Euro payments, deposits, and withdrawals are back on for European Binance users months after the severance of services by PaySafe.

Crypto exchange Binance has announced it has onboarded new partners to handle euro deposits and withdrawals, months after losing its previous fiat partner PaySafe in September. 

In an Oct. 19 statement, Binance announced that it had signed agreements with new fiat partners for euro payments, deposits, and withdrawals.

The move follows regulatory and debanking woes in the European Union, where the firm was forced to look for new banking partners after it lost the support of PaySafe in September.

Binance said that users have already started being migrated to the new services provided by “a number of new regulated and authorized fiat partners.” It did not specify which firms it had partnered with, however.

More EUR fiat channels have arrived on #Binance

We’re proud to announce that we’ve entered into agreements with multiple new EUR partners to provide deposit, withdrawal, and payment services, making your experience even more seamless.

Find out more https://t.co/jKh2QxH3sN

— Binance (@binance) October 19, 2023

The announcement noted that fiat services offered by the new partners include EUR deposits and withdrawals via Open Banking and SEPA/SEPA Instant.

Users can also buy and sell crypto using SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area), bank cards, and their fiat balances, and trade EUR spot pairs.

In late September, Binance urged its European users to convert their euros into Tether (USDT) before the end of October, though the latest announcement could suggest this is now not necessary.

Related: Binance limits withdrawals in Europe, cites payment processor issues

However, some users were still reporting issues depositing euros even after the announcement, while others asked about fiat partners for the British pound in the UK.

Paysafe pulled support for transactions in British pounds in May following concerns raised by United Kingdom financial regulators over the partnership.

On Oct. 16, Binance suspended access to its exchange for new users based in the UK. The move followed the termination of a partnership with a third party to approve communications on its platform under new local rules by the country’s watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Binance has yet to source fiat partnerships for its UK exchange where British users are still unable to deposit GBP.

Cointelegraph contacted Binance for more specifics but did not receive an immediate response.

Magazine: SBF’s alleged Chinese bribe, Binance clarifies account freeze: Asia Express

Read More

ConsenSys founder Joseph Lubin has been named in a new lawsuit filed in New York by over two dozen former ConsenSys employees.

Over two dozen former employees of Ethereum infrastructure firm ConsenSys have filed a fresh lawsuit against the firm’s founder and CEO, Joseph Lubin, over claims he diluted employee equity shares against earlier promises.

The former staff allege that Lubin — who is also a co-founder of Ethereum — breached this “no-dilution promise” made in 2015, according to the plaintiff’s Oct. 19 filing in a New York Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs allege Lubin lured in “smart and motivated” colleagues to work for ConsenSys in late 2014, claiming the firm would become the “future of cryptocurrency” and the “crypto Google.”

Around that time, Lubins allegedly stated in a document that he wouldn’t dilute employee equity shares; the plaintiffs allege he later broke that promise.

“It is my intention that the percentage ConsenSys members receive will not be diluted by additional issuance,” the document reportedly wrote.

The plaintiffs argued Lubin didn’t just break the promise but also “got rich” off it while they “got nothing.”

“He broke his word [and] he violated his legal commitments and duties. While Lubin got rich, Plaintiffs got nothing.”

The plaintiffs, who held shares in Swiss-based holding company ConsenSys AG — formerly ConsenSys Mesh — claim the shares were rendered “worthless” when Lubin transferred cryptocurrency wallet MetaMask and other assets to its new United States-based entity in 2020.

The plaintiffs also named investment bank JPMorgan — as one of the seven defendants — alleging it ”played a pivotal role” in negotiating the asset transfer and became a new equity holder in the new U.S. entity:

“Lubin, his inner circle, and JPMorgan kept the details of the negotiations secret—Plaintiffs were left in the dark.

“Lubin did not bring over many of his early employees—the Plaintiffs here—as equity holders in the new company. Instead, they continued to hold shares in the far less valuable entity that had been stripped of its assets,” the plaintiffs added.

ConsenSys says plaintiffs claims are ‘meritless’

Speaking to Cointelegraph, a ConsenSys spokesperson called the claims "frivolous," saying the plaintiffs are now trying their luck in the U.S. legal arena after “two years of getting nowhere with their frivolous claims” in a Swiss court.

Related: ConsenSys founder ‘bullish’ on Ethereum following crypto winter performance

“[The] plaintiffs now believe their meritless claims stand a better chance of yielding a pay day if they game U.S. courts and entangle ConsenSys Software and other unrelated parties in litigation.” The ConsenSys representative added:

“We fully expect that the plaintiffs, who were never employees of Consensys Software, will soon find this gambit is another fruitless attempt to enrich themselves from the success of others.”

Despite claims that the plaintiff’s legal challenge went “nowhere” in Switzerland, the country’s High Court of Zug issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs say the ruling supports their position that Lubin breached his duties.

ConsenSys was founded in October 2014, about nine months before the Ethereum blockchain launched in mid-2015.

The firm develops and hosts infrastructure projects that underpins much of the Ethereum network.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages across six separate causes of action, in an amount to be determined at trial.

Magazine: Joe Lubin: The truth about ETH founders split and ‘Crypto Google’

Read More

Dubious government investments are stunting our standard of living

While government policies can benefit societies and economies, they often produce the opposite results.

Recent concerns highlight Canada’s worrying trend of dismal productivity growth and growth prospects, with several international bodies predicting minimal growth in Canadians’ real (adjusted for inflation) personal income over the next 30 years (an entire generation).

To address this productivity slump, governmental strategies have varied.

One strategy has emphasized workers’ skills, with authorities advocating for youth to pursue marketable technical trades rather than conventional university degrees.

Another strategy has been to foster a more extensive, intensive, and robust innovation ‘ecosystem’ coupled with venture capital and institutional investor funding. Addressing permitting obstacles and other regulatory impediments are another approach.

Yet, despite the potential of these strategies, the persistent actions of both federal and provincial governments challenge productivity growth. Notably, these governments often allocate extensive taxpayer funds towards projects with minimal returns on investment.

Over the years, provincial utilities like BC Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, and Nalcor (an umbrella company for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro) have seen significant overruns. The financial commitment to these projects, such as the Site C dam, Keeyask, Bipole III, and Muskrat Falls, far surpassed initial projections.

A staggering $43.2 billion was spent, compared to initial expectations of $23.9 billion, to produce just a couple of gigawatts of ‘cheap’ power – just enough for a million households. For perspective, the same funds could have been channelled into nuclear energy, producing more power and less environmental harm.

In addition to these massive provincial governmental blunders, the federal government lavished $35 billion in tax relief subsidies for just three electric vehicle (EV) battery plants. According to the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer, two of these plants ‘might’ be paid off in ‘as soon as’ 20 years.

Topping it off is Ottawa’s purchase and expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, where government-induced regulatory obstacles continue to explode costs. Ottawa has now spent a staggering $30.9 billion to expand the pipeline, almost six times the original estimate of $5.3 billion. It will be impossible to recoup anything near what is being spent. For more than eighty percent of its route, the new, parallel Trans Mountain line follows the existing line: an additional enormous expense accrued from massive mismanagement.

A common thread weaving through these projects is the government’s willingness to finance ventures that initially seemed economically questionable. State-owned enterprises often prioritize political motives over profitability – a theme evident in the electric vehicle and Trans Mountain decisions. Perhaps the renowned work “How Big Things Get Done” would be more aptly named “How Big Things Get Botched” in Canada.

Ultimately, a nation’s economic vitality hinges on the collective performance of its businesses and people. Investments in underperforming projects yield minimal returns. The consequence of such political spending is reduced productivity and diminished wealth per individual.

Unfortunately, our kids will bear the brunt of these decisions, likely facing a compromised standard of living.

By Ian Madsen

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Troy Media

Read More