Martin Shkreli, known for his previous securities fraud conviction, has reportedly claimed to co-create the DJT token, a new crypto asset themed after Donald Trump. The revelation comes as the token’s association with the Trump campaign remains unverified, stirring significant speculation and controversy. ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli Allegedly Co-Creates Trump Crypto Token In a recent […]
Bitcoin News
Banking Associations Support Resolution to Overturn SEC’s Controversial Crypto Rules
The American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, Financial Services Forum, and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association sent a letter to President Joe Biden on May 31, urging him to sign the resolution passed by Congress to overturn the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121). The letter outlines that SAB 121, issued without regulatory […]
Bitcoin News
‘Solana Is For Baddies’: Rapper Iggy Azalea Joins The Controversial Celebrity Token Frenzy
For the past week, a controversial celebrity token trend has emerged. Mainstream media figures began launching Solana-based memecoins and seemingly showing interest in cryptocurrencies.
The latest star to join the celebrity token frenzy is Australian rapper Iggy Azalea, who saw a controversial launch similar to Caitlyn Jenner’s JENNER token.
Who Is Solana?
On Monday, Azalea surprised the crypto community by showing interest in cryptocurrencies. The rapper and model posted on X asking, “Who is Solana? I don’t know that bitch.”
The post has gathered over 1.8 million views and caused controversy in different communities. “Stan Twitter” interpreted the post as a drag to American R&B singer SZA, which caused many fans to attack Azalea. However, the rapper quickly clarified the issue, replying, “Girl, I’m talking about crypto.”
After that, Azalea found her introduction to the crypto community overshadowed by the allegations of her involvement with alleged scammer Sahil Arora. As reported by NewsBTC, Arora was allegedly responsible for the launch of several celebrity and influencer tokens, which he ultimately rugged.
Rapper Rich The Kid and Olympian Caitlyn Jenner called him out for scamming them and taking advantage of their followers. Both celebrities continued their crypto journey, promoting their tokens and engaging with community members.
Following the scam allegations, Arora seemingly has continued to take advantage of crypto investors. Azalea is accusing the alleged serial scammer of “using her image” as the rapper distances herself from his practices.
In The Fastlane From Music To Crypto
Azalea explained that Arora and her team had a conversation regarding crypto, but her recently launched token was unrelated to him. Allegedly, Arora had fabricated fake screenshots and used the rapper’s name to raise over 0,000 in a presale for a token named IGGY.
As an X user reported, Arora claimed to be working with the Australian rapper on Telegram. He stated that his next “mega launch” would happen in the next 12-24 hours.
After raising 2.246 Solana (SOL), the alleged scammer told investors they would get “automating WL to all further launches.” Additionally, investors would receive a “10% SOL airdrop rationally” from Arora’s profits on each launch and an “airdrop of $iggy when we hit m market cap.”
However, Azalea launched a different Solana-based token called MOTHER on Tuesday. The token references the LGTBQ+ culture term that got popularized in recent years in online stan culture.
Azalea’s token was launched only a few hours after Arora’s IGGY token, which confused investors. After being asked, the rapper explained that she launched her Solana-based token to stop Arora from taking advantage of her name:
I never had a date to, it was something I had interest in hence the convo with my ppl. He made a weird presale yesterday and said I was making a coin with him today so I decided to drop one so he couldn’t use me for his weird scam. If I have a coin of my own figured his would die. It’s that simple.
The community continued questioning her links to Arora after posting an Instagram story with a man looking like him. However, it was later revealed that the individual was Azalea’s brother, Mathias Kelly.
MOTHER Beats IGGY
According to Solana Floor, MOTHER reached a market cap of million at its peak. The token soared by 63,000% in the following hours, going from .00004968 to .03179.
In the last 16 hours, the token has amassed a trading volume of 6.8 million. At writing time, MOTHER is trading at .01634, representing a 21,000% surge from its launch price.
In comparison, Arora’s IGGY token saw its price soar to .009288 after launch before plummeting below the .00020 range. Currently, the scam token trades at .0001354 and has a market capitalization of 4,000.
US Senate Votes to Overturn SEC’s Controversial Crypto Rules — Biden’s Veto Threat Looms
The U.S. Senate has voted to overturn the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s controversial SAB 121, which imposes regulatory burdens on digital asset custodians. The resolution also passed in the House and now faces a veto threat from President Joe Biden. Last week, the White House issued a statement: “If the President were presented with […]
Bitcoin News
Lawyer Says FTX Has Abandoned Revival Efforts, Judge Certifies Controversial Reimbursement Plan
The collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX will not be proceeding with efforts to resume operations because none of the prospective suitors has pledged to invest the needed capital, the company’s attorney has said. A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge has said FTX’s proposal to reimburse users based on November 2022 is the correct interpretation of the law.
None of FTX’s Suitors Wants to Put in the Required Capital
An attorney for the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX reportedly told a bankruptcy court that the company has abandoned efforts to resume operations because none of the prospective investors is willing to put in the required capital to make this happen. According to Andy Dietderich, the attorney who represented FTX in the bankruptcy court, the exchange’s unsuccessful negotiations with possible suitors showed that jailed founder Sam Bankman Fried (SBF) never intended for FTX to operate as a viable business.
Dietderich argued that the costs and risks associated with reviving FTX far outweighed any benefit that comes with any such revival of the crypto exchange.
“FTX was an irresponsible sham created by a convicted felon. The costs and risks of creating a viable exchange from what Mr. Bankman-Fried left in a dumpster were simply too high,” Dietderich said on Jan.31.
FTX’s Controversial Reimbursement Proposal
Rather than restarting the business, FTX will now focus on generating revenue from the sale of its assets. The funds raised will be used to reimburse FTX users whose assets were locked in when the crypto exchange filed for bankruptcy in late 2022. At the time of FTX’s sudden collapse, the USD value of many crypto assets, including Bitcoin (BTC), was at its lowest in that year. However, just over a year after FTX’s collapse, the prices of most crypto assets hit their highest in nearly two years, with BTC having grown by 160% in 2023 alone.
Despite Bitcoin’s rise from just under ,000 in November 2022 to ,000 by Jan. 31, 2023, the collapsed cryptocurrency firm’s rescue team has proposed to base the reimbursements on November 2022 prices. This decision has angered users who feel short-changed.
However, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey dismissed the users’ complaints in his ruling. He suggested that FTX had correctly interpreted the bankruptcy law, which clearly states that debts should be repaid based on their value at the time of a bankruptcy filing.
What are your thoughts on this story? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
‘Controversial’ Bitcoin Proposal to Curb Inscriptions Ignites Fierce Debate, Ends Without Resolution
On Friday, Jan. 5, 2024, the debate surrounding Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr’s proposal to restrict all varieties of data-bearing transactions concluded as the topic veered into “controversial” territory. Bitcoin Core custodian and Blockstream staff member Andrew Chow terminated the Github dialogue, marking it as a “stalemate discussion.”
Intense Dispute Over Bitcoin’s Data-Carrying Transactions Culminates in Discussion Lockdown
The recent surge in Bitcoin Ordinal inscriptions has riled up the developers responsible for the protocol’s codebase. In September 2023, Luke Dashjr spearheaded a new pull request (PR) named “datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying.” In essence, the proposal aims to amend the datacarriersize parameter in Bitcoin to cap all varieties of data-bearing transactions. Dashjr, along with the proposal’s supporters, contend that Bitcoin’s code inherently curbs spam, and this PR is merely extending an existing datacarriersize restriction to another type of data.
Following its introduction, the proposal elicited a wide array of responses, with some individuals expressing approval of the idea while others firmly believed it to be fundamentally flawed. Peter Todd remarked that the “transactions targeted by this pull-req are a very significant source of fee revenue for miners.” Todd added that it is unlikely that bitcoin (BTC) miners would give up the revenue. “Censoring those transactions would simply encourage the development of private mempools – harmful to small miners – while making fee estimation less reliable,” Todd emphasized.
Chris Martl offered a dissenting opinion to Todd’s argument, asserting that the primary impact would be on node operators who would face increasing expenses. “The transactions targeted by this pull-req. are a very significant source of prohibitive cost for regular node operators,” Martl contended. “It is very unlikely that regular node operators will give up mitigating that source of operative cost. Regular policy rule for these transactions would encourage the economical resource usage of mempools – not harming any miners – neither changing any fee estimation already on the field,” Martl explained.
Pieter Wuille, also known as “Sipa,” disagreed with Dashjr’s proposal and argued that it did not serve the interests of Core’s software users. Wuille said that engaging in transaction relay and maintaining a mempool is crucial for forecasting upcoming block compositions. Willfully omitting transactions, despite their “clear (however stupid) economic demand,” undermines this predictive capability, without even negating the necessity to validate them upon mining. Wuille added:
I believe the demand for [block space] many of these transactions pose is grossly misguided, but choosing to not see them is burying your head in the sand.
The debate intensified, with numerous voices asserting that these transactions did not constitute spam, while others vehemently argued the opposite. “It seems to me that the proposed change here is more harmful than beneficial,” Mark “Murch” Erhardt wrote in response to Dashjr’s proposal. “Except that most new node runners are Ordinals indexers, and inscribers. Ordinals are here to stay, fork off or accept it,” another person insisted. On Friday, Bitcoin maintainer and Blockstream employee Andrew Chow shut the conversation down.
“It’s abundantly clear that this PR is controversial and, in its current state, has no hope of reaching a conclusion that is acceptable to everyone,” Chow said. “At this point in time, I see no reason to leave this open and to continue to send notifications for the constant back-and-forth stalemate discussion.” The discussion was then locked for being “too heated and limited conversation to collaborators.”
As the dust settles on the intense debate around Dashjr’s proposal to limit data-bearing transactions in Bitcoin, the development community stands divided. With voices raised high from both supporters and detractors, the conversation’s abrupt closure by Chow underscores the complexity and passion embedded in Bitcoin’s ongoing evolution. The discussion, though halted, leaves an indelible mark on the narrative of Bitcoin’s development and the diverse community that surrounds it.
What do you think about the discussion concerning Dashjr’s proposal and the conversation getting locked over being too heated? Share your thoughts and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.
Harvesting the Digital Skies: The Controversial Practice of Airdrop Farming
As the crypto economy burgeons, a new trend called airdrop farming is taking root, offering both promise and pitfalls. The following is an exploration of this emerging practice, unraveling its intricacies, potential rewards, and the controversies it stirs.
The Double-Edged Sword of Airdrop Farming: Boon for Some, Bane for Others
In recent years, airdrops have surged in prominence, with individuals involved in decentralized finance (defi) discovering rewarding opportunities, and defi initiatives innovating ways to disburse their native cryptocurrencies. As the appeal of airdrops has grown, a trend of widespread farming has emerged within the sector.
Although this strategy has proven profitable for a handful, others contend it manipulates the system unjustly. Fundamentally, airdrop farming involves the measures users implement to enhance their collection of airdropped tokens from retroactive airdrops, effectively strategizing to gather increased rewards.
This method frequently entails employing numerous addresses or executing repetitive actions to magnify returns, which is perceived as tweaking the distribution norms. Undertaking this activity requires a series of steps and outcomes may not always align with expectations.
The central strategy of airdrop farming encompasses distributing one’s crypto holdings among numerous unique addresses. Participants engage with crypto services using these diversified addresses, with every interaction possibly eligible for individual airdrop rewards.
While ingenious, this approach is frequently seen as taking advantage of airdrop benevolence, eliciting critique from the wider community. The practice has escalated in scale and frequently becomes a subject of discussion on social media platforms.
While ingenuity is applauded in many sectors, airdrop farming is contentious, critiqued for warping the organic token distribution, and potentially disadvantaging genuine participants. This method mirrors Sybil Attacks in cybersecurity, prompting many crypto teams to implement advanced detection mechanisms to safeguard fairness and project integrity.
Still, airdrop farming has emerged as a lucrative technique for those adept at navigating the crypto waters. With the potential to multiply one’s token holdings significantly, it attracts users looking to maximize their digital asset portfolios.
The promise of increased rewards can be tempting, making it a popular, if not controversial, strategy. Engaging in airdrop farming isn’t straightforward and requires a nuanced understanding of the crypto ecosystem.
Participants must be tech-savvy, well-versed in managing multiple non-custodial Web3 wallets, and aware of the latest airdrop opportunities and their specific rules, making it a domain for the determined and knowledgeable. Additionally, airdrop farmers have refined their techniques over time, enhancing their methodologies.
It’s believed that this practice has spread across various countries and has somewhat become industrialized. Furthermore, if the distribution of a coin is susceptible to manipulation, so too can the market, as significant holders may sway the token’s market performance.
Although certain defi initiatives have devised strategies to counteract airdrop farmers, others have succumbed to the tactic, resulting in genuine active users being overshadowed by a multitude of automated addresses.
The future of this trend is uncertain, yet as long as airdrops remain lucrative, it’s likely that this approach will persist, compelling project managers to develop methods to filter through these bot-like masses.
What do you think about airdrop farming? Share your thoughts and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.
Cosmos Co-Founder’s Controversial Proposal Triggers 11% Plunge In ATOM
In a bold move, Cosmos co-founder Jae Kwon has called for a significant shift in the blockchain’s direction following the controversial passing of NWV #848. This proposal was approved by the community’s voting mechanism, earning around 40% of the votes, and it was aimed at changing the blockchain’s native token inflation rate.
Kwon, expressing his dissent, is now advocating for a coordinated “split” in the Cosmos ecosystem, a proposal that could reshape the blockchain’s future. This development comes in response to what Kwon perceives as “deviating from the network’s core principles.”
“AtomOne” Split, Cosmos Co-Founder Urges Community Engagement
Kwon’s proposal, termed “AtomOne,” is not just a divergence but an exodus from the current state of Cosmos, encouraging community members who voted ‘No’ to join this new venture. The plan is still in its infancy and laid out in a GitHub repository, where Kwon invites community ideas and participation in shaping this new direction.
He emphasizes a collaborative approach, urging the community to discuss and contribute to the formation of AtomOne.
The essence of AtomOne lies in integrating $ATOM with $ATMO/$ATOM1, aiming to prevent a “complete collapse of ATOM by mass selling.” Kwon suggests that instead of abandoning ATOM altogether, there should be a way for it to coexist with the new fork.
Cosmos Community Faces a Crossroads: Exodus And Innovation
Kwon’s vision for AtomOne involves forking the current “cosmoshub4” but with its development path and teams, aiming for a more decentralized structure than the current Gaia. This new entity is open to all who opposed the recent vote, signaling a departure from the traditional paths of blockchain governance.
Kwon highlights the power of the minority in blockchain ecosystems and the ability to self-organize and create antifragile structures.
His message is clear: those who do not align with sound logic are destined to fail, and the future belongs to those who dare to exodus and build a better civilization. Kwon assures that this move isn’t about abandoning the original Cosmos hub but saving it and redefining its role.
People are completely confused about the nature of blockchains what power the NO/NWV voters have altogether inside and outside the hub. The reality is that we exist, our principles and goals are aligned because they come from logic and we are about to demonstrate antifragility. The reality is that you cannot take control of a chain even with over 50% consensus, even 67%, because the minority can always self-organize even without your help. And the reality is that those who don’t make decisions based on sound logic always end up failing in the end.
As the community gears up for this potential split, Kwon’s call for a departure to AtomOne reflects a pivotal moment in Cosmos’ history and a testament to blockchain governance’s dynamic and evolving nature. A conversation that will continue for “generations.”
As a result of the split proposal, ATOM has seen a spike in volatility, recording an 11% loss over the past few days. However, speculation is that the split will involve an airdrop poised to attract positive attention for the token.
Cover image from Unsplash, chart from Tradingview
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.
Controversial ‘Tiktok Ban Bill’ Sparks Concerns Among Cryptocurrency and Technology Advocates
Cryptocurrency and technology proponents have recently been discussing a new bipartisan bill called the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT)” Act. In addition to targeting firms such as Kaspersky, Huawei, and Tiktok, opponents of the bill believe one of its provisions will punish ordinary Americans for leveraging a virtual private network (VPN). However, a spokesperson for Democratic senator Mark Warner insists the “legislation is aimed squarely at companies” and “not at individual users.”
Concerns Over the RESTRICT Act’s Potential Impact on Cryptocurrency and VPN Use
Since the bill was introduced in March, the RESTRICT Act, sponsored by over a dozen bipartisan politicians and initiated by senator Mark Warner (D-VA), has been the center of controversy. A great deal of attention has been focused on the bill targeting Tiktok, and several reports say the legislation could be used to ban the app in the United States. The act would give the U.S. president and secretary of commerce the ability to regulate technologies that can be tied to nations such as Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, and Iran. Tech advocates and cryptocurrency supporters are concerned about the bill and have been discussing its implications on forums and social media.
One particular provision in Warner’s RESTRICT Act has caused many people to believe that Americans could be jailed for using a virtual private network (VPN). The bill notes that there are strict penalties, including a 20-year sentence, for using “communications technology products and services” with applications or web portals associated with “foreign adversaries.” While some have said that the RESTRICT Act could ban Tiktok and target Americans for using a VPN with websites tied to foreign adversaries, others have gone as far as to say that the bill could be used to ban bitcoin. Venture capitalist and angel investor Balaji Srinivasan stated:
The RESTRICT Act is the American Great Firewall. Become China in the name of beating China.
Former politician and government critic Ron Paul said in a recent broadcast that the “RESTRICT Act is the Patriot Act on steroids.” Another former member of the U.S. Congress, Justin Amash, stressed on Twitter that the “RESTRICT Act isn’t about banning TikTok; it’s about controlling you. It gives broad powers to the executive branch, with few checks, and will be abused in every way you can imagine.” The nonprofit organization focused on the policy issues facing cryptocurrencies, Coin Center, also published a blog post on the subject and noted that it could be used against cryptocurrency users.
“The RESTRICT Act creates blanket authority, with few checks, to ban just about anything linked to a ‘foreign adversary,’” Coin Center explains in the editorial. “An overbroad attempt to ban crypto using these new powers would be open to a court challenge, but the law has worryingly narrow avenues for review.” Coin Center concludes that “while the primary purpose of the act is to address national security concerns, its potential implications for the cryptocurrency space cannot be ignored.”
Conflicting Opinions on Whether the RESTRICT Act Will Target Individual Users
Despite the complaints, a report published by Daily Dot claims “you will not be jailed for 20 years if you use TikTok after it’s banned — despite internet fear-mongering.” The author of the report, David Covucci, calls the warnings on social media and forums a “nonsensical rumor.” Covucci notes that the use of the term “virtual private network” or VPN is not mentioned in the bill, and the reporter also retrieved a statement from senator Warner’s office.
“Under the terms of the bill, someone must be engaged in ‘sabotage or subversion’ of American communications technology products and services, creating ‘catastrophic effects’ on U.S. critical infrastructure, or ‘interfering in, or altering the result’ of a federal election, in order to be eligible for any kind of criminal penalty,” a Warner spokesperson told Covucci. “To be extremely clear, this legislation is aimed squarely at companies like Kaspersky, Huawei, and Tiktok that create systemic risks to the United States’ national security—not at individual users,” the politician’s spokesperson concluded.
What do you think about the RESTRICT Act and its potential impact on technology, cryptocurrency, and individual freedoms? Share your thoughts in the comments below.