Connect with us

Crypto

$13K Bitcoin price predictions emerge with BTC falling below historic trendline

The 50-week simple moving average earlier offered incredible support for Bitcoin’s long-term bullish bias, but bears convincingly took it during the June 19 sell-off.
Bitcoin (BTC) prices broke below a long-standing support wave that..

Published

on

The 50-week simple moving average earlier offered incredible support for Bitcoin's long-term bullish bias, but bears convincingly took it during the June 19 sell-off. Bitcoin (BTC) prices broke below a long-standing support wave that was instrumental in keeping its strong bullish bias intact after March 2020's crypto market crash. Dubbed the 50-week simple moving average, or 50-week SMA, the wave represents the average price traders have paid for Bitcoin over the past 50 weeks. Over the years, and in 2020, its invalidation as price floor has contributed to pushing the Bitcoin market into severe bearish cycles.
Bitcoin price breakdowns below 50-week SMA through history. Source: TradingView
For instance, the 50-week SMA acted as support during the 2018 bear market. The wave helped prevent Bitcoin from undergoing deeper downtrends — between February 2018 and May 2018 — as its price corrected from the then-record high of $20,000. Similarly, the wave provided Bitcoin with incredible support during its correction from its $15,000 high in 2019. Moreover, it held well as a price floor until March 2020, when the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic caused a global market crash.

Fractal targets $12,000 to $13,000

Pseudonymous chartist "Bitcoin Master" shared concerns about Bitcoin's potential to undergo an 80% average price decline upon breaking bearish on its 50-day SMA. The analyst noted that if the said fractal plays out, BTC/USD exchange rates could crash to as low as $13,000. Meanwhile, Bloomberg Intelligence's senior commodity strategist, Mike McGlone, also highlighted the 50-week SMA in a tweet earlier in July, albeit recalling the wave's ability to withhold selling pressure. The analyst recommended that investors should not dump their Bitcoin holdings right away on initial dips below the wave. "Selling Bitcoin on initial dips below its 50-week moving average in the past has proven a good way to lose money, even in bear markets," McGlone explained.

Bitcoin market analysts have mixed thoughts

The latest Bitcoin dip came in the wake of a global risk-on market decline driven by fears that the highly transmissible Delta variant of COVID-19 would slow down the recovery generated by the reopening of economies. Vijay Ayyar, head of business development at cryptocurrency exchange Luno, noted that Bitcoin could drop further. In comments to Bloomberg, the former Google executive said the BTC/USD exchange rates could fall to as low as $20,000. Nonetheless, he anticipated the pair to retest $40,000 on the next bounce. “We’re going to need to form another base first before resuming another bull trend,” Ayyar noted.
“We are going to be ranging between $20,000 and $40,000 for the rest of the year.”
Jehan Chu, the founder of cryptocurrency-focused venture capital and trading firm Kenetic Capital, placed a safe downside target near $25,000 but warned about accelerated sell-offs should bulls fail to log a rebound from the level. He said:
“Q1′s crypto market momentum has stalled and is threatening further reversal potentially below the $25K levels."

Strong fundamentals and bullish signals remain

However, another analyst offered a different, more optimistic perspective on the current position of Bitcoin. James Wo, founder  CEO of the global crypto investment firm Digital Finance Group, highlighted on-chain indicators, including an ongoing decline in exchange inflows and active wallet addresses, as a reason to stay bullish on Bitcoin.
Bitcoin net position change across all exchanges: Glassnode 
"Looking at these on-chain indicators, we can say that the majority of investors are waiting for major signals to enter the market again," Wo told Cointelegraph. Related: Bitcoin bull outlines 7 steps to more fiscal stimulus and higher BTC prices Data provided by CryptoQuant, a South Korea-based blockchain analytics firm, also provided a bullish setup for Bitcoin, citing the cryptocurrency's market-value-to-realized-value (MVRV) ratio. In detail, the MVRV ratio represents an asset's market capitalization divided by realized capitalization. When the figure is too high, traders may interpret Bitcoin's price as being overvalued, thereby implying selling pressure. On the other hand, when the MVRV value is too low, traders may treat Bitcoin prices as undervalued, implying buying pressure.
Bitcoin MVRV has reached its September 2020 low. Source: CryptoQuant
"Buying [Bitcoin] at this same level in the past cycle was seen between January to March 2017," noted one of the CryptoQuant analysts, adding:
"It does not sell at the bottom but prepares ammunition for the bottom. Short-term data offer the probability of test at support, good exposure opportunity."

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and you should conduct your own research when making a decision.

Read More

Continue Reading

Commodities

Metaverse still not ready for virtual weddings and legal proceedings

Since the legislative framework surrounding the Metaverse is quite gray, experts still don’t see the technology being used to settle legal issues.

Published

on

Since the legislative framework surrounding the Metaverse is quite gray, experts still don’t see the technology being used to settle legal issues.

As the global Web3 ecosystem continued to evolve at a staggering pace, so have the various use cases associated with this niche. In a striking new development, a high-ranking Singaporean government minister recently noted that legal marriage proceedings, court case disputes, and government services could one day be conducted using Metaverse platforms.

While delivering a keynote address at Singapore’s TechLaw Fest 2022 late last month, the country’s second minister for law, Edwin Tong, was quoted as saying that he would not be surprised if, in the future, intimate events such as the solemnization of marriages as well as legal disputes “could take place within the Metaverse,” adding:

“It would not be unthinkable that, besides registration of marriages, other government services can soon be accessed online via the Metaverse. There's no reason why the same cannot be done for legal services. The pandemic has already shown us that even dispute resolution — once seen to be a physical, high-touch process [...] can be held online.”

Expounding on his stance, Tong used a hypothetical example of a dispute involving an accident on a construction site, which he believes could be viewed in a 3D environment using augmented reality technology, thus allowing for a better reimagining of the accident. “You can put yourself into the actual tunnel or the oil containment facility to look at the dispute,” he added.

A hybrid outlook such as this, Tong believes, could make the dispute resolution process extremely convenient and efficient for governments across the planet.

Could digital legal proceedings become the norm?

According to Joseph Collement, general counsel for cryptocurrency exchange and wallet developer Bitcoin.com, dematerializing government services that require in-person attendance is the next, most coherent step for nations across the globe, especially as the world shifts from an analogous age to a digital one in this post-covid era. He added:

“Nowadays, approximately one-third of legal agreements worldwide are signed electronically. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to see modern nations such as Singapore adopt all-inclusive technologies like the Metaverse for government services. The same thinking should apply to certain civil court cases, which are still subject to extreme delays due to backlogs. While justice is delayed, the involved parties often have to suffer.”

A similar view is shared by Alexander Firsov, chief Web3.0 officer for Sensorium — an A.I.-driven Metaverse platform. He told Cointelegraph that as a space dedicated to bridging the gap between the real world and digital experiences, it’s only logical that the Metaverse will one day transform into a medium where legal proceedings can take place. 

In his view, by adopting immersive technologies, virtual legal proceedings won’t feel much different from real-life events. In fact, he believes the use of photorealistic avatars can bring a degree of humanization and presence that online meetings fail to meet. Lastly, Firsov noted that justice systems all over the world are notoriously slow, costly and the Metaverse can help address these inefficiencies, adding:

“The Metaverse can have a positive impact when it comes to the work of law enforcement agencies and other legal entities on issues such as cooperation, record keeping, and data transmission, as it holds the ability to improve important processes through the use of emerging technologies such as blockchain.”

Not everyone is sold on the idea

Dimitry Mihaylov, A.I. scientist, UN expert contractor and associate professor at the National University of Singapore, told Cointelegraph that the first problem when talking about digitally facilitated legal proceedings is that of intellectual property (IP) based legislation — since geographical borders do not factor into proceedings taking place in the Metaverse, least as of yet. He explained:

“When you get a patent, it’s valid only within a particular territory. Yet, with the Metaverse, it will be used by people worldwide. People can accidentally violate laws by using a patent in the Metaverse that is outside its area of legalization. Here’s where relevant authorities need to determine who owns the IP and under which court’s jurisdiction it falls.”

The second issue, in his opinion, pertains to data collection and ownership. This is because mainstream tech conglomerates have for the longest time been abusing the data of their clients and, therefore, it will be important that regulations pertaining to the storing and use of legal data on the Metaverse are developed before any court proceedings can take place on it.

Collement believes a physical courtroom presents features that cannot be replicated in the Metaverse. For example, the cross-examination of a witness in front of a jury to attack his credibility is an important strategy in certain cases. Even with advanced video-conferencing, some important cues and details from a witness examination can be missed by the jury. He added:

“It is unclear to me that the Metaverse is ready to host trials. Uncertainty remains as to the enforceability of Metaverse-held judgments in countries that are a member of the Hague Convention but who have not yet issued any guidance or laws in regard to these virtual proceedings.”

Furthermore, Mihaylov noted that the question of copyright is quite pertinent in this regard since it protects digital works across many countries. He explained that nowadays, companies like Google are extremely swift with their copyright actions and block any sites that infringe on their rights. “Copyright covers more than 100 countries, and it's very close to the model that the Metaverse should use. But it has no applications yet, and no such precedents have arisen so far,” he added.

Are the masses willing to accept court proceedings on the Metaverse?

Mattan Erder, associate general counsel for public blockchain infrastructure provider Orbs, told Cointelegraph that as things stand, it is actually a question of whether people are truly willing to believe the outcome of what occurs on the Metaverse as being real, especially from a legal perspective. In his view, most individuals are quite detached from a reality where they can ever see trials deciding the future of an individual, adding:

“I think we have some time before these things become real. However, the more people live their lives in the Metaverse, the closer we will get to a mental shift. There are a variety of elements that need more development before it will be really possible to have these types of core social institutions exist there.”

In Erder’s opinion, the situation being discussed here is one that is usually dealt with by governments almost exclusively. Therefore, it makes sense for the masses not to get ahead of themselves in thinking that any of these changes are going to come in the near term. He believes that legal systems have a clear preference when it comes to wanting the physical presence of all those involved in a trial, adding:

“Most people have the belief that being in the same room with someone, such as a witness, and looking them in the eyes, seeing their mannerisms, etc., is important in evaluating their credibility. Democracies grant defendants the right to directly confront the witnesses and the evidence against them, and litigants have the right to confront each other and the judge/jury.”

Lastly, a key driver when it comes to people and governments getting onboard with Metaverse-based legal proceedings and marriages is their definition of reality. To this point, Erder thinks that as the Metaverse becomes an integral part of people’s lives, the things that happen there will start to matter to people. “The Metaverse will become a microcosm of human society where there will be a natural need for things like dispute resolution,” he concluded.

The future looks “Metaverse ready”

Similarly, quite recently, the South Korean government announced that it had been actively taking steps to bolster its Metaverse ambitions by setting aside $177 million from its coffers. The country is looking to devise a platform for its citizens that grants access to a wide array of government services in a completely digital fashion.

Back in July, Metaverse infrastructure company Condense closed a seed funding round to continue the development of a 3D live streaming technology. The technology underlying the firm’s digital offering utilizes “cutting-edge computer vision, machine learning and proprietary streaming infrastructure to capture and embed a live 3D video (Video 3.0).” In the near term, the firm hopes to stream this unique live video experience into various Metaverse games and mobile applications, as well as other platforms that have been created using Unity or the Unreal Engine.

Earlier this year, Metaverse platform Decentraland laid claim to the distinguished honor of hosting the world’s first wedding on the Metaverse, with the event being attended by a total of over 2,000 guests. The proceedings were administered and solemnized by the law firm Rose Law Group.

Read More

Continue Reading

Commodities

The Case For Bitcoin To Separate Money From The State

By separating money from the government, Bitcoin takes the control of money out of the hands of politicians and gives it back to the citizens.

Published

on

By separating money from the government, Bitcoin takes the control of money out of the hands of politicians and gives it back to the citizens.

This is an opinion editorial by Ryan Bansal, a professional software engineer and author of a Bitcoin newsletter.

“The computer can be used as a tool to liberate and protect people, rather than to control them.” — Hal Finney

Technologies are just amplifiers, not arbiters of morality. By extrapolating from the above quote, it is within reason to claim that any technology can be both a tool for either tyranny or for freedom depending on whose hands are on the power lever.

The principle of checks and balances shows that in any kind of system that relies on concentrated power, that central institution becomes the honeypot for malicious actors. Also, keep in mind the democratic principle that more distributed decision-making is more robust and fair for any society. So it sounds like a no-brainer that the best way moving forward is to develop and adopt technologies with no single ultimate power lever?

Having said that, let’s now talk about one of the most important technologies of all: money. In the evolution of monetary technology from barter systems to seashells to metal coins to gold-backed banknotes and now a central-bank-controlled fiat digital currency, the power distribution has gone from being more decentralized to being more centralized to the point where governments have managed to establish a coercive monopoly on money.

Now, I think it is a fairly non-controversial statement to say: Government corrupts anything it touches. Sure, the convenience of digital money is unmatched, but it is also important to understand the other side of it, i.e., the counterparty risk, which means needing to trust a custody provider to secure your assets — along with the fact that the historical track record of keeping this trust is not great.

However fortunately or unfortunately, recently this breach in the contract has started to happen more widely and openly. Take for example a developed democratic country like Canada, freezing the bank accounts of its citizens for protesting against COVID-19 restrictions or a country like Russia putting restrictions on its people trying to withdraw their funds after the country invaded its neighbor. In a world run purely on physical cash, this kind of power to unconstitutionally violate private property rights would be impossible to execute.

(Source)

Apart from the worsening financial censorship and geopolitical sanctions — which are a relatively recent phenomenon now that money has become almost fully digital — the corruption arising from the advent of fiat money and its problems goes further back to 1971. What do I mean? The plethora of metrics one can use to measure the health of an economy like index funds price-earnings ratios, Gini index for wealth inequality, consumer price index for inflation and cost of living, the ratio of income growth versus productivity growth, individual homeownership rates and many others have all gone haywire since the then President Richard Nixon decided to move away from the gold standard.

If you haven’t guessed the next move of governments by now, allow me to introduce you to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Think today’s digital money is bad enough as is? Now imagine what if it was also programmable?

You can say goodbye to any last sliver of financial autonomy. Before we know it, we’ll be living in a surveillance state with social credit scores, just like the Chinese citizens. If you’ve seen politicians trying to put a positive spin on them by randomly throwing around buzzwords, like “blockchain,” go back to the top of this article and read the first line again.

The problems that the government creates can be spoken of at great lengths, but let us move on to the solution: How to take the control of money out of the hands of politicians and give it back to the citizens?

“I don’t believe we shall ever have good money again before we take it out of the hands of governments.” — Friedrich Hayek

Imagine if our monetary system had the privacy and autonomy of cash; the convenience of being instantly and digitally transferrable all over the globe; all the while also retaining the properties of gold, i.e., nobody can steal your purchasing power over time by arbitrarily manipulating its supply only to serve their perverse political incentives?

Moreover, what if it was also running on an open-source codebase and used a public database making it globally accessible, completely transparent and fully auditable by anyone? Plus, what if it also allowed anyone with an internet connection and a computer the ability to weigh in on its monetary policy?

Finally, what if the proposed system was also decentralized in a way that it becomes impossible to stop, controlled or corrupted by anyone due to the lack of a single point of failure or by any central authority?

Sounds like a monetary technology on steroids, doesn’t it? Well, in 2008, a solution to these problems was proposed by someone using the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto. I’d also like to highlight that it didn’t just come out of the blue, it has been in the making ever since the central bankers established control over the money. More precisely, it took almost 40 years of research and multiple failed attempts to engineer this masterpiece. The following visual is more tangible:

(Source)

I’d like to close by reiterating that the notion of separation of the money from the State may seem radical to you at first, but it is actually not. As I mentioned before, the monetary technologies we’ve used throughout most of our history were way more outside of the state control than current fiat money. In one way or another, the State managed to capture them. Gold is the best example of such a non-sovereign asset that people used as money for the longest time, but it had obvious attack vectors in the form of various physical limitations, i.e., hard to store, hard to secure and hard to move.

Historically speaking, there has been a tug-of-war between fiat and non-government monies. Therefore, the real issue at hand is not one of “if” money will separate from government control, but of “when.” With Bitcoin, I think the moment is finally here.

Now obviously if this article has not managed to fully convince you how Bitcoin was designed to be a truly democratic and inclusive monetary system and if you still insist on calling it a scam, I hope you’ll at least consider it is something worth taking a harder look at.

This is a guest post by Ryan Bansal. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

CDC Admits It Gave False Information About COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance

CDC Admits It Gave False Information About COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

CDC Admits It Gave False Information About COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is admitting it gave false information about COVID-19 vaccine surveillance, including inaccurately saying it conducted a certain type of analysis over one year before it actually did.

A general view of the Centers for Disease Control headquarters in Atlanta on April 23, 2020. (Tami Chappell/AFP via Getty Images)

The false information was conveyed in responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the results of surveillance, and after the CDC claimed COVID-19 vaccines are being monitored “by the most intense safety monitoring efforts in U.S. history.”

“CDC has revisited several FOIA requests and as a result of its review CDC is issuing corrections for the following information,” a CDC spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in an email.

No CDC employees intentionally provided false information and none of the false responses were given to avoid FOIA reporting requirements, the spokeswoman said.

Heart Inflammation

The Epoch Times in July submitted a FOIA, or a request for non-public information, to the CDC for all reports from a team that was formed to study post-vaccination heart inflammation by analyzing reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a system run by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The CDC not only said that the team did not conduct any abstractions or reports through October 2021, but that “an association between myocarditis and mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was not known at that time.”

That statement was false.

Clinical trials of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines detected neither myocarditis nor pericarditis, two types of heart inflammation. But by April 2021, the U.S. military was raising the alarm about post-vaccination heart inflammation, and by June 2021, the CDC was publicly acknowledging a link.

The CDC previously corrected the false statement but did not say whether its teams had ever analyzed VAERS reports.

In reference to myocarditis abstraction from VAERS reports—this process began in May 2021 and continues to this date,” the CDC spokeswoman said in an email.

The CDC has still not released the results of analyses.

Data Mining

The CDC promised in January 2021 that it would perform a specific type of data mining analysis on VAERS reports called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR). But when Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit, asked for the results, the CDC said that “no PRRs were conducted by the CDC” and that data mining “is outside of th[e] agency’s purview.”

Asked for clarification, Dr. John Su, who heads the CDC’s VAERS team, told The Epoch Times in an email that the CDC started performing PRRs in February 2021, “and continues to do so to date.”

The CDC is now saying that both the original response and Su’s statement were false.

The agency didn’t start performing PRRs until March 25, 2022, the CDC spokeswoman said. The agency stopped performing them on July 31, 2022.

The spokeswoman said it “misinterpreted” both Children’s Health Defense and The Epoch Times.

Children’s Health Defense had asked for the PRRs the CDC had performed from Feb. 1, 2021, through Sept. 30, 2021. The Epoch Times asked if the response to the request was correct.

The spokeswoman said the CDC thought “data mining” referred only to Empirical Bayesian (EB) data mining, a different type of analysis that the Food and Drug Administration has promised to perform on VAERS data.

“The notion that the CDC did not realize we were asking about PRRs but only data mining in general is simply not credible, since our FOIA request specifically mentioned PRRs and their response also mentioned that they did not do PRRs. They did not say ‘data mining in general,'” Josh Guetzkow, a senior lecturer at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem who has been working with Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times via email.

There is also no credible reason why they waited until March 31, 2022, to calculate PRRs, unless it was in response to our initial FOIA filed in December 2021, which was rejected on March 31, 2022—the same day they say they began their calculations. It means the CDC was not analyzing VAERS for early warning safety signals for well over a year after the vaccination campaign began—which still counts as a significant failure,” he added.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/12/2022 - 15:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending