This hardware bitcoin wallet review tests the simplicity, software, verification, unique features and privacy of the Trezor Model T, Ledger Nano X, KeepKey, BitBox02 and Coldcard Mk3.nThe post Bitcoin Wallet Reviews Whats the Best Hardware Wallet on the Market Part 2 appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.n
CryptScout #BitFeed RSS – Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency News 24/7
Bitcoin Wallet Reviews Whats the Best Hardware Wallet on the Market
Putting Trezor, Ledger, KeepKey, BitBox and Coldcard to the testnThe post Bitcoin Wallet Reviews Whats the Best Hardware Wallet on the Market appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.n
CryptScout #BitFeed RSS – Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency News 24/7
Crypto Community Unites On Paid Group Reviews to Rid Market of Scams
One of the biggest criticisms over the crypto market is due to its wild west environment where anything goes. It’s allowed for the sale of unregistered securities, scams, and much more.
While regulators sit on their hands, the crypto community themselves are banding together to wipe out scammers and other less than savory characters from the market, and prevent the likes of paid group leaders from siphoning cash from crypto investors just seeking to make a buck.
Top Crypto Traders Join Forces to Review Paid Groups
Paid groups and paid group leaders are a running joke across the crypto community, but also a very real reality that crypto investors run into on the regular. Given that many crypto investors and traders are down from their initial investment by a large margin – especially if they bought altcoins in late 2017 or early 2018 – they may be more apt to take steps, or even risks, to try and make that money back.
Related Reading | Crypto Investors Believe There’s More Pain Ahead For the Altcoin Market
To accomplish this, many turn to the better traders and those highly vocal about their skills on social media and elsewhere. These traders often share charts, and post screenshots of their ROI or PnL, bragging about their gains and trading prowess.
But it’s not just boasting these traders are interested in, their win rate is shared as a form of marketing, hoping to lure crypto investors into paying for access to a private group that offers trading strategy training, signals, or some combination of the two. These are called paid groups in the crypto world, and anyone can start one and put up a facade of insane gains.
.@SatoshiFlipper, @cryptorangutang, @teddycleps and i are happy to announce the launch of our platform aiming to bring transparency into this community
PaidGroupReviews
Over the next 7 days, we will be explaining the features with an official launch scheduled for August 27 pic.twitter.com/jd6sdmDWpM
— The Crypto Monk
(@thecryptomonk) August 21, 2019
To help provide clarity on which groups are worth their price of entry, a few top traders are banding together to start a platform for paid group reviews, in hopes of preventing crypto investors from being scammed.
What Do Paid Group Scams Look Like?
In one recent example, one paid group leader has been charging a ,000 per year subscription to join an exclusive Slack channel where this trader claimed they would post setups, signals, and strategies. However, the crypto investors soon learned that the trader neglected to channel, rarely posting the information they had paid to gain access to, and felt that they were taken for a ride.
Screenshots of the paid group were shared on social media showing the participants begging for more content at first, then later when they didn’t receive any additional service, requested a very reasonable pro-rated refund.
Related Reading | Crypto Analyst: Bitcoin Price Could Be Trapped in Tight Range Until Halving
The trader has since all but disappeared from social media, sharing only three charts during the entire month of August thus far, compared to the regular frequency they had been sharing content at.
A paid group review platform will keep those that do attempt to start a paid group honest and will help crypto investors interested in learning and improving a way to filter out the noise and stick with a trader that’s trusted.
The post Crypto Community Unites On Paid Group Reviews to Rid Market of Scams appeared first on NewsBTC.
New Report Reviews Blockchain Applications by US Federal Government
n The Data Foundation and Booz Allen Hamilton have come up with five key questions federal entities should ask when considering blockchain solutionsn
CryptScout #BitFeed RSS – Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency News 24/7
Central Bank of Russia Reviews Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of CBDCs
n The Bank of Russia outlined potential benefits and drawbacks of central bank digital currencies in a recent reportn
CryptScout #BitFeed RSS – Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency News 24/7
Are You Bothered by Shallow Project Reviews?
Those who want to support the blockchain community must call out the sarcasm and half-truths of shallow reviews. Or should we even bother about this issue?
Journalistic freedom (or freedom of expression and its corollaries, press freedom and freedom of information) is both a right and a responsibility. If you throw a punch as a writer, you should be able to parry counterpunches. Everything should be in the spirit of getting to the bottom of things.
A press statement might be partly true, or only part of the whole truth, but with the use of some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, innuendos or double meaning, the writer is able to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth. Critical supporters of the blockchain space must detect sarcasm and half-truths so as not to victimized by shallow reviews.
In the Blockchain space, we are NOT protagonists, we are collaborators. If there are differences in perception, we ask for due clarification. This is my perception of one review of #MetaHash where some sections of the code were sarcastically commented upon and the marketing strategy was dismissively criticized. Here are my comments on Cronje’s review:
- This situation is an example of shallow reviews which highlight the ignorance of the reviewer and the incapacity to understand fully, encouraging prejudgment without further proof.
- Capacity to answer questions like “is the project capable to show the capacity which it promised” should be verified not by the code but by tests properly done and explained. This could be arranged if the journalist would allow the developers to show even once instructively.
- Shallow reviews get media attention but what the space needs are neutral reviews for the blockchain to obtain massive support.
- A lot of scam and badly developed projects are on the market, and misleading reviews don’t help the audience to critically select what is real and what is not.
- Without deep analysis and testing, good projects may just not be noticed and analyzed in the right way, and thus, lose its chance to be verified as viable products.
If any writer uses SENSATIONALISM while disregarding his public duty, take care. Here’s a warning:“Naysayers, unfortunately, delay massive adoption of the blockchain by their ineptitude, lack of objectivity, inflexibility, ignorance, and incredulity.” We in the blockchain space all lose by default.
For whose cause are you in? Weigh the evidence against consequences.
Although the “thoroughness” of Andre Cronje from Crypto Briefing concerning #Metahash seems fair, consider the disparaging remarks which cloud the real issue of clarifying matters for the growing community. If we want to demolish traditional monopolies and work together for distributing power to the greater population, what’s the other agenda?
Can you detect the biased, dismissive, vague, and ill-defined manner by which the Cronje review started and concluded? Such journalistic style contravenes the tenets of the Journalist’s Creed which partly advocates:
“Advertising, news, and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.”
Here are sections of Cronje’s “sarcastic” review:
Major “points” raised in Mr. Cronje’s “conclusion” read:
- “Started rough but we ended with some fair code. No secret sauce there, and nothing really wow.”
- “Not seeing any of the massive claims they are making being validated by the code though.”
- “I really don’t like the hype focus, makes them feel very scammy, and the promises are not validated.”
- “But there is some good code supporting this.”
- “Is it what is being promised on the website? No, definitely not.”
#Metahash offered Andre Cronje to take part in the live stream with Gleb Nikitin, Tech Lead of #MetaHash. At the live stream, they will discuss the concerns Mr. Andre raised and any other questions he may have regarding #MetaHash and its code.
Here is the invite from #MetaHash, in Crypto Briefing telegram channel:
And Andre Cronje’s response:
I wonder if this invite was too long to read, or was the code really read in full before commenting on it? I am no judge, I think an open discussion should be the field and the community should be the wise judge, not me, or any one person. So, is the challenge on @Andre Cronje?
#MetaHash replied to it after a day’s time:
Another Social Media Fiasco?
Let’s make the blockchain community a transparent one. Freedom of expression is a universal human right but misuse of this could get many in trouble. Putting down a project for the main reason that you could not understand some sections of it is irresponsible and implies lack of professionalism.
Cronje’s continued avoidance to be “enlightened” by Gleb Nikitin in an open discussion can be interpreted in many ways:
- Cronje is not really interested to know the answers to his queries.
- Cronje has other motivations besides knowing the answers.
- Cronje has been privately “satisfied” in his queries.
If clarification is the issue, then let’s all get clarification done in a public forum, with all matters laid out for general education. Bottomline, the community expects Mr. Andre Cronje to accept the #Metahash invitation as the matter has repercussions in the blockchain space.
About the Author: Karnika E. Yashwant (KEY) is a multi-awarded CEO of a dozen brands. He has been advising blockchain projects since 2013. Disclaimer: The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of NewsBTC. Image: Pixabay
The post Are You Bothered by Shallow Project Reviews? appeared first on NewsBTC.
DNotes Global Inc Recognized As One Of Silicon Review’s ’50 Most Trustworthy Companies Of The Year’
The post DNotes Global Inc Recognized As One Of Silicon Review’s ’50 Most Trustworthy Companies Of The Year’ appeared first on DCEBrief.
Japan’s FSA Expands Crypto Team to Handle Exchange License Reviews
Japan’s financial regulator is recruiting more people next year to handle the growing interest among Japanese companies in a crypto exchange license.
CryptScout #BitFeed RSS – Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency News 24/7
Japanese Government Reviews Proposal to Legalize Initial Coin Offerings
Japan is a very important region when it comes to cryptocurrency and blockchain. It now seems the country is preparing to accept initial coin offerings as well. Local legislators have unveiled guidelines for ICOs. This may very well set a global precedent for all other countries around the world as well.
The Initial Coin Offerings Gamble
With so many initial coin offerings taking place, there are a lot of concerns to take into account. A lot of these projects don’t adhere to any specific guidelines. Instead, they are either legitimate or a complete scam. For the average investor, it is difficult to distinguish between the two as of right now.
Without proper guidelines, things will not improve anytime soon. Several companies are flagged by the SEC for issuing unregulated securities. The Centra issue is just the latest in a growing list of companies scrutinized by the SEC. Rest assured there will be others to follow suit in this regard. Thankfully, it seems we may have some guidelines for initial coin offerings in the future.
Japan is leading the charge in this regard. The country is also one of the few to officially recognize cryptocurrencies as legal tender in recent years. It is only normal they see merit in the ICO concept, even though it poses significant risks as well. Addressing those concerns is the number one priority in the country. With basic guidelines now in place, things look good for this nascent industry.
Japan’s new Guidelines Unveiled
Legalizing initial coin offerings is a remarkable decision by Japan’s regulators. The region set up a study group to examine the risks and benefits of this business model. Their new set of proposed rules mainly focuses on identifying investors. Additionally, the prevention of money laundering is also a top priority.
One of the big problems with initial coin offerings is transparency. Investors often cannot track the progress made by a project team. Japan’s new rules aim to address that problem by making progress tracking mandatory. All of these changes sound positive for the industry as a whole.
For now, the proposed rules will be reviewed by Japan’s FSA. Depending on how they view these rules, they may effectively be turned into law moving forward. It is evident Japan is rather open-minded when it comes to cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings. This is quite different from other Asian countries such as China, South Korea and more recently Thailand. Whether or not things will turn around in these countries, remains to be determined.
The post Japanese Government Reviews Proposal to Legalize Initial Coin Offerings appeared first on NewsBTC.
When Blockchain Saves Customer Reviews, All of E-commerce Will Prosper
In the climate of click bait, unreliable journalists and “fake news,” it’s something of an unspoken rule that any you should take any opinion with a pinch of salt.
Professional review writing industries, as well as aggregates, have arguably been irrevocably tainted by financial interests. They are, after all, companies and as such have been formed with requirements (if not objectives) of creating opportunities for revenue generation: to pay the staff, cover overhead investments and ensure the ongoing development of the project.
Issues that affect professional reviews are, however, are shared in many ways by user reviews as well; including unethical practices from retailers, review writers, product creators, and others. It does appear that our hallowed Blockchain technology could provide a solution to some, if not all of these if given a chance, but first, it would do well first to consider what needs to be improved upon.
Problem #1: the conflicts of interest
Having an objective customer reviewer is all good and well but unless the website their review is posted on is managed by similarly minded managers & institutional practices, then there is no guarantee that the message will stay the same by the time it is published.
This is because, much like the professional magazines, the largest part of their revenue most often comes from advertisers and sponsors. To these investors, the audience is a valuable target – having established themselves as consumers by virtue of reading the content, to begin with, and as such, they are mostly comprised of those producers and retailers of the very products being covered by the publication.
There is, therefore, a clear conflict of interest between the review-hosting sites’ respective loyalties to their advertisers, and to their readers. The results of this can be manipulation of the review scores post-publication, censorship/omission of negative reviews, and the fabrication of positive reviews by the shop or manufacturer.
Problem #2: The unreliable reviewers
Shills (Exhibit A)
Shills embody an end result of the aforementioned “conflicts of interest.” These particular individuals often manifest when one party who benefits the sale of a product approaches a reviewer (with either no reputation or with experience/trust-ability from the background) and persuades them to write positively about the product in question in return for a financial inventive or free products themselves.
This can even appear on well-known marketplaces such as Amazon (although compared to the accusations levied against them regarding employee welfare standards, I’d imagine it’s the least of their worries) and contribute to a negative perception of their reviews as being an “untrustworthy measure of quality,” according to Jeff Bercovici at Forbes.
He continues to describe the perpetrators as writers with a “vested interest – a friend, family member, [or] a fan” writing positive reviews” in addition to “notorious “sock puppets” created by novelists skilled in the practice of inventing characters and putting dialogue in their mouths.”
‘Review Bomb’ squads (Exhibit B)
Review bombing is a unique phenomenon which is most frequently associated with video-gaming and nerd culture. “The act of an organized group getting together and tanking the overall user review score.”
It is defined by the collective nature of the “attacks,” often represented by the proximity to which each is posted and to the aftermath of a certain event. They can also be identifiable in their conspiratorial nature, through semi-public announcements made on message-boards such as 4chan.
To clarify: not all instances of contradictory public opinion are examples of review bombs. A recent example presents a dichotomy between audience and reviewer opinions regarding the latest, post-Disney acquisition Star Wars film ‘The Last Jedi.’ It shows that the audience is somewhat active and reasoned in their criticisms.
Although if you were to listen to the politicized pundits, you would believe that everyone here (paying critics, who happen to disagree with their opinions) was a member of an organized “right-wing group.”
The conclusion: a Blockchain solution
A recently launched left-field ICO which appears (or at least claims) to have created a solution based on the Ethereum platform and its Blockchain to these highlighted concerns as well as much more you might not have even thought of. In fact, it is this company and their vision which inspired this piece.
Solution #1: The concern over review scores being manipulated or censored post-publication would be mitigated with Lina’s platform as all information would be stored on the public Blockchain, in addition to being backed up onto a private copy of said information (in a system called a ‘Hybrid Blockchain’). This means that nobody can tamper with it once it’s been submitted without the changes also being a public record.
Solution #2: Lina intents to tackle unreliable reviews by enlisting customers based on skill, experience, and ability. This is before monitoring their progress and customer approval in order to best determine future training/progress paths. With the project being an economy into itself, this allows for a form of compensation which encourages reviewers to contribute, which in turn helps to develop the ecosystem.
Lina.platform is a token based rating system, an economy whose value (and therefore the developer’s primary concern) is in the publication and promotion of high-quality objective reviews; as well as focusing on the development of popular and consistent writers for both prolific in content as well as audience bond.
Their ICO launched on Jan. 15, and you can read more about their detailed plans either on their website or by reading their whitepaper.
The post When Blockchain Saves Customer Reviews, All of E-commerce Will Prosper appeared first on NewsBTC.