got lucky that this story takes place in 2003, and at a private school with teachers who genuinely cared about me. For reasons a lawyer in the comments needs to help me understand better, public school teachers seem loath to alert students of disabilities of any kind. This includes ADHD but also things like autism, dyslexia, and mood disorders. Things that seem apparent to me in a way that makes it seem impossible that no other teacher in the past 13 years hasn’t also picked up on them.
That means many students go through primary schooling while having no idea they have a problem at all. When I mention to a student they might have ADHD, they are first confused, but then some memories come back. The first is that someone, usually a sports or music coach, had once told them the same thing. The other is that they remember a lot of teachers saying weird stuff they didn't understand at the time. Stuff like, "You’re so talented. I just wish you could be better focused. Have you talked to anyone about why you could be having trouble?" To me, those sound like hints from a teacher who has been told by her bosses not to put the school at risk.
I am not a teacher. I'm a private consultant and can pretty much say whatever I want. I am also not a doctor - people would die - but I am a concerned adult who has taken courses in spotting learning disabilities. I'm also someone who will do absolutely anything to make sure his students have the best chance for success now and in the future. I'm also someone who asked both my ADHD-psychiatrist (hi!) and ADHD-therapist (hi!!!!!) if I had the right to tell students if I suspected something; they both went, Ya, dude. Totally.
So I try to be Sven. I try to pay attention to what my students do and say and provide feedback that can help them. I'd like to note what that feedback is here to make sure people don't miss it because my pieces go on for way too long.
If you are a high school student who suspects he or she has ADHD, your best course of action is to talk with your parents and look into being tested by a professional psychiatrist who specializes in the topic. These tests are expensive, and mental health insurance in America sucks balls. But this is the fastest, most straightforward route to getting the help you need.
Option two is to try and work with/through your public high school to get them to pay for it. This site has some good info. My guess is that this method will suck. Public schools don't have a lot of funding and will not want to spend it on you. That's not your problem. You will almost certainly need your parents to back you up on this one and sit through a lot of boring meetings. I assume a lot of people will tell you a lot of reasons why they can't help you. Your response every time should be some version of, "Sure. But I need help with this. And I'm not going to stop until I get the support I need. So what do I do from here?" Then you blankly stare at them and refuse to leave until they get you at least to the next step. I'm not sure how well this will work. If you do attempt or have attempted this method, please DM me or contact my Email with your experience. I want to know if this is even worth my student's time.
If you can not afford traditional testing or do not feel your parents would support such testing, your best option is to wait until the day you turn 18 and then register for a telehealth company specializing in ADHD. The one I use and recommend is HelloAhead.com. They're neat. They do not take traditional insurance, but their rates are much lower than most doctors. They are cheap enough that I feel an average 18-year old who wants help could find a way to afford it on his or her own. The downside with these sites is the waiting times can be long. Took me like five months. Other such sites are popping up, and while I can't vouch for them, they all seem to offer a similar service.
Those paragraphs are what I want every student here to know. I'm much more comfortable having a trained doctor tell you what the deal is than I am trying to do it myself.
But I have to see something if I want to be Sven. The question then is, how do I see it? For spotting ADHD, it's shockingly simple. And I'll get to the real reason at the end. But for now, here is what I see when I see a student with ADHD.
The best way I can describe their lives is "endless chaos"
The chaos isn't always bad! Rarely it's fun chaos, but often it's just chaos chaos. This chaos exists in both physical and mental forms.
Physical: Their shit is such a mess. Everything. Most of the work we do is digital, so I see the Google Doc version of their mind. Folders make no sense. Things are labeled inaccurately or not at all. Schools get combined, or separated, or forgotten altogether. It is not a single type of error, but instead a collection of small mistakes and poor decisions that make the work impossible to corral. I have some kids that are messy or lazy, but this is different. It's like if the original folder system I built for them was an amoeba in a petri dish. Leave that dish out for a weekend and come back. The patterns will be remarkably similar to the organizational gore that they then try to utilize.
Mental: There's always a story. "I was late because my car has a flat tire, and the guy was late, so I had to take an Uber." "I didn't know my music essays were due a month early because the form only mentioned there being a recital." "My friend is mad at me, but it's only because she didn't tell me we were the first group presenting, so I spent more time preparing our project".
These stories make sense at first. But after a few weeks, they start to pile up. Then I become the one hearing a story about why they didn't do what I wanted, and I stop being so forgiving.
ADHD is a neurological disorder. Not a mental illness. It's closer to diabetes than it is bi-polar. "ADHD" is a fairly garbage name for the condition because A) it has a stigma, and B) it isn't even accurate. Both attention deficit and hyperactivity are symptoms of ADHD, but they are not the problem itself. It would be like calling clinical depression "low energy and excessive guilt disorder". ADHD is actually an issue involving improper dopamine regulation in the brain combined with under-activity of the brain's executive function component.
The executive function center is the part of your brain that is in charge of making sure all the other parts of your brain play nice and communicate. When the executive function center breaks down...those other parts don't. The result is a failure to plan or coordinate + a need for impulsive stimulation, thus resulting in endless chaos.
This is what I’ll ask you if you DM me, btw. Is your life endless chaos? Sometimes do you like the chaos? Sometimes do you get bored and create the chaos yourself just to see what might happen? But when that chaos stops being so fun, can you make it stop?
They're very, very intelligent
You've probably heard about the "gifted ADHD genius" thing before. I don't think it exists.
My theory has always been that the "gifted ADHD child" is a victim of survivorship bias.
The research states that ADHD has either no or a negative correlation with intelligence.
There is also a startling overlap with ADHD and incarceration.
This means that students who still manage to succeed despite their disorder tend to have advantages that keep them in the game. Namely that they're smart as hell. The other saving grace is that they come from secure support networks that prevent them from unraveling completely. I've heard from such students that their mom or dad works tirelessly to keep their life in order and to make sure they're getting things done. I do not think it is a coincidence that when ADHD students leave for college, things often fall apart.
The fact that there are ADHD kids that others know and still like makes some think ADHD isn't so bad or comes with natural cognitive advantages. Those same people do not become friends with the ADHD dumb kids who would disprove those perceptions. Do you remember that kid in elementary school who was his own worst enemy? He never had friends, and everyone was kind of afraid to even talk with him? He was kind of a bully but mostly just awful? He invited you to his house one time, but your mom wouldn’t let you go? That is my best guess of what a dumb kid with ADHD is like. It sounds cold writing it, but you know which kid I'm talking about right now. Where do you think that kid is today?
I end up with the smart ones—the ones with parents who care. And God damn are these kids smart. They're brilliant, and funny, and likable, and charming. They have something different about them that makes them undeniable. And it's not just me. I worry I play them up too much in my mind, but then I chat with a teacher or coach of theirs. It's always the same thing: Oh, she's brilliant. She can be so frustrating sometimes, tho.
They can be so frustrating sometimes, tho
The word is frustrating. Now bad. Not nasty. Not unlikeable. Frustrating.
I have some students I just don't like that much (no, not you). What tends to be the common theme with them is that they don't have much interest in my help and display a work ethic to match. On the other spectrum are the world beaters (totally you). These kids kick ass and not only follow my advice but often take that advice to the next level in ways that awe and inspire me.
And then there are the kids I think have ADHD. They don't do stuff all the time. They don't finish an essay, or they forget to spell check like I asked, or they write about something that has nothing to do with the outline we built the week before. That's not necessarily the frustrating part. You kids are 17; you make mistakes. Early on, I try to spot these mistakes and point them out. Even the students who don't like me seem to get my point after enough prodding and the problem goes away.
With these kids, the problem does not go away. Or if it does, another problem pops right back up to replace it. It makes me feel like there's nothing I can do. It would be easier if the student was just a brat. Then I could either become a brat myself or mentally check out because "hey man, your future”.
I need a name for kids I suspect have ADHD…"MaybeHD"?
Ya. That’s super funny. Say it out loud and try not to laugh.
But these MaybeHD kids do like me. And they do want to get into school. And they do feel bad when I get upset with them. I end up in long, drawn-out conversations with them about why this is important and why they need to make specific work a priority to get into the schools they want to go to. Then they nod meekly and head home. Then they come back next week, and it's the same story.
Frustrating.
They are randomly awesome at the weirdest things
I love weird talents. Things that no one offers up immediately, but then you're chatting, and it comes up naturally. "Oh ya, I love animals! I raise baby pigs in my backyard!"
"You do?"
"Ya!"
At some point, the MaybeHD kid read something or watched a Youtube video that he or she liked. Then they wanted to try it. Six months later, they're making 4k a month selling custom bathrobes on Etsy. There's rarely any logic.
"Do you like baths? Or making clothing?
"Not really. I just thought it looked fun, so I bought a sewing kit and started making things."
There is a noted link between ADHD and entrepreneurship. I see it with my MaybeHD students. They have an insatiable drive and passion for following up on curiosities that other students don't possess. Passion is the wrong word. They have obsessions with mastering concepts in a way that feels beyond their control. The obsession itself drives them to be great.
The literature on the subject is cloudy. But there exists a term in ADHD circles called "Hyperfocus". If you know what "flow" is, it's kind of like that. Only more intense and less controllable. I often see the remnants of past hyperfocuses in their stories. They used to run that pig farm. They used to sell bathrobes. They used to be really into getting good grades at school. But then one day, just as quickly as they picked the skill up, they dropped it. They can seldom tell me why.
Their priorities are completely out of whack
The downside of hyperfocus is that it can be so all-encompassing that other priorities fall by the wayside. One of my favorite students ever is named Elleway. We chatted in our first meeting, and I was instantly intrigued by her background. She said she had designed and prototyped a unit that would automatically roll under parked electric cars for hands-free charging. I hear a lot of impressive stuff in my job, and a lot of it ends up being not that impressive. But then Elleway showed me the prototype video she made back when she was a high school freshman and it blew my mind.
https://youtu.be/Y5Ap2uMbWL4
Can you do that? I sure as hell can't. She wasn't even an engineer. She calmly explained that she had partnered with several older male engineers who had helped turn her idea into reality. Then she had done all the promotional and marketing work herself. Then she got second out of 300 students at a young entrepreneur contest held at Columbia University. Shortly after, a tech CEO came up to her and asked if she would like to work with him to file a patent for the invention. She agreed and is now a trademark holder.
That was all in our first 10 minutes. She then went on to share the half dozen corporations she had worked for. And the three businesses she started. And the graphic design work she made for her website. She told me how she was a Nationally ranked fencer until she lost interest. She was now merely a Nationally ranked golfer.
Then I saw she had a 2.9 GPA and thus zero shot at getting into NYU like she hoped.
I did not initially think Elleway had ADHD. I thought she was a pathological liar. It seemed impossible to me that this same girl who had already taken a grip on the world was then unable to keep up her grades in math. That just isn’t how any -any- of my other ultra high-achieving students behave. Then Elleway showed me pictures of her casually hanging out with Andrew Yang. And then her LinkedIn With a lot of people who do not accept your request unless they want to. I had to figure out what the hell led to all this.
Elleway’s patent and ambition to work on it had taken up all her time. She was so singularly focused on doing what she cared about that the world behind her didn't seem to exist. She was hyperfocused on a goal, but once she reached it, she woke up to a reality that punished her for ignoring everything else.
That's the longing writer's version of the story. The more popular one is that she didn't give a shit about school, was warned repeatedly about the consequences, and ignored them. She got what she deserved. That’s the version the rest of the world had for her.
It goes back to frustrating. I've gotten kids into NYU that don't show a fifth the potential that Elleway did. Those kids went to all the camps their parents paid for and entered competitions with a tech doorbell or something lame, and they're just fine. But MaybeHD students are often world-beaters in ways that make them seem so special. They talk endlessly not just about what they're into but how they figured it all out and why it is all so important to them. I believe them, and I want to fight for them. So I give them as much assistance as I possibly can. But then they don't do the increasingly easy tasks I ask for them to complete. Then they suffer the consequences.
Elleway didn't get into NYU. She didn't get in much of anywhere. It eats me up inside, and I feel like I failed her. I don't know how many other people in my position would feel the same way. That's why I have to be Sven.
This is getting long, and I'm getting depressed. Here's the TL: DR of what I see when I see a student with ADHD
...
Me. I see me. And it can hurt really bad knowing what a condition like ADHD does to a young person's life.
My life is endless chaos. I've been out of food for nine days. My house looks like Badger from Breaking Bad bought a loft in Palo Alto. I am still writing this at 3:25 AM when I have to be up for work at nine. My cat has started doing this thing where she sleeps in her food bowl when it gets empty. It's equal parts adorable and humiliating.
I'm smart as shit. I know it. I made up half-ideas. That article is absolute fire. I got published on Cracked.com five times in 2011 when that meant something. I went to Tulane on a half-ride merit scholarship, used to win creative writing contests, and have done a bunch of other writery stuff that made people stand up and go, "Woah".
But I only made it to college because my mom carried me there, kicking and screaming. She packaged my life together, and I held on for the ride. Then I got to school and made it two months before she got an Email alerting her that Tulane was planning to revoke the remaining $70,000 of my $80,000 scholarship due to my grades. I barely scraped by and survived. But the shame and frustration in her voice when she read me that letter over the phone haunts me to this day.
I analyze handwriting. And I turned a Reddit account into a successful business in four months. And I collect college T-shirts from schools my students go to. And I own Bitcoin I bought in 2011 for $4.50 each. And I'm teaching myself piano with a video game. And I'm exercising with a video game. And I'm ranked 42nd in Northern California at Super Smash Bros Ultimate. And I’ve tried the nachos at over 100 Taquerias in the Bay Area. And I own a really cute cat.
But I've spent 15* hours this week writing this instead of a sequel to that Costco piece. I have one coming where I edit my Common App essay from 2009. It's a great idea and a great article. One that will drive significantly more business to my site than this piece will. Hell, I predict this piece is likely to lose me business because I come off like a mess in it. But it's what I want to write, so I feel like I have no choice.
*The 15 hours is a guess. I have no idea how long it takes me to write and edit these things. I start typing and X hours later look up and realize how hungry I am and how much I need to pee. The writing controls me.
I see myself in my MaybeHD students. I see their unfettered curiosity and flair for taking as much good from the world as possible. I see their infectious enthusiasm and ability to quickly forgive others because they know too well how it feels to want forgiveness themselves.
Yet I also see their inattention to detail, their weak excuses, and their general confusion that makes me realize they couldn't fix some problems if their lives depended on it. I see their sadness and shame when those mistakes pile up. I see when the chaos stops being fun, and they want out, but they don't know how. I don't know what I, as their consultant, can do. But as Sven, I can recommend they go talk to someone else...
Hey, so, I was considering hiring you and all...but you seem kind of bad. Why should I trust you?
Because a couple of years ago, I got back on my medication and turned my life around. You aren't reading this if I don't reach out for help and trust a trained psychiatrist to guide me. There are no groups of friends in Delaware or Connecticut comparing their half-ideas lists. There sure as shit isn't a CollegeWithMattie.com.
I still have ADHD. But one of the greatest things about ADHD is that it is -without rival- the most treatable form of mental illness or dysfunction known to man. It is not curable, but there are endless medical and non-medical options available for those willing to reach out and get the help they need. My story is that it was only by getting re-medicated that I then could learn and use coping mechanisms that allow me to achieve the type of life I've always wanted.
Christ, 4,400 words. You know, I'm also submitting this for a class I'm in. That's why all the backlinks are to actual sources instead of links herding you into my website. Hi Amy! That's one more thing. ADHD people are hyper-efficient...Kind of.
Alright. If you're still here reading this, you might be suspecting some things about yourself. My DMs are open if you want to chat, but again, I am not a doctor. I will say that right now, as you prepare to head to college, is a really good time to get this all figured out. College is a giant reset button on your life. Figure these problems out now so that by the time you head off for your next chapter, you will have given yourself the best possible chance to succeed.
Endless chaos.
Here is the bold part again:
If you are a student in high school who suspects he or she has ADHD, your best course of action is to talk with your parents and look into being tested by a professional psychiatrist who specializes in the topic. These tests are expensive, and mental health insurance in America (still) sucks balls. But this is the fastest, most straightforward route to getting the help you need.
Option two is to try and work with/through your public high school to get them to pay for it. This site has some good info. My guess is that this method will kind of suck. Public schools don't have a lot of funding and will not want to spend it on you. That's not your problem. You will almost certainly need your parents to back you up on this one and sit through a lot of boring meetings. I assume a lot of people will tell you a lot of reasons why they can't help you. Your response every time should be some version of, "Sure. But I need help with this. And I'm not going to stop until I get the support I need. So what do I do from here?" Then you blankly stare at them and refuse to leave until they get you at least to the next step. This will suck and I'm not sure how well it will work. If you do attempt or have attempted this method, please DM me or contact my Email with your experience. I want to know if this is even worth my student's time.
If you can not afford traditional testing, or if you do not feel your parents would support such testing, your best option is to wait until the day you turn 18 and then register for a telehealth company that specializes in ADHD. The one I use and recommend is HelloAhead.com. They're neat. They do not take traditional insurance, but their rates are much lower than most doctors. They are cheap enough that I feel an average 18-year old who wants help could find a way to afford it on his or her own. The downside with these sites is the waiting times can be really long. Took me like five months. Other such sites are popping up, and while I can't vouch for them, they all seem to offer a similar service.
Update: The lines aren't that long anymore! Monday was Elleway's 18th birthday. She sent me a screengrab of her upcoming Ahead appointment in early September. She told me she spent the entire day crying because all her friends were going off to great schools and that she was stuck at home. I've told Elleway that I plan to help her reapply to NYU this year. I doubt I will ever want to see another student succeed as much as I will with her.
submitted by CollegeWithMattie to ApplyingToCollege [link] [comments]

An attepmt at explaining DeFi (this week...)

Warning, long post from my mornings contemplation. See https://twitter.com/markjeffrey/status/1300175793352445952 (Mark Jeffery 30 mins) for a video explaining DeFi.
This is my attempt at explaining DeFi.
I’m still learning this stuff, so any corrections are welcomed.
Links are provided for information, none are recommendations, nor referral links. Do your own research (DYOR) before investing :)
I’ll try not to shill YFI too much...
Not all platforms use the same mechanics as I describe, but I think I’ve covered the most common ones.

Stable coins
Crypro currency that is intended to maintain a level value. Normally with respect to USD $. Some rely on a trusted third party who has actual USD sitting in a bank account (USDT aka Tether, USDC…), others are trustless (DAI)

Maker
Lock collateral into the smart contract. Then DIA can be generated, and used for other things. DAI is designed to match the USD, and is completely trustless. You must have more value staked than the DAI removed (at least 150% over collateral) or you will get liquidated.

BTC on ETH
Bitcoin can not be directly used on the etherium chain. So, there are a number ways to make the value availble. Most involve trusting a 3rd party and the most common is wrapped BTC wBTC.
Notes WETH (Wrapped ETH) is used by some contracts to use ETH (direct use of ETH is not possible in some contracts) Unlinke WBTC, WETH is trustless as evrythign is done on the etherium blockchain (I think).

Lending
You deposit a valuable token onto a pool on platform, someone else borrows it. They pay interest to the pool. You get a proportion of the pools interest over time. When there is high demand for a particular token, the interest rate increases dynamically.
e.g. look at the interest rate model and click on the figure for
https://compound.finance/markets/USDC
Borrow rates increase lineally as more of the available pool is loaned. 2% at zero and 12.5% when the pool is emptied.
Earnings are lower than the borrowing rates because: There is more in the pool than borrowed. The platform takes a cut.
e.g. 50% of the pool is borrowed, the borrower pays 7.25%, but the lenders only get 3.38%. 3.38/0.5 = 6.76%, so about 0.5% of the interest is being taken by compound.
Different pools have different interest rate functions, DAI has an inflection point to maintain a buffer https://compound.finance/markets/DAI
The interest rate increases slowly to 4% until 75% of the available pool is loaned out. Then it’s much more expensive to borrow e.g. 16% APR at 90% utilisation.
When lending a single token into a single pool, you should always get the (slightly ?) more of same token back.

How lending works
You deposit ETH, you are given a token back as proof of participation in the pool (cETH for comound.finance).
The exchange rate for cETH to ETH is NOT fixed. Rather is changes over time. As the ETH interest is paid into the pool the cETH becomes more valuable compared to the initial deposit.
e.g. you deposit 10 ETH, and get 499.52 cETH. In a months time, you repay the 499.2 cETH cETH and get 10.1 ETH back. You have just gained 1%.

Taxes
In many jurisdictions, converting ETH to cETH would be classed as a taxable event (DYOR ! )

Lego Bricks
The cETH represents your ETH, so it has value. This means it can be used for other things...
Lego bricks is taken to mean that all these things fit together and you can sue them in different ways.

How borrowing works
You need to be over colarteralised to borrow from most platforms. So, if you deposit 10.0 ETH into a smart contract, you (currently) have $4,000 of collateral to work with. The platform may then let you borrow a % of your collateral in other tokens.
So, you can borrow $2,000 of USDC, to buy more 5 ETH. Then when ETH price goes up you sell $2100 back to USDC and repay the interest. Now you have 10.x ETH.
This is a form of Leverage, when the price goes up, you win. However, if the ETH price goes down, you risk being Liquidated. This means part of your collateral will be sold at the (lower) market price to repay your loan. There will likely be a penalty for you. (e.g. @ ETH = $300, 7.33 of your ETH is sold for $2,400, your USDC loan is repaid, and you keep the remaining 2.67 ETH and the 5 ETH you purchased.

Shorting
Deposit $8,000 collateral, Borrow 10 ETH and sell for $400 each. If the price drops to $380, buy 10.1 ETH and repay the loan and interest. You have just made $162 profit. However, if the price goes up you will still need to buy 10.1 ETH.

Flash Loans
A technomage creates a single transaction that borrows lots of money. Then within the same single ~13 second block uses it to do lots of complex things to hopefully make a profit. As it’s all within a single block, collateral is not required.
See https://mobile.twitter.com/nanexcool/status/1297068546023993349 for a transaction that made ~46,000 USDC profit (without collateral)
If this post is introducing you to the possibilities of flash loans, you are very unlikely to ever do one in the near future.
I think Aave is the most common source for flash loans.

Simple farming lending:
Simply put you token in which ever platform offers the largest interest rate. Moving to the best option costs gas (and attention).

Complex lending farming
Some platforms offer tokens in return for using a platform, so simple APR comparisons aren’t sufficient. If the additional platform token has high value it can distort the market.
E.g. when COMP was initially offered, it was profitable to:

  1. Place collateral on compound.finance
  2. Borrow BAT at 30%
  3. Lend the BAT back to the same platform at 15%
  4. Collect the COMP accrued due to interest paid and interest earned.
  5. Sell the COMP on the open market.
This technique was made less favourable by compound changing the distribution model so smaller pools (like BAT) couldn’t be exploited in this way.

DEX
Decentralised exchanges range from ones that operate with depositing assets, trading with an order book and then withdrawing, to simple interfaces that allow you to swap tokens. of the latter, the most popular is uniswap.

Liquidity provision
The swap based DEX’s rely on liquidity providers (LP). Here you deposit equal values of two tokens e.g. USDC and ETH.
Then any time someone wants to swap USDC for ETH on the exchange, they add USDC and remove ETH from the pool.
Each time someone does a swap, they pay a fee to the liquidity pool and you get a share.

Impairment loss
However, if the price of one asset goes up, the pool with stabilise to have less of it. So you see an overall increase, but not as much as if you had just hold’ed.
See https://twitter.com/ChainLinkGod/status/1270046868932661248 for an example.
Hopefully, the fees accrued are greater than the losses.
https://twitter.com/Tetranode/status/1300326676451057664/photo/1

Stable coin pairs
If you restrict yourself to similar things (e.g. USD stable coins, or different versions of BTC on Ethereum), then the impairment loss is much reduced. Curve.finance focuses on such like for like pools and allows multiple tokens in a single pool.

Complex farming liquidity pools
Taking advantage of governance token rewards for using certain exchanges / pools. This can be done to boot strap liquidity and / or allow a decentralisation of the governance of the DEX.
The tokes received have value because of expected future income, or governance rights (which may be exploited for future income)

Yearn
Yearn is a group of smart farmer protocols that allow pooling to reduce gas costs and benefit from smart developers / contracts.
The simplest EARN take tokens / stable coins and place them in the highest yielding platform for that token. https://yearn.finance/earn
The yCRV vault provides USD stable coin liquidity within curve for trading fees, but also lending fees via Yearn pools for each stable coin (oh and it gets CRV governance tokens…).
Other vaults use more complex strategies. The collateral is used to generate stable coins that then generate income from interest rates, Liquidity provision fees, and accrual of governance tokens. Some governance tokens are sold, others are used to optimise the rewards from other platforms.
For example, see this video on the Link Vault (Mark Jeffrey 13 mins).
https://twitter.com/markjeffrey/status/1300175793352445952
I expect the ETH vault may be similar, but may include Maker to generate the stable coins (rather than borrowing on Aave).
This video is a good intro on curve / yearn products (DeFIDad 31 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-4pJpKbRU
All of these steps can be done by yourself, however, gas costs would be significant unless you have a large amount invested. Yearn, and vaults pay fees to the YFI protocol.

YFI
YFI is the token for yearn. There are only 30,000 issued. So, you can not earn them, you can:
1) Stake them for governance rewards
2) place in a yYFI vauly to gain more FYI
3) Use them as long term Ventrue capital funds within a DAO (coming soon (tm) ).

YFII, YVFV etc.
Forks of the YFI with different tokens / fees.

YAM, Sushi, YFII, etc.
To be completed…

Synthetix
To be completed...

Finally:
This is not financial advice.
There are multiple risks which get larger as more moving parts are added.
Errors and omissions expected.
Do you own research.
Comments and corrections welcomed
submitted by Over-analyser to ethfinance [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's next 15 years : Year 2020–2035

2020 4Q

~ More companies follow in Microstrategy’s footsteps. Rumors of more corporate treasurers investing in BTC in boardrooms globally. A few listed large corporates announce accumulation of BTC after their buddies have all bought in (Board members, C-suite executives, family, and friends, etc.)
~ Money printing does not stop as the deflationary force of technology is too severe; the new US government formed after Biden’s win begins to adopt MMT as its primary guidance of future economic theory, led by Steph Kelton.
~ The holiday season and strong seasonality pump BTC back to $20k for the first time. Hard rejection and price fall back to $14k.

2021

~ BTC finally breaks $20k after multiple retests of overhead resistance sometime in spring
~ Almost weekly we see another corporation announcing vested interest in BTC
~ No longer in doubt that the asset class is in a bull market. Macro funds pile in. By year-end, we’re at $55k. Newspaper reports Bitcoin has now broken the $1 trillion mark. Most institutions begin scrambling to understand the asset class and set up “Digital Asset Investment teams”
~ Retail money flows to altcoins; Bitcoin is becoming too expensive for “retail” investors. The bitcoin community discusses possibly denoting BTC as sats, but majority of exchanges not interested as they derive most income from alt flows. However, most Bitcoin-only platforms switch to sats as the primary display format led by bitcoiners who now have considerable wealth and influence
~ Increasing talk that some smaller nations are now discussing the prospect of including Bitcoin on their central bank balance sheet
~ The first BTC-denominated corporate bond is launched

2022

~ Those in power have established full BTC positions, and we begin to see subtle clues that some countries are possibly accumulating BTC
~ Private banks selling BTC structured products now out in full force; custody solutions are now institutional-grade. 50% of the world’s banks have some product/solution tailored around bitcoin. The other 50% scramble.
~ Marks the top as BTC momentarily exceeds the most valuable company by market cap (~$2.5 trillion in 2022 @ $130K price). The final days of the frenzy are filled with rumors that central banks have accumulated 10% of global supply, and that it may even form part of the IMF’s global recognized reserve currencies. Crypto Twitter reaches peak “I told you so”

2023

~ The next bear market isn’t as severe as the last few; as the digital asset teams of various institutions are accumulating up to 2-5% of their AuM. It’s now commonly accepted that this asset class is here to stay and that even deploying $10 billion is no longer an issue in an asset class worth an aggregate $5 trillion.
~ BTC finds a floor 60% lower at $50K as smart money accumulates. CT screams for a 80% correction because mUh bItCoIn cYcLeS aNd fRaCtAls
~ Investment banks now have full-fledged research teams dedicated to digital assets. Calls for 80% correction too, so the smart money front-runs.
~ The middle class latches on to the wholecoining meme. “1 Bitcoin to secure a retirement; stack those sats”
~ The wealthy who are now increasingly composed of inherited wealth begin selling real estate/equities/bonds for Bitcoin but holds their BTC with their private bank. Realizing that Bitcoin supply is truly limited and sensing the “1 bitcoin to retire” meme; and that not every millionaire can own 1 bitcoin, many of the rich/ultra-rich scramble to buy 5–100 BTC each if only to cement their status as rich. 5–100 BTC costs $500K-10M (at $100k per BTC)
~ The winning product of the year is an automatic savings plan in bitcoin.

2025

~ Bitcoin is back to trading near its all-time highs of $130K after the 2024 halving cycle, however, the effect is marginal but the markets wrongly attribute it to the halving supply squeeze, building a false narrative for the next cycle in 2028.
~ Institutional money now in full-play; on hindsight we’ll realize the 10-year steady bull-run has actually begun since last year in 2023, similar to the gold bull run from 2000 to 2011
~ More exchanges finally denominate BTC in sats. $100K BTC = 0.1 cent per sat. Logging into platform displays your stack as:
“11.7m satoshis ≈ $17,500”

2028

~ Retail attempts to trade around the 2028 halving cycle. The halving cycle no longer have much of an impact, as demand now far outstrips supply changes
~ Many earlycoiners now sell between $200–400K, only to see it continue its relentless climb at a 30% annual rate
~ The first central bank announces the official addition to their balance sheets; all other central bank begins to FOMO. Cements BTC as a global reserve asset.
~ Governments ask that private ownership of bitcoin be transferred to regulated financial institutions such as their local bank where it will be held under custody. 70% of people do so.

2033

~ Many of the early-coiners now buyback at near to $1M ($20 trillion market cap), finally equaling gold’s market cap at a price of $4000+
~ Bitcoin peaks and meanders under $1M for the next decade
~ Volatility is now <10% per year, merchants begin adopting it en-masse as a medium of exchange

2035

~ 5 years of price stability leads to some merchants re-pricing certain goods in sat-terms
~ The lightning network crosses a billion channels created
~ Fiat does not go away, but most G20 countries decide to ban bitcoin as a medium of exchange for economic transactions. Ownership of bitcoin as an asset is encouraged as a store of wealth; private ownership is frowned upon and in some cases made illegal.
submitted by laobuggier to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

$1,000 invested in Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 now worth $1,260 (UP +26%)

$1,000 invested in Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 now worth $1,260 (UP +26%)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 - Month Eighteen - UP +26%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr - Tether (as it's designed to do) holds its ground, all others finish the month in negative territory. Tron finishes June in second place, down -2%. BSV loses nearly 25% of value in June. Overall, since January 2019, BTC in lead, ETH takes over second place, XRP still worst performing. The 2019 Top 10 is up +26% almost equal to the the gains of the S&P 500 over the same time period (+24%).

Month Eighteen – UP 26%

Not a great month for the 2019 Top Ten
After a strong April and a mixed May, June was bloody for the 2019 Top Ten Cryptos. Stablecoin Tether was the only crypto to hold its ground, as it was designed to do.

Question of the month:

According to a June article citing unnamed sources, which two FinTech companies are planning to allow their users to buy and sell crypto directly?

A) Paypal and Venmo B) Square and Cashapp C) Robinhood and Revolut D) Sofi and Coinbase
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and June Winners and Losers

XRP and Stellar slipped one place each in the rankings in June, now at #4 and #14 respectively. EOS fell two spots to #11 and joins Stellar and Tron as the only three cryptos to have dropped out of the 2019 Top Ten since January 1st, 2019. They have been replaced by Binance Coin, Cardano, and newcomer CRO.
Tether was the only crypto to move up in rank in June.
Not a good sign when Tether is the only crypto to move up.
Not a good sign when Tether enters the Top 3.
June WinnersTether. Second comes Tron, which basically held its ground at -2%.
June LosersBSV lost -23% of its value in June making it the worst performing of the 2019 Top Ten portfolio. EOS had a rough month as well, down -17%, dropping two spots in the rankings, and falling out of the Top Ten.
If you’re keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 18 months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment: Tether is still in the lead with six monthly victories followed by BSV in second place with three. BSV also holds the most monthly losses, finishing last in seven out of eighteen months. The only crypto not to win a month so far? XRP. (In fairness, XRP has also not lost any month yet).

Overall update – BTC in lead, ETH takes over second place, XRP still worst performing

BTC is out front for the second straight month and ETH has taken over second place from BSV. Ahead until April, BSV has simply not keep up with the pack over the last two months. Bitcoin is up +144% since January 2019. The initial $100 investment in BTC is currently worth $249.
Eighteen months in, 50% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are in the green since the beginning of the experiment. The other five cryptos are either flat or in negative territory, including last place XRP (down -50% since January 2019).

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market as a whole is down about $20B in June, but still up +106% since January 2019.

Bitcoin dominance:

BitDom finally wobbled in June, but not by much – it’s been in a very familiar zone for months now, indicating a lack of excitement (or at least a low risk tolerance) for altcoins. Taking a wider view, the Bitcoin Dominance range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has ranged between 50%-70%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:

The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio lost almost $175 in June. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 group of Top Ten cryptos is worth $1,259. That’s up about +26%.
Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first 18 months of the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund experiment, month by month:
18 months of ROI, mostly green
Unlike the completely red table you’ll see in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, the 2019 crypto table is almost all green. The first month was the lowest point (-9%), and the highest point (+114%) was May 2019.
How does the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Portfolio compare to the parallel projects?
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, the combined portfolios are worth $2,710‬.
That’s down about -10% for the three combined portfolios. Last month that figure was +4%. Better than a few months ago (aka the zombie apocalypse) where it was down -24%, but not yet back at January (+13%) or February (+6%) levels.
Here’s a new table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios:
ROI of all three combined portfolios - not exactly inspiring
How do crypto returns compare to traditional markets?

Comparison to S&P 500:

Good thing I’m tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. Even with unemployment, protests, and COVID, the US market continued to rebound in June. It’s now up +24% in the last 18 months.
The initial $1k investment I put into crypto would be worth $1,240 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019.
As a reminder (or just scroll up) the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning +26% over last 18 months, just about equal to the return of the S&P 500 over the same time period. Just last month the ROI of the 2019 Top Ten crypto portfolio was nearly double the S&P 500 since January 1st, 2019.
But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging/$1,000-per-year-in-January approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$170
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$240
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$40
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,370.
That $3,370 is up over+12% since January 2018, compared to the $2,710 value (-10%) of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios. Here’s another new table that compares the ROI of the combined crypto portfolios to a hypothetical similar approach with the S&P 500:
We see in June the largest difference in favor of the S&P since the beginning of 2020: a 22% gap. Compare that February, when there was only a 1% difference in ROI.

Implications/Observations:

Since January 2019, the crypto market as a whole has gained +106% compared to the 2019 Top Ten Crypto Portfolio which has gained +26%. That’s an 80% gap.
At this point in the 2019 Experiment, an investor would have done much better picking different cryptos or investing in the entire market instead of focusing only on the 2019 Top Ten. Over the course of the first 18 months of tracking the 2019 Top Ten, there have been instances this was a winning strategy, but the cases have been few and far between.
The 2018 Top Ten portfolio, on the other hand, has never outperformed the overall market, at least not in the first thirty months of that Experiment.
And for the most recent 2020 Top Ten group? The opposite had been true: the 2020 Top Ten had easily outperformed the overall market 100% of the time…up until the last two months.

Conclusion:

As the world continues to battle COVID, traditional markets seem to be recovering. Will crypto make a significant move in the second half of 2020?
Final word: Stay safe and take care of each other.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the recently launched 2020 Top Ten Experiment.

And the Answer is…

A) Paypal and Venmo
According to a Coindesk report in June, three sources familiar with the matter say that Paypal and Paypal-owned Venmo are planning to allow their users to buy and sell crypto. Paypal has declined to comment.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

This November...

Let's set aside the tickename issue for a second and think as scientists about the upcoming experiment. Assuming there will be a split, I think it's going to be interesting. (If the split is somehow avoided, then all of the following makes no sense, of course)
I frankly think the experiment of "hashrate-funded centrally-developed Bitcoin Cash" vs "hodler-funded multi-team-developed Bitcoin Cash" is very interesting. I don't mean "centrally-developed" as an offence here, it's just a fact - ABC will be developing it.
Before you start throwing in tomatos, let's think about it.
We all have front-row seats - each gets equal amount of both coins, so either coin wins - you have your cut.
It might even be that BOTH coins will be winners, since unlike the BSV situation, this is going to be probably developed under MIT license, so either side can copy code from other side. (Unless, of course, ABC goes BSV-way and protects their code with a restrictive license, while the other side will be using MIT/BSD licenses for sure)
Let's consider both sides' pros and cons.

ABC side

I don't really like IFP, but I think what Amaury did was pretty clever and worth considering. With this plan he gets to control his coin fully and impose any rules he sees as best for his coin, be it drift correction, 6-month releases or whatever else. He believes in his power to make this coin the best, so let's see if he can.
[+] Corporations are often pretty efficient at what they do. Usually, with capitalism and democracy they will perfect their game like no one, because of competition.
[-] But this won't be exactly like capitalism, more like socialism, because ABC/Amaury will get paid no matter their performance. They will always get 8%. That makes people lazy. Why bother if you get your salary anyway?
[+] ABC has a track record of 3 years and BCH didn't die, which gives them some credit that they could do it.
[+] Amaury and ABC will get paid in their own coin, so the more valuable it is, the richer they get. (Unless they sell for USD immediately) Also, they will get close to $8 million in funding in first year alone (at the current price), which would allow him to hire, well, best of the best in their class (cryptographers, developers, etc...). Amaury knows that and he's right - developers are freaking expensive ($100,000+/year). (Well, again, assuming Amaury will be hiring...)
[-] They don't have to listen to the community, so they have no force feedback if what they do is of any value or is it a useless distraction.

BCHN + others

[+] Hodler-funded means that you don't get paid unless you promise to deliver useful value and have proven to provide value in the past. So you have to perfect your game always - that's much closer to capitalism.
[-] Very hard to raise funds. Amaury will get $8m/year while BCHN and other nodes barely managed to collect $100-200K, probably for the next year or so. Hodlers don't want to give away their money too much, because it might 10x or 20x in very short amount of time.
[+] If BCHN/other nodes do their job well and the coin value raise - their money becomes more valuable, so $100K might become $1M in a year. Assuming they haven't sold for USD. Something tells me they didn't.
[-] Grass-roots things can be short-lived. People are free to join and leave any time, so eventually you get tired of everything.

Potential problems with the experiment

  1. Tickename, obviously pretty bad issue;
  2. Reputation/community loss (BCH splitting again);
  3. Confusion for next few years about what Bitcoin Cash is (just like it was with BCH/BTC split);
  4. No replay protection (this one is nasty), so it's hard to split your money at fork time, you need to wait to get some miner dust to mix in with your coins to split them properly;
  5. Potential that one side might be without wallets at first (i.e. if all wallets and services like Fountainhead/rest.bitcoin.com, which are used by wallets, leave ABC - how would you transfer your money?) - that surely will be a blow, but it's fixable. BCH started this way too.
  6. EDIT: Merchant dis-adoption. Many will be tired of non-stop drama and leave. Maybe, stability of BCHN site will lure some back later. (comment about this)
I don't see miners as an issue (I explained why here and here)
I'm actually curious. Whether corporate efficiency (but with a bit of socialism) or grass-roots (barely with any funding in comparison) will get ahead.
Even though there is already a similar experiment going (BSV), but it's still interesting - each corporation is different and where Apple succeeded, many other phone/computer companies failed. Is listening to market critical? Remember Henry Ford: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." On the other hand we have plenty of coins with a lot of funding not even in Top 10.
Get your tickets (coins) ready, we're in for a ride!
submitted by readcash to btc [link] [comments]

[ CryptoCurrency ] Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

[ 🔴 DELETED 🔴 ] Topic originally posted in CryptoCurrency by xSeq22x [link]
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/lg16iwk2dhq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c899ee69800dd6c5e2900d8fa83de7a43c57086

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/Eb8xkDi_PUg

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/_-k0xkooSlA

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
https://youtu.be/mWBzFmzzBAg

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/ththwq5qdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=92f75152c90d984911db88ed174ebf3a147ca70d

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/lv2h7g9sdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=56eada6e8c72dbb4406d7c5377ad15608bcc730e

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/qe8e5ltudhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=18a2866104590f81a818690337f9121161dda890

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/0mnvpnzwdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8927ff2821415817265be75c59261f83851a2791

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/rsctxi6zdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff762dea3cfc2aaaa3c8fc7b1070d5be6759aac2

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/7phaylb1ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=d86d2ec49de456403edbaf27009ed0e25609fbff

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/l775gue3ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7c4b5802ceb1a9307bd2a8d65f393d1bcb0d7c6

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/zb72eto5ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ee102a2881d763296ad9ffba20667f531d2fd7a
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/fwi3clz7ehq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=c91c1645a4c67defd5fc3aaec84f4a765e1c50b6
xSeq22x your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Here is how to play the altcoin game - for newbies & champs

I have been here for many previous altcoin seasons (2013,2017 etc) and wanted to share knowedle. It's a LOOONG article.
The evaluation of altcoins (i.e not Bitcoin) is one of the most difficult and profitable exercises. Here I will outline my methodology and thinking but we have to take some things as a given. The first is that the whole market is going up or down with forces that we can't predict or control. Bitcoin is correlated with economic environments, money supply increases, safe havens such as Gold, hype and country regulations. This is an impossible mix to analyze and almost everyone fails at it. That's why you see people valuing Bitcoin from $100 to $500k frequently. Although I am bullish on the prospects of Bitcoin and decentralization and smart contract platforms, this is not the game I will be describing. I am talking about a game where you try to maximize your BTC holdings by investing in altcoins. We win this game even if we are at a loss in fiat currency value. To put it another way:
If you are not bullish in general on cryptocurrencies you have no place in investing or trading cryptocurrencies since it's always a losing proposition to trade in bubbles, a scientifically proven fact. If on the other hand you are then your goal is to grow your portfolio more than you would if holding BTC/ETH for example.

Bitcoin is the big boy

How the market works is not easily identifiable if you haven't graduated from the 2017 crypto university. When there is a bull market everything seems amazingly profitable and things keep going up outgrowing Bitcoin by orders of magnitude and you are a genius. The problem with this is that it only works while Bitcoin is going up a little bit or trades sideways. When it decides to move big then altcoins lose value both on the way up and on the way down. The second part is obvious and proven since all altcoins from 2017 are at a fraction of their BTC value (usually in the range of 80% or more down). Also, when BTC is making a big move upwards everyone exits altcoins to ride the wave. It is possible that the altcoin market behaves as an inversed leveraged ETF with leakage where in a certain period while Bitcoin starts at 10k and ends at 10k for example, altcoins have lost a lot of value because of the above things happening.

We are doing it anyway champ!

OK so we understand the risks and just wanna gambol with our money right? I get it. Why do that? Because finding the ideal scenario and period can be extremely profitable. In 2017 several altcoins went up 40x more than BTC. But again, if you don't chose wisely many of them have gone back to zero (the author has first hand experience in this!), they have been delisted and nobody remembers them. The actual mentality to have is very important and resembles poker and other speculative games:
A certain altcoin can go up in value indefinitely but can only lose it's starting investment. Think about it. You either lose 1 metric or gain many many more. Now that sounds amazing but firstly as we said we have the goal to outperform our benchmark (BTC) and secondly that going up in value a lot means that the probability is quite low. There is this notion of Expected Value (EV) that poker players apply in these kind of situations and it goes like that. If you think that a certain coin has a probability let's say 10% to go up 10X and 90% probability it goes to zero it's an even bet. If you think that probability is 11% then it's a good bet, a profitable bet and you should take it. You get the point right? It's not that it can only go 10X or 0X, there is a whole range of probability outcomes that are too mathematical to explain here and it doesn't help so much because nobody can do such analysis with altcoins. See below on how we can approximate it.

How to evaluate altcoins

A range of different things to take into account outlined below will form our decision making. Not a single one of them should dictate 100% of our strategy.

Basics

It's all about market cap. Repeat after me. The price of a coin doesn't mean anything. Say it 10 times until you believe it. I can't remember how many times I had conversations with people that were comparing coins using their coin price instead of their market cap. To make this easy to get.
If I decide because the sky is blue to make my coin supply 100 Trillion FoolCoins with a price of $0.001 and there is another WiseCoin with a supply of 100 Million and price of $1 then FoolCoins are more expensive. - Alex Fin's Cap Law

Fundamental analysis

This is done usually in the stock world and it means that each company has some fundamental value that includes it's assets, customers, growth prospects, sector prospects and leadership competence but mostly centered in financial measures such as P/E ratios etc. Valuation is a proper economic discipline by itself taught in universities. OK, now throw everything out of the window!.
This kind of analysis is impossible in vague concepts and innovations that are currently cryptocurrencies. Ethereum was frequently priced at the fictional price of gas when all financial systems on earth run on the platform after decades (a bit of exaggeration here). No project is currently profitable enough to justify a valuation multiple that is usually equal to P/E in the thousands or more. As such we need to take other things into account. What I do is included in the list below:

Relative valuation

One of my favorite ways to value altcoins that is based on the same principle in the stock market is to look at peers and decide what is the maximum cap it can grow to. As an example you take a second layer Ethereum solution that has an ICO and you want to decide if you will enter or not. You can take a look at other coins that are in the same business and compare their market caps. Thinking that your coin will outperform by a lot the top coins currently is overly optimistic so I usually take a lower valuation as a target price. If the initial offering is directly implying a valuation that is more than that then there is no room to grow according to my analysis and I skip it. Many times this has proven me wrong because it's a game theory problem where if many people think irrationally in a market it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But since there is opportunity cost involved, in the long run, getting in initial offerings that have a lot of room to grow will pay off as a strategy.

Sector prospects

In 2017 the sexiest sector was platforms and then coins including privacy ones. Platforms are obviously still a highly rated sector because everything is being built on them, but privacy is not as hot as it used to be. In 2018 DEXes were all they hype but still people are massively using centralized exchanges. In 2020 Defi is the hottest sector and it includes platforms, oracles and Defi projects. What I am saying is that a project gets extra points if it's a Defi one in 2020 and minus points if it's a payment system that will conquer the world as it was in 2017 because that's old news. This is closely related to the next section.

Hype

Needless to say that the crypto market is a worse FOMO type of inexperienced trigger happy yolo investors , much worse than the Robinhood crowd that drove a bankrupt company's stock 1200% after they declared bankruptcy. The result is that there are numerous projects that are basically either vaporware or just so overhyped that their valuation has no connection to reality. Should we avoid those kind of projects? No and I will explain why. There are many very good technically projects that had zero hype potential due to incompetent marketing departments that made them tank. An example (without shilling because I sold out a while back) is Quantum Resistant Ledger. This project has amazing quantum resistant blockchain, the only one running now, has a platform that people can build tokens and messaging systems and other magnificent stuff. Just check how they fared up to now and you will get the point. A project *needs* to have a hype factor because you cannot judge it as normal stocks that you can do value investing like Warren Buffet does where a company will inevitable post sales and profitability numbers and investors will get dividends. Actually the last sentence is the most important: No dividends. Even projects that give you tokens or coins as dividends are not real dividends because if the coin tanks the value of the dividend tanks. This is NOT the case with company stocks where you get dollars even if the company stock tanks. All that being said, I would advice against betting on projects that have a lot of hype but little substance (but that should be obvious!).

How to construct your portfolio

My strategy and philosophy in investing is that risk should be proportional to investment capital. That means that if you are investing 100K in the crypto market your portfolio should be very different than someone investing 1K because 10% annual gains are nothing in the latter while they are very significant in the former. Starting from this principle each individual needs to construct a portfolio according to how much risk he wants to take. I will emphasize two important concepts that play well with what I said. In the first instance of a big portfolio you should concentrate on this mantra: "Diversification is the only free meal in finance". In the case of a small portfolio then this mantra is more important: "Concentrate to create wealth, diversify to maintain wealth". Usually in a big portfolio you would want to hold some big coins such as BTC and ETH to weather the ups and downs explained in previous paragraphs while generating profits and keep progressively smaller parts of your portfolio for riskier investments. Maybe 50% of this portfolio could be big caps and 10% very risky initial offerings. Adapting risk progressively to smaller portfolios makes sense but I think it would be irrational to keep more than 30% of a portfolio no matter what tied to one coin due to the very high risk of bankruptcy.

Conclusion

The altseason is supposedly coming every 3 months. Truth is that nobody can predict it but altcoins can be profitable no matter what. Forget about maximalists who are stuck in their dogmas. Altcoins deliver different value propositions and it makes sense because we are very far from a situation where some project offers everything like Amazon and we wouldn't even want that in the first place since we are talking about decentralization and not a winner takes all and becomes a monster kind of scenario! Some last minute advice:
P.S If you find value in reading this and want more weekly consider subscribing to my newsletter here
submitted by aelaos1 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

An Overview of Arizona Primary Races - Part 4: Legislative Districts 11-20

Welcome back to my omnibus compendium of Arizona’s upcoming primary races in the style of my 2018 summaries. The primary is set to take place August 4th – early voting ballots should have been mailed out on or around July 8th.
Arizona’s a really interesting state (I may be a hair biased), since it not only is home to 2-3 swing House seats and a high-profile Senate race, but also tenuous majorities in both state houses that could – theoretically – neuter Ducey’s trifecta this fall. And counties have their races this year as well, so I’ve highlighted some of the fireworks ongoing in Maricopa.
And this is before factoring in the fact that our state is a COVID-19 hotspot, with an unpopular Republican Governor doing almost nothing to stop it.
If you’re interested about which district you live in, check https://azredistricting.org/districtlocato. If you want to get involved with your local Democratic party, find your legislative district on the previous link (NOT CD), and then search for your LD’s name at this link. Feel free to attend meetings, they’re a great way to get involved with candidates and like-minded individuals.
If you wish to donate to a “clean elections” candidate (mentioned in the post as “clean”), you will have to live in that candidate’s legislative district to give qualifying $5 contributions (check here if anyone needs it in your area), but they are allowed to accept a limited amount of “seed money” from people outside of the district. The three CorpComm candidates can take $5’s statewide.
If you do not want to vote at the polls, you will need to request an early ballot using the website of your county’s recorder prior to July 4th. Example links for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal. Others available if needed.
Race ratings for listed primaries will be listed as Safe/Likely/Leans/Tilt/Tossup (alternatively Solid instead of Safe if my mind blanks) and are not indicative of my own preference for that seat. I’ll denote my personal primary preferences at the end of this series, as well as the best Republican ticket for the Dems if someone here really really wants to pull a GOP ballot in the primary. I do not advise it, but since I can't stop ya, you'll get my best suggestions.
Write-in candidates have yet to file, which could give us an outside chance at getting some Libertarians on the ballot (the Greens have lost their ballot access).
If you have any questions about voting in the primary, which races are the most contested, and how to get involved with other Democrats in Arizona, feel free to PM me.
All fundraising numbers here are as of 7/18/2020 (“Q2”).
District stats are listed for the race that involved the top Democratic vote-getter in the past two midterm cycles plus the last two presidential races, taken from Daily Kos’s legislative sheet – Clinton’16, Obama’12, Sinema’18, and Garcia’14 (not his 2018 run).
Part 1: Statewide and Congressional Races
Part 2: Maricopa County Races
Update 1: Congressional and County Rating Updates
Part 3: Legislative Districts 1-10
ALL OPINIONS ARE MY OWN SOLELY IN MY CAPACITY AS A VOTER IN ARIZONA, AND NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY ORGANIZATIONS I WORK/ED FOR OR AM/WAS A MEMBER OF. THIS POST IS IN NO WAY ENDORSED BY THE ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR ANY SUB-ORGANIZATION THEREOF, OR ANY FILED CANDIDATE.
Alright, let’s get cracking, y’all. I’m going to try to save time and characters on the safer seats when I can, although of course I’ll expound on any fun stuff that comes up.
Legislative District 11 (McSally+9.93, Trump+13.9, Douglas+16.7, Romney+19.3)
The first district in this writeup installment is LD11, a district very close geographically and politically to LD8. Unlike LD8, however, LD11 has slowly been trending towards Democrats, instead of away from them. Encompassing the southern half of Pinal (including a large chunk of Casa Grande) and bits of Pima, LD11 could swing under the right conditions, but is probably a safe seat this year. That’s disappointing, since the incumbents in the district are pretty darn nasty.
Incumbent Senator Venden “Vince” Leach ($98K COH), a sort-of Great Value Mitch McConnell, loves to spend his time filing SB1487 complaints against various liberal towns in Arizona – basically, suing cities over their attempts to go above and beyond state law when it comes to certain issues. Leach leads the SB1487 leaderboard with 4 SB1487 suits, most recently targeting Pima County over COVID-19 safety regulations that were slightly stricter than state law. Joining the suit were his House counterparts, COVID-19 conspiracy-monger Bret Roberts ($22.4K COH) and actual goddamn Oathkeeper and Charlottesville truther Mark Finchem ($27K COH).
Facing Finchem and Roberts is the Democratic House nominee for LD11, Dr. Felipe Perez ($24.2K COH). Perez has made few waves online and I haven’t seen him even in the same tier of candidates as Girard in LD8, so he’s probably not going to supercharge this district into Dem. territory. But given the spike in public approval for the healthcare industry due to COVID, he may get lucky. On the Senate side, Leach’s opponent will be one of retired public administrator Linda Patterson ($4.7K COH, Clean) and Marine drill instructor Joanna Mendoza ($14.5K COH). Anything could happen between now and August, but Mendoza currently has a significant organizational, political (endorsements) and fiscal advantage over Patterson, and will probably be the nominee come August.
A well-run race could feasibly knock out Finchem or Roberts, but I’ve yet to see that happen. Still, it’s far out enough that I’m not going to slam the door shut on a Perez win just yet.
hunter15991 Rating: GOP primary unopposed, Safe Mendoza, Perez unopposed, Safe Leach, Safe Roberts, Likely Finchem general
Legislative District 12 (McSally+17.19, Trump+24.5, Douglas+17.84, Romney+33.35)
Really not going to focus much on this district to save space, as it’s a snoozefest. House Majority Leader Warren Petersen ($84.8K COH) is running for Senate to replace outgoing Sen. Eddie Farnsworth. Petersen faces Haitian DREAMer. former teacher, and 2018 LD-12 House nominee Lynsey Robinson ($1.4K COH). Robinson’s a great person, but lost her House race against Petersen by the 1v1 equivalent of 20 points, and shows no sign of knocking him off this time around.
Petersen’s runningmates, Rep. Travis Grantham ($39K COH) and Queen Creek Councilman Jake Hoffman ($107.7K COH) are unopposed in both the primary and general.
hunter15991 Rating: Primaries all unopposed, Safe Petersen general, GOP House unopposed
Legislative District 13 (McSally+21.59, Trump+26.96, Douglas+26.22, Romney+31.62)
Moving on to another Safe GOP district with not much activity – LD13! Stretching from the whiter Yuma neighborhoods all the way to Phoenix exurbs in Maricopa County (and the mirror image of LD4 to its south), LD13 routinely sends Republican slates to the legislature. This year, incumbents Sen. Sine Kerr ($58.5K COH), Rep. Tim Dunn ($60.4K COH), and Rep. Joanne Osborne ($15K COH) are all fighting to hold their seats.
Kerr is unopposed in both the primary and general, while Dunn and Osborne are in the opposite situation – they’ve got two elections between now and inauguration day. Democratic paralegal Mariana Sandoval ($3.1K COH, Clean) will put up little resistance for the GOP in the general, but the entrance of former Senator and former Speaker Pro Tem Steve Montenegro ($27.8K COH) could really shake up the LD13 House primary. Montenegro, a Salvadoran-American legislator who resigned his Senate seat to run for the CD-8 special election primary (he placed 3rd, ultimately losing to then-Sen. Debbie Lesko), was a rising star in the AZ-GOP before his resignation and contemporaneous sexting scandal. This Senate run could be a good way for him to get his foot back in the door, and since his election would single-handedly double the amount of non-white Republicans in the legislator, I would figure that some Arizona Republicans are excited that Montenegro is throwing his hat back into the ring.
I haven’t seen much about this primary online, but there’s vague general on GOP pages dinging Montenegro for his ties to a 2016 National Popular Vote bill in the legislature, which is a big purity sticking point for the further-right members of the Arizona GOP. That being said, the chatter is vague at best, and Montenegro has enough conservative cred (with endorsements from people like Joe Arpaio and former Rep. Trent Franks back during his special election run) that he will primarily face issues over the sexting scandal.
I’ll give Osborne and Dunn a slight advantage over their incumbency, financial well-being, and the issues in Montenegro’s closet, but this is a really tight race and Montenegro could very well end up back in the legislature this time next year.
hunter15991 Rating: Dem. unopposed, Kerr unopposed, Tilt Osborne, Tilt Dunn, All Safe GOP general
Legislative District 14 (McSally+23.83, Trump+26.24, Douglas+22.88, Romney+26.84)
This is yet another district where Democrats stand no real chance in competing this year, and haven’t in quite some time. Situated in SE Arizona, LD14 once incorporated some ancestrally Democratic mining towns in Greenlee and Graham County, but they’ve grown red enough in the past couple of decades that this district is now held by three GOP legislators.
Former House Speaker and current Sen. David Gowan ($60.9K COH) (who was previously in the news for trying to use a state vehicle to assist in a failed Congressional campaign) faces realtor Bob Karp ($12.9K COH, Clean) in the general, while House incumbents Rep. Gail “Tax porn to build the wall” Griffin ($50.5K COH) and Rep. Becky Nutt ($47.4K COH) face retired union activist Ronnie Maestas-Condos ($686 COH, Clean) and teacher Kim Beach-Moschetti ($13K COH, Clean). All 3 races will probably be easy GOP wins.
hunter15991 Rating: Candidates unopposed in primaries, All Safe GOP general
Legislative District 15 (McSally+8.01, Trump+16.61, Douglas+11.06, Romney+25.44)
LD15, up in Northern Scottsdale and Phoenix, is one of the final frontiers of suburban expansion for Arizona Democrats, along with the Mormon suburbs of the far East Valley (LD12, 16, and 25). A very wealthy area, LD15 has routinely been a GOP stronghold – but their hold on the area has been dissipating steadily rapidly in the Trump era. In 2018, two Dem. House candidates both managed to outperform the “single-shot” performance of a 2016 candidate, and Kristin Dybvig-Pawelko ($48.6K COH, hereafter “KDP”) improved on the district’s 2016 State Senate margin by several points despite facing a significantly more difficult opponent than the 2016 Democrat.
KDP is running again this year, as a single-shot candidate for the State House. Her opponents have yet to be set in stone, as both GOP Representatives are vacating their seats to run for higher office, and there are three GOP candidates in the August primary vying for two nominations. Veteran Steve Kaiser ($13.6K COH) and State House policy adviser Justin Wilmeth ($16K COH, $5.2K self-funded) are the nominal establishment picks for both seats, and have been endorsed by a whole host of GOP legislators. However, they face stiff competition from businessman Jarret Hamstreet ($23.2K COH, $10K self-funded), who boasts endorsements from GOP power-players like the local Chamber of Commerce and the NRA, as well as tacit support from the incumbent Senator in the district Heather Carter ($101.2K COH) (somewhat of an Arizona Lisa Murkowski). I’ve been able to find very little chatter on the race, but with Hamstreet’s significant fundraising advantage I definitely think he secures one of the two nominations this November. While the district is still quite red, KDP is no spring chicken, and facing Kasier, Hamstreet, or Wilmeth will be a lot easier than her run against Carter in 2018.
If I’m going to be honest, it is the GOP Senate primary that is almost as important as the House general election. Heather Carter has gotten on the bad side of quite a few conservative legislators during her tenure in the Senate, holding up GOP budgets with her partner in crime Paul Boyer in 2019 over a stalled child sexual assault statute of limitations bill and this year over an amendment to give additional funding to firefighters for PPE and to students for tuition support.
That amendment failed 15-15 thanks to one Kate Brophy McGee - more on her later.
Carter’s actual attempts at moderation (as opposed to McGee’s performative bullshit) has inspired current State Rep. Nancy Barto ($9.9K COH) to challenge her for the Senate. Barto has the support of both Kaiser and Wilmeth (as well as most of the GOP establishment) but has been routinely lagging behind Carter in fundraising (both in terms of current COH and overall amount raised). Carter has been bringing in more “moderate” and pro-public education GOP volunteers from all over Phoenix and is sure to put up a fight in August. As it stands, I think she narrowly pulls it off. There is no Democratic Senate opponent in the general, so winning the primary automatically wins the seat.
If you’ve got GOP friends in AZ who just can’t bare phonebanking for Democratic candidates but complain about the state of the Republican party, send them her way.
Carter has beliefs. Barto has none.
Slate totals:
  • CarteHamstreet: $124.4K
  • KDP: $48.6K
  • Barto coalition (KaiseWilmeth/Barto): $40.5K
hunter15991 Rating: Dem. unopposed, Tilt Carter, Lean Hamstreet, Tilt Kaiser, GOP Sen. unopposed in general, Likely Hamstreet, 2nd GOP unopposed
Legislative District 16 (McSally+17.58, Trump+28.37, Douglas+17, Romney+28.11)
LD16, out on the border between Pinal and Maricopa County, is probably the reddest district in Arizona that could still be relatively considered “suburban”. The only Democratic candidate is write-in House candidate Rev. Helen Hunter ($783 COH), and while her background is stellar (incl. past work with the NAACP, Mesa PD’s Use of Force Committee, and other community involvement), there isn’t even a guarantee she’ll make it onto the November ballot.
Meanwhile, Rep. Kelly Townsend ($15.5K COH) has tired of the State House (just like she tired of her furry fursona, and is running unopposed for State Senate.
The real drama, therefore, is in the GOP State House primary to win Townsend’s old seat. Incumbent Rep. John Fillmore ($12.9K COH) is running for another term, and seems set to win one of the two nominations. Townsend’s former seat is contested by respiratory therapist Liza Godzich ($14.6K COH) (who wins the “most moderate” title by default by virtue of taking COVID kinda seriously), CorpComm policy advisor Jacqueline Parker ($16.4K COH), and school choice activist/general lunatic Forest Moriarty ($17.7K COH).
Moriarty has the valuable Townsend endorsement, but has not been able to consolidate support easily elsewhere – Parker’s CorpComm ties let her bring quite a few assets of her own to bear, as well as endorsements from Congressman Andy Biggs and the NRA.
This election will be a test of Townsend’s downballot coattails, as well as those of the school choice movement in AZ parlaying any support they may have into legislative results. Success for Moriarty here could go as far as inspiring Townsend to run for Governor. We’ll see if it comes to that.
hunter15991 Rating: No Dem. filed (pending write-in), Townsend unopposed, Lean Fillmore, Tossup ParkeMoriarty, GOP unopposed in general
Legislative District 17 (Sinema+3.53, Trump+4.09, Douglas+3.12, Romney+14.16)
One of the reasons I significantly delayed writing these writeups was because I was dreading writing about LD17. Not to doxx myself completely, but in 2018 I had far too many negative encounters with the incumbent Democratic Representative, Jennifer Pawlik ($101.3K COH) that made me routinely question my support of her. I’m still trying to heal the wounds in multiple relationships I have with friends that were caused by Pawlik’s actions.
I deeply regret ever lifting a finger to help her when I had opportunities in other districts. But because her actions never got physical, because the stakes are so high this year, and because too much unsubstantiated negative talk about a candidate can get a post deleted - I don’t wish to publicly expound on her actions (nor put words in the mouth of other people who interacted with her). Feel free to PM if interested.
Pawlik as a candidate is a grab-bag. On paper she’d be a strong option for a suburban district – a teacher and education funding activist with a prior win during the 2018 wave. However, behind the scenes she is quite a poor campaigner in ways that directly impact Democratic candidates’ odds and presences in the district, including her own - which makes me more apprehensive of her odds of re-election than her fellow Jennifer in HD18 (Rep. Jennifer Jermaine), who’s quite similar to Pawlik on the whole.
Pawlik’s Senate runningmate this year is local businessman and first-generation American Ajlan “AJ” Kurdoglu ($51.5K COH). AJ’s a good guy and more serious of a campaigner than Pawlik, and is on well enough terms with her that no inter-candidate drama will probably happen this fall (which would be a welcome change for the district). He’s been slightly outpacing her in fundraising and seems to be hitting the ground running.
The Republican incumbents in this district are Sen. JD Mesnard ($102.6K COH), who moonlights as legal counsel for an organization categorized as a hate group by the SPLC, and Jeff Wenninger ($117.8K COH), a backbench Bitcoin bro. Wenninger and Mesnard have both been in their seats for a while, and this cycle were backing Chandler Vice Mayor (and JD Mesnard’s mom) Nora Ellen for the other State House seat – Ellen lost to Pawlik in 2018.
But in a stroke of luck for Pawlik, Ellen failed to qualify for the ballot this year. However, in a similar stroke of luck for the GOP Liz Harris ($27.3K COH, $21.3K self-funded) - a local realtor (like Ellen) - did qualify. I’ve yet to discern just how close she is with Mesnard and Wenninger, and how much cash she is willing to dump into this race, but in terms of how random non-GOP establishment candidates the LD17 Republicans could have done far worse than Harris.
All the pieces in this district would point to a shift even further left than it was in 2018, and had I not known what I know about Pawlik this would be a Tilt D House/Tossup Senate. But I don’t know if she’s changed since 2018 - and if she hasn’t, there is no guarantee that she won’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
hunter15991 Rating: Primaries uncontested, Tilt Mesnard, Tossup House (Pawlik/Harris), Safe Wenninger
Legislative District 18 (Sinema+18.58, Clinton+10.39, Garcia+12.5, Romney+1.93)
Like LD10 in the previous part of my writeup, the situation in LD18 is another blast of the proverbial Gjallarhorn for the AZ-GOP’s suburban chances. Once a very competitive district (fully red as recently as 2016), LD18 is now held by 3 Democrats – Sen. Sean Bowie ($106.3K COH), Rep. Jennifer Jermaine ($65.7K COH), and Rep. Mitzi Epstein ($60.8K COH). Bowie and Epstein have carved rather moderate paths in their respective houses having been elected back when this district was more competitive, while Jermaine’s tacked a bit more to the left, and has been a prominent voice for increasing education funding (prior to running for the State House she was a public school funding activist and IIRC Moms Demand Action member) and for missing indigenous women (Jermaine is part indigenous herself).
The GOP’s troubles in this district started around the filing deadline, when one of their candidates, Alyssa Shearer, withdrew from the primary. Super anti-abortion nut Don Hawker ($619 COH) filed as a write-in candidate to replace her, but it’s uncertain if he’ll qualify for the general election. Their other House candidate, Bob Robson ($11K COH) is on paper a solid candidate (being a former Speaker Pro Tem of the state house), but lost by the equivalent of 6% to Epstein in 2016 and by 19% when he ran for Kyrene Justice of the Peace (a district that roughly matches the boundaries of LD18. Robson’s an old warhorse) - going 0 for 2 since 2014. It’s a sign of the times that he and discount Scott Roeder are the two potential House candidates for the GOP in this district.
In the Senate, the GOP doesn’t fare much better. Real estate agent Suzanne Sharer ($4.2K COH) is trying to run a semblance of a decent race against Sen. Bowie, but keeps using her campaign Twitter (@blondeandsmart – I promise you that’s a real handle) to retweet QAnon shit. Sharer is going nowhere in November. That’s if she makes it to November, given her past retweets advocating for people to drink bleach to cure COVID.
hunter15991 Rating: Primaries uncontested, All Safe Dem. general
Legislative District 19 (Sinema+44.97, Clinton+40.25, Garcia+32.38, Obama+34.3)
LD19 is a safe Democratic district in the West Valley, where all the drama is happening in the primary. Rep. Lorenzo Sierra ($9.3K COH) and Rep. Diego Espinoza ($25.2K COH) are both running for re-election, defending their seats against challenger Leezah Sun ($5.1K COH), a local activist. Sierra and Espinoza haven’t been particularly conservative in their voting records in the legislator, but have taken some flack from the more progressive wing of the party lately for outside corporate expenditures in this primary. I’m honestly unsure why these PACs are weighing in given that Sun isn’t running all that good of a campaign, but I guess better spend it here than in tighter primaries. Assistant State Minority Leader Lupe Contreras ($7.2K COH) is unopposed in his primary.
In the general, there’s one GOP candidate for both House and Senate, but both are write-ins and could possibly not qualify for the ballot. For now, Democrats are unopposed in this district in the general.
hunter15991 Contreras uncontested, Safe Sierra, Safe Espinoza, Uncontested Dem. general
Legislative District 20 (Sinema+3.7, Trump+8.01, Douglas+0.04, Romney+12.87)
LD20 is another suburban district where Democrats could see sizable gains this fall. Won by Sinema and Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, and almost snagged by David Garcia during the 2014 Superintendent race, LD20 has been on the Arizona Democratic Party’s mind for a few cycles now. Their candidates this year are strong – 2018 Senate nominee Doug Ervin ($94.6K COH) has filed for a rematch after losing by 4 in 2018 (where an independent ex-GOP candidate took 7% - Ervin claims Quelland actually hurt him more than district Republicans), and retired teacher Judy Schweibert ($158.2K COH) is running for House. Both are running bang-up campaigns and seem set to make November a problem for local Republicans, and Ervin has eschewed the public funding he took last time in order to be able to fundraise better for the slugfest ahead.
The local GOP, however, isn’t taking this lying down. Representatives Shawnna Bolick ($161.8K COH) - who was almost bumped off the ballot for using a PO Box as her filing address - and Anthony Kern ($73.4K COH) - an ex-cop on the Brady “untrustworthy cop” list - have been building their warchests in preparation for this cycle after narrowly hanging on in 2018 (despite both Democrats in that race running with public funding). While Bolick has typically stayed out of especially heinous controversy on social media (despite once posting that all masks come from Wuhan and are thus contaminated with COVID), Kern’s time on the force seems to have stuck with him, and his Twitter feed is full of a lot of pro-cop posts and whatnot. With Schweibert running as a single-shot candidate this year I can see Kern’s tendency of accidentally discharging his foot into his mouth finally coming back to bite him.
On the Senate side the past election results are slightly more promising than the House, but the opponent is tougher as well. Sen. Paul Boyer ($50.5K COH) is probably the closest there is to a living John McCain in the Arizona Legislature (not to deify him too much – he’s still conservative), having blocked two GOP budgets in the past two years along with Sen. Heather Carter (see LD15). In 2019 this was over a child sexual assault reform bill (extending the statute of limitations), and in 2020 this was over a lack of funding to firefighters and university students in the emergency “skinny” COVID budget the legislature passed in the spring. His attempts at moderation are visible outside of that: Boyer’s abysmal Q2 fundraising – per his own words – came from not fundraising at all during the 5 month long legislative session despite campaign finance rules only banning lobbyist contributions during the session (and I guess that’s commendable self-policing), and on his website he stops just short of calling for abortion to be banned, which makes him Margaret fucking Sanger among the current AZ-GOP.
That’s not to say that people shouldn’t support Ervin with all it takes – hell, if anything he’ll need more help to oust Boyer. Ultimately I think Ervin holds a narrow lead in this race with the absence of Quelland and with far better fundraising than what the LD20 slate had last year, but the election is still quite far away. If I had to pick one Democrat to win in this district, it’d be Schweibert.
hunter15991 Rating: Primaries uncontested, Tilt Ervin, Tilt Schweibert, 2nd House uncontested
submitted by hunter15991 to VoteDEM [link] [comments]

$1k Profit In 1 Day Trading Bitcoin With Divergence (Live ... BitSler Strategy 100% WIN ! Earn 1 BITCOIN in few minutes ... How To Earn Bitcoin 2019! ($BTC for FREE 🍭) - YouTube 1 Bitcoin price Equals around the world  bitcoin price ... Win 1 Bitcoin, 2 ETH, & 2 LTC (BEST Giveaway EVER) - YouTube

Litecoin Bitcoin price details will give you the exact conversion rate, which is equivalent to 1 LTC = 0.00440444 BTC as of now. Here you can check the highest conversion rate from 1 Litecoin Bitcoin in the last 24 hours, that has been recorded at 0.00439315 BTC and the lowest has been recorded at 0.00430767 BTC. Today 1 Bitcoin equals to 33337.61922007 Basic Attention Token. The highest price value that Basic Attention Token reached today was $0.37562 while the lowest was $0.31818. As of today, Basic Attention Token (BAT) price is marketplace capped at $526,759,334 and the trading volume for the past 1 day has been USD 489,586,680. How much is 1 Bitcoin BTC/USD Bitcoin real-time price/value ticker – Follow the Bitcoin price live with the interactive, real-time chart and read our expert articles on the latest BTC news, forecast, and technical analysis. Bitcoin Price (BTC). Price chart, trade volume, market cap, and more.. Win cryptocurrencies! Play and win now on the worlds best cryptocurrency gambling platforms: Bitcoin units are called bitcoin. Satoshi is its smallest unit. Named after its creator a satoshi is 0.00000001 of a bitcoin (one hundredth million). Bitcoin is represented symbolically as BTC and XBT. Sometimes smaller units of bitcoin are marked as mBTC – millibitcoin. 0.001 bitcoin equals a millibitcoin. Get a chance to win a Lamborghini or the Bitcoin equivalent to the price of Lamborghini by entering the Golden ticket contest. You can enter the contest just by buying a Golden ticket that costs not more than 0.00025000 BTC. Increase the probability of winning buying more Golden tickets.

[index] [7160] [22723] [1276] [19915] [4064] [8579] [4386] [25927] [33183] [23199]

$1k Profit In 1 Day Trading Bitcoin With Divergence (Live ...

#bitcoinprice#bitcoinrate #Bitcoin_price #bitcoin #bitcoin_eur #bitcoin_usd #cryptocurrency_info #btc #cryptocurrency #crypto_price #bitcoin_price #bitcoin_p... What it really takes to mine a Bitcoin in 10 Minutes. Firstly I'll show you a special free method to mine Bitcoin and send funds directly to your wallet in 1... Bitsler new Strategy 2018 - Bitsler hack 100℅ Win 1 Bitcoin in 1 Hour Bitsler : http://gsur.in/89Ie Join telegram channel :https://t.me/bitcoininve Subscribe... To Enter: https://gleam.io/5RXFF/bitboy-full-bitcoin-giveaway This is a REAL Giveaway and you will not be asked to ever send any crypto. It's completely free... Crack the ZenGo Challenge and win 1 BTC! All you need to do is gain access to the ZenGo account and withdraw the funds :) See the details here: https://zengo...

#