Ethereum just lost one if it's biggest bragging points, and its transition from a deflationary to an inflationary asset marks a potentially pivotal moment in its trajectory. While the platform continues to be a dominant player in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space, these economic and market shifts warrant close observation by investors and stakeholders. 

What Happened?

Ethereum's shares the most common cause of currency inflation with governments around the world, specifically when they print too much money. There have been 68,000 new ETH issued, compared to its burning 38,000 ETH over the last 30 days - add this excess together with a bearish month, and the additional supply enters the ecosystem as inflation.

Ethereum has a system where a portion of the transaction fees (or "gas") is burned, reducing the overall supply of ETH, while another portion compensates validator nodes.

Typically this causes ETH to be deflationary - that is, when network activity is stronger, the amount of ETH burned can surpass the amount issued.

Some Perspective...

It's crucial to note that Ethereum's annual inflation rate remains relatively subdued at 0.3%, especially when compared to Bitcoin's 1.6% and certain fiat currencies, which hover around 3.7%.

Bitcoin has been categorized as inflationary due to its capped supply of 21 million coins and the halving of its block rewards approximately every four years, which restricts its issuance and, by extension, its inflationary potential. In contrast, fiat currencies, like the US dollar, can be issued without an upper limit, leading to inflation when the supply outpaces demand.

So, while 0.3% is an insignificant amount and there's no need for investors to modify their outlooks, yet, this is something worth keeping an eye on.  Unless hit with large downturn (which I haven't seen anyone predicting) Ethereum can re-take it's 'deflationary' title fairly easily. 

Plus, For the First Time in YEARS - Ethereum Users Didn't Pay the Most in Total Transaction Fees...

Another interesting thing stood out when reviewing Ethereum's previous month - a significant drop in total transaction fees. After 3+ years embarrassingly high, sometimes absurd fees - this is a good thing.

In the last 30 days, the Tron network generated $87.4 million in fees and $65.8 million in token incentives, resulting in net profits of $21.6 million. Ethereum, on the other hand, generated $82.2 million in fees but offered token incentives of $82.9 million, leading to losses of $20.6 million.

Other platforms including Lido Finance ($46.9 million), friend-tech ($30 million), Bitcoin ($27 million), Uniswap ($23 million), Aave ($8.8 million), and BNB Chain ($ 8 million), surpassed Ethereum in generating fees.

For those of us who have been around awhile, it takes more than another bear market to change our long term expectations for cryptocurrencies. 

I've been through three crashes - the first one really had me questioning things, the second time I was more willing to ride it out, 'hopeful but not certain' was my outlook on crypto's future. In both cases the crashes were followed by hitting new all time highs, and this pattern wasn't new, it's what Bitcoin historically had always done, and more recently, the top altcoins were included as well. 

So, this time around I feel like I'm just waiting... for our largest bull run yet. Not wondering if it's coming - waiting for it to get here.

Some of the Biggest Names in Investing and Wall Street are Quietly Preparing for a Crypto Boom...

Thankfully, it looks like I'm not the only one making this prediction. In fact, the biggest firms from the world of investing and Wall Street seem to be anticipating this too.

Keep in mind, the firms I'm about to mention don't throw millions at something because one or two executives believe it will pay off - before they invest, teams of analysts with specialists covering multiple aspects, and algorithms pumping out multiple models of possible outcomes, are involved.

Let's look at some of what is happening quietly behind the scenes right now - and ask yourself: does it seem like they see something coming?

Major Investment Firms:

Between just these 2 firms you're looking at over $2 TRILLION in assets under management, twice the size of the entire crypto market currently. 

When these firms enter a sector, countless smaller ones follow. 

Payment Processors:

The big 3 are all in.

In addition to this, both Visa and Mastercard will expand their current role of providing cards that allow people to spend crypto anywhere that accepts their credit cards.  This has become a standard offering from most major exchanges now, and accounts for over $1 billion in transactions for Visa alone. 

Start-Ups:

When it comes to startups, those that truly serve a purpose are not struggling to find funding. Here are some of the projects that held investment rounds over just the last month - all hit their targets:

Nillion, a decentralized file storage network, raised $20 million in its latest funding round led by Distributed Global.

There's only one reason any firm would be investing in new companies that could still be years away from seeing profits - again, the long term outlook.

The Path from Here, to There...

The road from bear to bull market is surprisingly short and straight - plus, following the collapse of FTX, a come-back for crypto also means washing off  some of the mud currently splattered on crypto's public image.  But all of this is doable, here's how it will go;

Crypto regulations are coming, discussing if you're for or against this is officially a waste of time - we're getting them.

However, the industry has gotten smarter over the last few years and regulations no longer mean a 'crack down' on crypto. 

As politicians began considering passing finance laws specific to crypto assets, the crypto industry became major Washington DC influencers, and almost overnight began supporting pro-crypto politicians campaigns at such large amounts that crypto is outspending the industries that have typically spent the most for decades, the defense industry and pharmaceutical companies.

Until recently we were truly were at risk of tech-illiterate politicians passing poorly-written regulations that could bring everything to a halt, that no longer longer seems possible. This level of involvement has given the industry a place at the table with lawmakers.

If you're outside of the US thinking this doesn't involve you, I wouldn't count on that.  Some regulations will address the situation FTX is in, requiring exchanges to prove the assets they hold and auditing their total value regularly.  It wouldn't surprise me if US companies and investors could only do business with foreign firms that follow similar guidelines - setting a standard that will quickly become global.

Over the span of just a few days:  Crypto's current public image gets fixed as politicians pat themselves on the back for 'fixing crypto' with 'new investor protections'.  The largest investment firms have citied the lack of these regulations as the only reason they haven't yet gotten involved - so now the floodgates open. 

I believe the next bull market doesn't just set new all-time highs for the top cryptocurrencies, but does it at record speed as well - Bitcoin gaining $10,000 per week for 5 weeks would get us past it's previous high, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's how it went.

Remember - there's never been so many people and companies aware of what a Bitcoin bull run can do, and it will be a lot harder to justify sitting it out.

In Closing...

There's nothing fun about a bear market, except looking forward to it ending. Based on current indicators, it seems we may have a lot to look forward to!

-----------
Author: Ross Davis
Silicon Valley Newsroom
GCP | Breaking Crypto News

You would think someone with a valid legal case against someone else would happily answer any questions related to it - there's no possibility that simply answering them honestly would end up hurting the case... right?

To be clear - the people behind this lawsuit are aggressively seeking media attention.  

Us, along with multiple other outlets have received regular updates on the case in the form of press releases from NY based lawyer Evan Spencer.  Both these press release and the lawsuit itself seem to follow a format of initially sounding serious, citing dates and price movements, like it revolves around relatively simple math. 

Then things slowly drift, and you find yourself reading 'unhinged' rants, seemingly as the author becomes and more consumed by negative emotions with each mention of the name 'Elon Musk'.

For example, the lawsuit begins with:

"Musk, together with SpaceX, Tesla, Inc., the Boring Company, the Dogecoin Foundation, and the "Doge Army," became de facto partners in a multi-billion-dollar racketeering enterprise which intentionally manipulated the market to drive the price of Dogecoin from $0.002 to $0.73 in two years, an increase of 36,000%. Subsequently, in May of 2022, Musk recklessly caused the price to drop 92% from $.073 to $0.05, an aggregate of nearly $86 billion, when his actions spawned the crypto-crash of 2021/2022."

I'll point out why much of this is misleading; for now, I'm simply showing how the lawsuit sounds like it could be legit...initially. 

But once you're a few pages into the lawsuit, you find yourself reading rants that no longer involve Elon Musk...or Dogecoin.

Like they thought, "Our case is sounding a bit weak... I think we need to turn up the heat - ALL CRYPTO may be EVIL!".

Just like that, you're reading rants about a website that closed 9 years ago when the owners were arrested for selling drugs and other 'black market' goods using Bitcoin as the platform's currency.  If you guessed what I'm talking about, you're probably correct - somehow, Silk Road is mentioned in this lawsuit happening nearly a decade later. 

 "The Silk Road fallout, supra, a now-defunct billion-dollar empire dedicated to the sale of illicit drugs using Bitcoin, further illustrates that crypto’s intended use as currency, in addition to its exploitation as an investment, merits further regulatory scrutiny."

Predictably, no effort was made to see if the 'further scrutiny' already exists - it does.  To anyone in crypto, this tactic used to attack crypto is considered outdated and debunked for years - it takes a combination of someone misinformed and desperate to even attempt it.

The truth is so easy to find, I can only assume they never even looked...

In reality, about 2.1% of transactions in crypto are connected to something illegal. This is confirmed by  the analytics firm that works with the FBI, translating blockchain data into actionable intelligence to catch these criminals, Chainalysis.

According to the UN, as much as 5% of ALL global currency is being used to facilitate something illegal, meaning Fiat currency, specifically paper cash, remains the preferred format of currency in the criminal underworld. 

Ironically, they demonstrate an accurate understanding of the public ledger/blockchain behind every cryptocurrency, and how it gives anyone access to a lifelong record of every transaction that was made using that cryptocurrency.  But then seem unable to guess why many criminals actually avoid crypto.

When answering questions is considered a risk...

Under what circumstances would the party making the accusations against another want to avoid answering questions?  If you're the victim, completely innocent, and can clearly explain who victimized you and how they did it - then there is no question that could possibly lead to any other conclusion.

Refusing is a red flag (just my personal opinion, of course, it isn't a definitive sign that something shady is going on), but I cannot think of any time in my life when I was confident enough to accuse someone of something negative, but scared someone could ask a question that would result in my claims sounding invalid. 

Here are the questions we asked the lawyer suing Elon Musk, and his excuse for not answering them...

It's worth noting that before the lawyer read them, he said he would have a response for me the following day.  When the following day came, he said they could not answer questions.  Specifically telling me:

"I am not at liberty to answer any of your direct questions at this time.  After the case is fully pleaded and briefed with the district court, I would be happy to let you interview me and some of my clients. 

However, until that time, I cannot compromise the rights and interests of my clients to appease the demands of the media."

Also worth noting, there were only 2 questions.  The team came up with something like 10 legitimate things to ask, but in the end we all agreed that the validity of the case would be determined by these 2 factors.

Question #1:

Elon Musk first mentioned Dogecoin in a 2019 tweet. Anyone who bought it then is STILL up 2900% on their investment. Elon Musk has mentioned it occasionally ever since.

So let's go with the idea that your client truly admired Elon Musk, which is why Elon mentioning something was so persuasive.   But if that was the case, the timeline is very off. 

Your client could have lagged a full 20 months after Musk first mentioned Dogecoin, and if he bought some then, his profits would be over 500% still today.

But your client waited 2 years or more to act on Musk's endorsement. 

Can you explain how Elon Musk's endorsement was both irresistible to your client, and at the same time, something they didn't get around to doing for nearly 2 years? 

Question #2:

Has Elon Musk sold ANY Dogecoin? He said he hasn't. 

There's been no mention of a mysterious wallet dumping massive amounts of Dogecoin, suspected to belong to Elon.

Not only does he claim to have never sold, he says he's bought more as the price declined. 

Your lawsuit frames him as a scammer running a pyramid scheme, but if he's telling the truth, this would be the first time in history the mastermind behind the multi-million dollar scam forgot the most important part - to profit. 

What is your evidence that Musk did indeed profit? Otherwise, his investment lost an even higher percentage as your client - this has never been said about the person at the top of a pyramid scheme before.

Why it really is this simple...

Because it appears that Elon's endorsement of Dogecoin was NOT so influential that those suing him felt compelled to buy some when they found out he was a fan.  More like they saw/heard Elon was a fan of Dogecoin, reacted by doing literally nothing for an extended period of time, then nearly 2 years after Musk first spoke of it, bought some Dogecoin. 

Now the only remaining claim revolves around the idea that Elon manipulated the price of Dogecoin for personal gain - but as far as anyone knows, he hasn't gained a penny. 

If Elon is telling the truth, that he sold none, and even bought more as the price declined - the entire lawsuit becomes impossible to make sense of, none of Musk's actions fit their claims.

The lawyer representing those suing Musk did however agree to speak with us 'After the case is fully pleaded and briefed with the district court' - we may have all our answers by then, if not, we will take them up on the offer. 

-----------
Author: Ross Davis
Silicon Valley Newsroom
GCP | Breaking Crypto News

NFT domain provider Unstoppable Domains and an alliance of 30 of the top crypto wallet has formed an alliance aiming to establish “a new global standard” for blockchain transactions, meant to replace the impossible to memorize and lengthy alphanumeric wallet addresses we use today.

Calling it the 'Wallet Alliance' the group includes Trust Wallet, imToken, BRD Wallet, MyEtherWallet, Birdchain, Litewallet, Klever, CoinFlip, 1inch, Nimiq Wallet, OWNR Wallet, Digifox, Bitcoin.com, and others.

The 'Wallet Alliance' Represents 40 Million Users...

That's enough users to answer the question 'will people adopt it?' with a likely yes.

“This alliance of wallets is taking this unparalleled user experience a step further” said Matthew Gould, founder and CEO of Unstoppable Domains.

They also claim the custom wallet addresses will also work with 275 different digital assets at launch.

Since the beginning people have pointed out that current wallet addresses intimidate the average user...

Countless transactions over the years have gone to addresses containing a typo that went unnoticed - often with the sender promising they double checked, but still missed the error.

The proposal suggests a system where a custom .wallet address such as "johndoe.wallet' would be owned by someone and configured to route transactions to the wallet of their choosing - so setup would still require working with the long wallet addresses we have now.  But once that's done they may never need to again. 

According to the announcement, many of the participating wallet providers will “soon” add the option for their users to create a .wallet username directly from within their apps. However, a more specific timeline for when the new feature may be available for users has not been provided.

“This collaboration brings us closer to making wallets the standard for peer-to-peer crypto payments globally” said MyEtherWallet founder Kosala Hemachandra.

Not Yet Mentioned - The Price Tag...

There's currently no information on how much a custom address will cost, and just like domains names you can expect prospectors to snatch up any predictably desired addresses to re-sell at a higher price.

The current system with it's $0 per wallet price and the freedom to create as many as you want won't be replaced anytime soon, but think of this as an option to make things easier.

I could see this becoming standard when a crypto based business is facing the general public, and everyday people as the address they put on their website/social media.

There is no specific launch date yet - but we're told the wait 'won't be too long' and people can expect to see a rollout 'in the coming months'.

---------------
Author: Justin Derbek
New York News Desk