The announcement of Eigenlayer’s airdrop, featuring non-transferable tokens and aggressive geo-restrictions, has sparked outrage among users who felt the allocated amount was minimal and the documentation confusing. Despite adding over .7 billion in staked Ether in anticipation, participants criticized the linear distribution model favoring large restakers and the stringent geographic limits excluding users from 30 […]
Bitcoin News
Greenpeace’s Anti-Bitcoin “Mining for Power” Report Receives Fierce Backlash on X
“Mining for Power,” an anti-Bitcoin report by Greenpeace USA that explains the links between the bitcoin mining industry and fossil fuel companies, has faced a backlash in social media due to its inaccurate portraits of the mining activity. Using community notes, social network users detailed the report contained “many factual errors,” including outdated information. Greenpeace […]
Bitcoin News
FTX Payment Plan Faces Backlash, Clients Slam 2022 Asset Valuation as ‘Theft,’ Urge Court for Fair Redress
Following the submission of a proposal by FTX estate debtors to reimburse customer assets based on their value as of Nov. 11, 2022, numerous objections have been raised by customers. A notable objection comes from an FTX client in France, who criticizes the estate for “depleting creditor funds by imposing exorbitant charges for their services.” This customer expresses dissatisfaction with the compensation in fiat currency, particularly given the valuation of crypto assets at a point when “markets were at their lowest in years.”
FTX Customers Rally Against Repayment Plan Citing Injustice in Crypto Asset Valuation
FTX clients have expressed significant dissatisfaction with the company’s reorganization plan, which proposed compensating customers in fiat currency based on the value of their crypto assets as of Nov. 11, 2022 — the day the now-insolvent crypto exchange declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. For example, while bitcoin (BTC) currently trades just above ,000, the “Digital Asset Conversion Table” values it at only ,871 per coin. Following this proposal, the bankruptcy court docket has been inundated with several objections.
A customer from Portugal has pointed out that the bankruptcy process is causing “significant losses for creditors.” This client claims that “0 million in fees” have been deducted, which he believes should instead be used to benefit the customers. He observes that this situation creates an incentive for certain parties to prolong the proceedings, thereby accumulating more fees. Moreover, this Portuguese individual argues that setting the value of crypto assets based on their Nov. 11, 2022, prices contradicts the terms of service (ToS).
Meanwhile, a French customer contends that reimbursing creditors based on the November 2022 valuation of their crypto effectively equates to “stealing” from the victims. In a letter to Judge Dorsey, this customer urges the judge to “intervene” to avert what they describe as a “second theft.” Another objector disputes the conversion table, noting that their claim’s value is 2.55 times higher than the specified date. They argue that approving this proposal would “unfairly prejudice a significant class of customers.” This client further points out that the FTX ToS clearly states that the crypto assets belong to the owners and should never have been co-mingled with other funds.
Ever since its unveiling in December 2023, the proposal has been met with a steady stream of objections, accumulating in the court docket hosted by the Kroll Restructuring Administration. Numerous creditors have submitted letters, suggesting various alternatives for the judge to consider, rather than adhering to the estate’s proposed strategy. Alongside these objections, there’s also a notable trend of claims being transferred to different entities. Current market values for FTX claims show sellers asking for .77 on the dollar, while bids are coming in at around .72.
What do you think about the objections to the proposed FTX reimbursement plan? Share your thoughts and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.
New Scientist’s Bitcoin Ban Article Sparks Backlash: Experts Slam ‘Bad Science’ and Bias
On Jan. 8, 2024, a New Scientist article sparked debate by questioning whether nations ought to consider banning bitcoin due to its environmental footprint. The editorial has drawn significant criticism from numerous bitcoin supporters. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) expert Daniel Batten sharply lambasted the article, labeling it as “bad science, not new science” and accusing it of using “widely discredited methodologies.”
Experts Criticize New Scientist Editorial for Misrepresenting Bitcoin’s Environmental Impact
Numerous bitcoin enthusiasts expressed dissatisfaction with the recent New Scientist editorial released on Monday. The piece, written by Matthew Sparkes, debates whether countries should outlaw bitcoin (BTC) due to its energy-intensive mining practices. Sparkes alleges that BTC miners are “unwilling to take action to curb the cryptocurrency’s energy and water use,” despite many miners utilizing renewable energy sources and reducing flare gas emissions to mine the digital currency.
Sparkes notes that “some campaigners” advocate for governmental intervention in this matter. The writer also mentions efforts to contact seven different bitcoin mining companies and the Bitcoin Mining Council for their perspectives, stating that none of these entities responded to requests for an interview. However, Sparkes did succeed in engaging with some “campaigners” who support government involvement, including Alex de Vries.
De Vries, formerly associated with De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), the central bank of the Netherlands, is often viewed by bitcoin advocates as having data that carries extreme bias and inaccuracies toward the Bitcoin network’s use of energy. The New Scientist article did not fare well on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), where crypto advocates shared their opinions on the topic. “This is false just as a heads up,” Nic Carter wrote to the New Scientist social media account.
Carter shared another tweet that touched upon the article when he remarked:
Community note crowd – this is false. [The real] number is 50 bps, not 70 (not a huge [difference] but still [a] 40% overestimate). Bitcoin consumption: 153TWh/year (CBECI); 157TWh/year (CM). Electricity generation worldwide 2022: 29k TWh. 153/29000 = 0.53%.
ESG analyst Daniel Batten also chimed in. “This is bad science, not new science,” Batten said. “Using widely discredited methodologies, 2-year-old data that has since changed fundamentally, [and] not looking at positive externalities. You have adopted a throwback position that even 25 out of 26 branches of Greenpeace have not taken” Another person responded to Batten’s comment and said, “Precisely. Shockingly bad article. Sparkes is demonstrably disingenuous and the article is anti-scientific.”
The article from New Scientist, much like a significant portion of contemporary science, has ignited skepticism regarding how modern scientists and the academic elite have tarnished the reputation of science, attempting to persuade the general public that 2+2 equals 5. One bitcoiner revealed that they were blocked by the author of the New Scientist piece, Sparkes, for simply making inquiries about the subject. Reportedly, the New Scientist author deleted his X account and at the time of writing, the account does not exist on X.
What do you think about the critique of the New Scientist article? Share your thoughts and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.
Unlimited Innovations vs. 2,500 Swimming Pools — AI Faces Similar Environmental Backlash as Bitcoin Mining
In recent years, attention has centered on bitcoin mining, particularly its energy usage in securing the network and validating transactions through proof-of-work (PoW). As generative artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a major force in technology, it’s encountering similar environmental concerns. Moreover, advocates of bitcoin are drawing parallels between the criticisms of AI’s energy demands and those directed at cryptocurrency mining.
Eco-Impact of AI: Facing the Environmental Challenges of Innovation
Although AI has generally received acclaim in the press, its consumption of electricity and water has recently sparked considerable debate. Numerous online articles decry the significant resources AI utilizes, including a Rolling Stone piece alleging that “Microsoft’s global water consumption spiked in a year to nearly 1.7 billion gallons.” The article oversimplifies the intricate issue by comparing AI’s water usage to that of 2,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
The digital outlet The Standard employs a similar argument by equating water consumption to the volume of swimming pools. This approach echoes the one used by critics of bitcoin mining, who liken its energy use to a nation’s consumption levels. On the social media platform X, Bitcoin advocate Nic Carter observed in response to The Standard’s headline that they are “literally just copy [&] pasting their anti-bitcoin mining takes into anti-AI articles.”
Equating AI’s consumption to the total usage of a particular human resource is arguably misleading due to various factors, often overlooked in these exaggerated AI narratives, including context, nature, and utility differences. A nuanced, informed discussion should reflect on the quality, type, and repercussions of energy use in each scenario.
The energy source powering AI is significant. If generative AI is fueled by renewable or excess energy that might otherwise remain unused, this is distinct from using non-renewable resources critical for essential human activities, rendering direct comparisons futile. Moreover, as technology progresses, AI infrastructure is becoming more energy-efficient, potentially diminishing its relative energy impact. These same points have been made and can be applied to the resource utilization involved in crypto mining.
Developer and Casa CTO, Jameson Lopp, commented on on an X post that discusses training an AI model or a large language model (LLM). The post claims with a cited article from earth.org that “training an AI model is nearly 7x worse for the environment than U.S. car manufacturing and fuel consumption.” Lopp said it was the “dumbest decel outrage yet.” “I guess the morons don’t realize that a trained LLM can be queried an unlimited number of times by an unlimited number of people,” Lopp added.
Furthermore, in the same X post thread another commenter explained that when considering total emissions rather than emissions per unit, it becomes apparent that the overall impact of AI models on emissions is relatively small compared to the vast number of people, cars, and plane travel. This observation points to a smaller environmental footprint for AI models due to their lesser quantity.
“Even if we assume 10,000 models get trained every year, which is definitely an overestimation, the total emissions from that still pale in comparison,” the individual wrote.
The fervent discourse surrounding the environmental impact of bitcoin mining and generative AI reflects a broader societal concern. However, the rush to sensational headlines often obscures the complex, multifaceted nature of these technologies. Beyond clickbait narratives, there lies a deeper need for comprehensive understanding and nuanced debate about the true implications of our advancing digital era, one that considers all perspectives and seeks to inform rather than inflame public opinion.
What do you think about the recent debates concerning AI and its energy and water consumption? Share your thoughts and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.
Bitcoin Mining Pool F2pool Acknowledges OFAC Transaction Censorship; Backpedals After Community Backlash
F2Pool, a Bitcoin mining pool, has admitted to filtering transactions coming from Bitcoin addresses flagged by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). After the situation was discovered by 0xB10C, a Bitcoin developer, F2pool co-founder Chun Wang acknowledged that his pool was indeed applying this filter, announcing it would drop the censorship until there was consensus in the community on the issue.
F2pool Acknowledges Compliance With OFAC Sanctions
F2pool, one of the largest Bitcoin mining pools in the world, acknowledged having been filtering transactions coming from addresses flagged by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Chun Wang, a co-founder of the pool, admitted applying a compliance filter for these transactions after 0xB10C, a Bitcoin developer, published an article that examined different transactions to determine if they were intentionally filtered or if there were other explanations for this behavior.
The investigation, which examined six different transactions coming from OFAC-flagged addresses, pointed out that the four transactions excluded by F2pool were likely filtered. Nonetheless, the two remaining transactions could have been excluded due to other reasons. 0xB10C stated:
These four missing sanctioned transactions lead to the conclusion that F2pool is currently filtering transactions.
Wang Doubles Down, Backpedals Later
Wang answered a post made by 0xB10C in X, explaining the reasons that led F2pool to apply this OFAC transaction compliance filter. In a now-deleted post, Wang stated:
Why do you feel surprised when I refuse to confirm transactions for those criminals, dictators and terrorists? I have every right not to confirm any transactions from Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, don’t I? Meanwhile, CZ is selling his soul for money. He deserves.
Furthermore, Wang pointed out that a “censorship resistance system” had to be designed to resist censorship from its protocol design instead of depending on each participant to decide not to censor. He explained that Bitcoin should learn about the mistakes on the internet in this regard.
This posture resulted in backlash from the community, with several X users explaining that the hashrate in F2pool was not owned by the administrator of the pool, accusing Wang of imposing his values on other people.
F2pool finally backpedaled (in another since-deleted post) on the issue, announcing it would stop filtering these transactions. Wang declared:
Will disable the tx filtering patch for now, until the community reaches a more comprehensive consensus on this topic.
What do you think about F2pool’s OFAC-compliant transaction filtering initiative? Tell us in the comments section below.
Ledger Faces Backlash for Controversial Backup Tool as Crypto Community Expresses Discontent
Hardware wallet maker Ledger is facing significant backlash for its recent introduction of a tool enabling users to back up their seed phrases through the transmission of encrypted key fragments to third-party firms. The crypto community has not embraced this new feature, with numerous digital currency users venting their frustration on social media platforms.
Ledger’s Backup Tool Sparks Outrage in Crypto Circles
In a recent move, hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger unveiled their latest tool, Ledger Recover. Unfortunately, the reception within the crypto community has been far from positive.
“Ledger Recover is an optional subscription for users who want a backup of their Secret Recovery Phrase,” the company stated on May 16. “You don’t have to use it, and can continue managing your recovery phrase yourself if that’s why you bought a Ledger.”
By utilizing Ledger Recover, users have the option to divide their seed into three encrypted shards, each containing a portion of the private key. These encrypted fragments are subsequently entrusted to third-party companies for secure storage. The hardware wallet company explains:
Ledger Recover encrypts a version of your private key and splits it into three fragments (using Shamir Secret Sharing) – all of this happens on the Secure Element chip, so your Secret Recovery Phrase is not at risk. These encrypted fragments are stored by 3 different parties on cryptographically-secure Hardware Security Modules.
The announcement sparked a significant wave of discontent among cryptocurrency users. “Epic Fail,” one user responded to Ledger’s announcement on Tuesday. Bitcoin proponent Alistair Milne told his 126,000 Twitter followers: “Sure, you *could* use Ledger’s new ‘Recover’ service and give them your private keys controlling your assets as well as a copy of your ID and other personal information … but why bother with a hardware wallet in the first place?”
By 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, the name “Ledger” had surged in popularity, garnering 224,000 tweets in the Business and Finance category on Twitter. Notably, Mudit Gupta, an executive at Polygon Labs, vehemently criticized the recovery tool service.
“Ledger just released a new update for Nano X that allows social recovery of your seed phrase,” Gupta said. “It encrypts your seed in 3 shards and sends it to different entities that can then reconstruct the seed for you post ID verification. It’s a horrendous idea, DON’T enable this feature.”
The Twitter user Foobar told his 131,000 Twitter followers to boycott Ledger products. “Stop using Ledger hardware wallets,” Foobar tweeted. “Migrate away from them immediately. They’ve shown nothing but gross incompetence and wild misunderstanding of their own purpose. And now they’ve publicly admitted to intentionally backdooring their own proprietary hardware. Stop using Ledger.”
Ledger was also accused of deleting a tweet that it added to the announcement thread. “I have personally used Ledger hardware wallets for about 7 years. Today is the first day I’ve decided to look elsewhere,” the Youtuber Colin Talks Crypto told his Twitter followers on Tuesday.
What are your thoughts on Ledger’s controversial backup tool? Do you believe there are better alternatives available, or do you see potential in this approach? Share your insights and opinions in the comments section below.
Why StarkWare Faces Backlash Over Token Design
Ethereum second layer scalability company StarkWare confirmed the rumors about the upcoming launch of the StarkNet token. The asset is aimed at enabling the project to operate a decentralized ecosystem and to create an effective mechanism to “direct its evolution”.
Related Reading | Polygon Climbs 20% On Disney Glee – Can MATIC Sustain Gains This Month?
The StarkNet is an Ethereum second layer scalability solution based on Zero Knowledge (ZK) Rollup technology. This provides decentralized applications (dApps) with “unlimited” scalability without compromising security, decentralization, and composability.
The StarkNet Token was designed to power and incentivized the key elements on this network. The announcement claims these are StarkNet’s users, operators, and developers.
In that sense, the company has implemented a fee structure and token minting mechanism to prevent “speculative manipulation”, with “largely automated” processes, and a track record of efficient functionality across other blockchains.
The announcement is very explicit about the important roles of Operators and Developers. Thus, these components of the StarkWare ecosystem will receive a portion of the StarkNet token.
For example, smart contract developers will be rewarded with a portion of the fees paid by users for leveraging L1 and L2 smart contracts. This process will be automated, according to the design explained above.
The more a project or smart contract provides value to the StarkWare and the StarkNet ecosystem, the more developers will be rewarded with a “larger portion of tokens allocated for this purpose”. The company clarified that the token allocation mechanism is “yet to be determined”, but they will make a big emphasis on preventing “gamification” and be transparent about this process.
Furthermore, the company said that the StarkNet token won’t have a fixed supply. On the contrary, the supply “will increase over time”. The minting schedule is also to be determined by the StarkNet community.
#StarkNet Alpha was launched on Ethereum Mainnet in November 2021. Now it’s time to advance its decentralization as demanded of an L2 on Ethereum. Here’s our decentralization proposal, introducing the StarkNet Token, and the StarkNet Foundationhttps://t.co/zk33gANsin pic.twitter.com/YTd0Uj5NbW
— StarkWare (@StarkWareLtd) July 13, 2022
StarkWare Token Allocation Disincentives “Speculation”?
The company claims it has minted ten billion StarkNet tokens. As seen below, these tokens will have the following allocation: 32.9% for “Core Contributors”, 50.1% to be granted by StarkWare to the recently created StarkNet Foundation, and a 17% for StarkWare investors.
Source: StarkWare via Medium
The StarkNet Foundation token allocation will be split with 18% destined for Community Provisions and Community Rebates. These tokens will reward key community members and users “who performed work for StarNet”.
The latter is key in the entire allocation for the StarkNet tokens, the project is set at rewarding work and preventing people from speculating and “gamifing” the mechanism. As the announcement said there will be “no shortcuts to receiving tokens”. StarkWare said the following on its lockup and vesting periods:
To align long-term incentives of the Core Contributors and Investors with the interests of the StarkNet community, and following common practice in decentralized ecosystems, all tokens allocated to Core Contributors and Investors will be subject to a 4-year lock-up period, with linear release and a one-year cliff.
Some members of the crypto community disagreed with the token allocation claiming users and operators, allegedly two major components of the ecosystem, will not receive proper compensation. For StarkNet users, the company recommends the following in light of the upcoming token launch:
If you are an end user, use StarkNet — but only as it serves your needs today. Use it for those transactions and applications that you value, not in expectation of any future reward of StarkNet Tokens.
Related Reading | Upcoming ETH Merge Sees Institutional Investor Sentiment Turn Positive
At the time of writing, Ethereum (ETH) trades at ,140 with a 7% profit in the last 24 hours.
ETH’s price trends to the downside on the 4-hour chart. Source: ETHUSD Tradingview
NewsBTC
Discord Planned To Integrate Ethereum. Huge Backlash Made Them Cancel Everything
At least Discord knows where it’s standing now. And, with this story, we know how early into the cryptocurrency game we all are. And how misunderstood all of this is by the general public. Discord’s founder and CEO Jason Citron hinted at possible integration with the Ethereum ecosystem, with NFTs, and with the incoming Web3. And all hell broke loose.
Related Reading | Top Stars Line Up To Support Environmentally Friendly NFT Platform OneOf
Discord fanatics spammed Citron’s replies and canceled their subscriptions to their Nitro premium service. Discord’s own employees took to social media to express their discomfort. Video game culture influencers rallied the masses and gathered hundreds of Likes and Retweets. What were their reasons? Environmental concerns. And that they consider NFTs a scam, that’s also ruining video games somehow.
Sight…
Let’s unpack all of this.
How Did Discord Unveil Their Web3 Plans?
Content creator Packy McCormick wrote an incredibly long article about Discord’s history and how it could evolve. Of course, the plan ended with cryptocurrencies, NFTs, their own multichain wallet, and an ill-advised new token. How could it not? It’s obvious that should be the direction that a successful but not entirely profitable company like Discord should go, right? The article concluded:
“We strongly believe that the company should follow its users’ pull into web3. The company’s biggest successes to date came when it decided to build the communications infrastructure for gamers; now, it has the opportunity to build a more complete set of tools for this game that we’re all playing all across the internet.”
Apparently, McCormick overestimated the crypto movement. Not everybody is playing the game. In fact, some people hate it with a passion. Discord’s Jason Citron replied with an image that showed some kind of integration between the service, Metamask, and WalletConnect. It also featured the Ethereum logo. The popular meme phrase “probably nothing” completed the tweet.
probably nothing pic.twitter.com/p4P6MoNGgd
— Jason Citron (@jasoncitron) November 8, 2021
The tweet received hundreds of replies. Most of them bashing their plans, denouncing NFTs, and citing environmental concerns. Which is really funny, if you think about it. Discord’s logo is a videogame controller, and that community was their original audience. And playing video games uses orders of magnitude more electricity than all of the blockchains combined.
BTC price chart on Bitbay | Source: BTC/USD on TradingView.com
Are Discord And Web3 A Match Or Not?
They seem to be. If you read the article that started it all, it’s hard to argue with its logic. McCormick said:
“The last of these gestures at Discord’s grip on web3. It has undoubtedly become the coordination platform of choice for all manner of projects including NFTs, DAOs, crypto investing groups, and crypto startups. It’s genuinely startling how quickly this has become a norm in the sector.”
A huge number of DAOs and NFT projects run their communities on Discord. This seemed like a foolproof bet. Techcrunch even took it a step further:
“With MetaMask support, Discord could become a place where people display their NFTs in galleries linked to user profiles or choose “verified” avatar images, with ownership backed up through the blockchain.”
So probably nothing = actually nothing pic.twitter.com/IlzIFSWnnL
— cobie (@CryptoCobain) November 11, 2021
This is something Twitter Crypto seems to be working on without complaints. How could this have gone so wrong? What makes the Discord community different? McCormick asked:
“What would it look like if Bored Ape holders could buy and sell within the same channels they host conversations? What if members of the Bankless DAO could buy new tokens in-line with a discussion about them?”
We’ll probably never know.
Related Reading | Christie’s Will Auction Original Art From Gary Vee‘s Veefriends NFT Collection
The Aftermath
People are severely uninformed about cryptocurrencies. Those articles about the environmental risks that blockchains supposedly pose really did a number on them. However, there’s something else going on here. Casting a wide net, the Discord community seems to be technologically driven and one that appreciates art. They should be on the side of NFTs, but they are wildly against the movement. Almost manically.
This is the reaction of a 3D artist that works for Discord:
I hope leaders can humbly listen the chorus of vehement moral disgust this teaser has already invited. this sincerely does not have to happen. https://t.co/JZZBI2npVs
— Kevin Tang (@Yolo_Tengo) November 9, 2021
And this is another Discord employee, who also retweeted these two terrible-terrible takes on the event:
kinda cringe ngl https://t.co/hceLj105UN
— Kaara Forge Ahead (@kaara_raven) November 8, 2021
Where is that rage coming from? Is this just about the environment? Because they work in a tech company, and technology uses dirty electricity. Is this just about scams and money laundering? Because the art world, in general, is built upon scams and money laundering. No, there’s something else here. The crypto world arises a rage in them that shouldn’t be ignored. Check the replies under Citron’s tweets and you’ll see.
Just remember how many furries use your platform, and how much money furries have,and how they almost universally hate NFTs and crypto.
I would genuinely be surprised if you could show me 5 furries without discord accounts.
You do have competition in the market.
— Logan Mish (@Mishaniz) November 11, 2021
Speaking about Discord’s CEO, he backpedaled his company’s whole Web3 plan with a PR friendly: “Thanks for all the perspectives everyone. We have no current plans to ship this internal concept. For now we’re focused on protecting users from spam, scams and fraud. Web3 has lots of good but also lots of problems we need to work through at our scale.” And to drive the point home, they told Techcrunch that the screenshot came from a hackathon: “We’re always exploring and hacking away at things we think will improve Discord for all the communities we serve.”
Yeah, sure Discord. We believe you.
Featured Image: Discord’s Ethereum plans from this tweet | Charts by TradingView
NewsBTC
Backlash Following Later Than Expected Rollout For Cardano Smart Contracts
At yesterday’s Cardano 360 event, IOHK CEO Charles Hoskinson gave an update on the long-awaited Alonzo upgrade. Due to stress testing and exchange integration, Hoskinson expects a rollout in mid-August.
IOHK had previously penciled in a date of the end of March 2021 for this to happen. A five-month delay hasn’t gone down well with some sections of the community.
Cardano Smart Contracts Won’t Be Ready This Month
The Goguen phase is the great equalizer in terms of bringing smart contracts to Cardano. It was split into three development stages.
First was Allegra, which enabled token locking; this laid the foundation for smart contracts by bringing metadata functionality to record the specific purpose of tokens. Then there was Mary, which introduced the ability to create user-defined tokens. The final piece is Alonzo, which integrates the extended UTXO model with the Plutus smart contract language.
During Cardano 360, Hoskinson gave a timeline for Alonzo’s completion. He said this process requires integration into the ledger and node code, which is happening now through to April. At the same time, “alpha partners” will be running acceptance criteria and tests.
“What’s occurring right now, all throughout March and all throughout April is that integration into the node to get a CLI. As that integration is happening, partners are being brought in, and these are alpha partners, so they’re very close and deep in court of company.”
Once done, by the end of April or early May, IOHK will be ready to launch the Alonzo testnet. Hoskinson mentioned that large cohorts of programming professionals and Plutus pioneers are ready to stress test the network.
As Plutus was built by an independent team, in parallel with Shelley, Hoskinson warned there could be some “rough edges” in that integration. Hence QA and user acceptance testing are needed to circumvent any problems in that respect.
Expected August Rollout Leads to Backlash
All of the above is scheduled to finish by the end of June. At this point, the final stage involves bringing all of the stakeholders up to speed. Hoskinson gives this a four to six-week time frame, taking us into mid-August for the Alonzo hard fork.
“If that occurs, what we will do is wait four weeks minimum for our partners, the Coinbases, the Binances, Yoroi, all these other people, who have infrastructure that needs to upgrade that needs to upgrade, test, and modernize for Alonzo before we do the Alonzo hard fork.”
The feedback from the Cardano community has been mixed. On the one hand, some have expressed positivity over the thoroughness of work going into Alonzo. But others have slammed the delay.
On that, Hoskinson noted a surge in toxicity and trolling. But he puts this down to a realization that Cardano is on track.
I’ve noticed a massive surge in toxicity, FUD, trolling, and outright slander lately. It must mean Cardano is finally perceived as a threat to the status quo and we are on the right track. Stay focused everyone, the next six months are going to be a rough but rewarding ride
— Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK_Charles) March 26, 2021
Despite the delay to Alonzo, the market did not react badly. Today, ADA is up 8% to .17.
Source: ADAUSD on TradingView.com