Connect with us

Bitcoin Hash Rate Drop: Miners, the Halving and Coronavirus Suspected

Bitcoin Hash Rate Drop: Miners, the Halving and Coronavirus Suspected

Published

on

While a 29% drop in Bitcoin’s hash rate might be due to the miners’ capitulation, analysts point to other factors that could have had a bigger impact.

The Bitcoin (BTC) network hash rate took a steep dive on March 26, dropping by a whopping 15.95%, which is a 45% sink from its peak highs of 2020. The hash rate dipped from 136.2 quintillion hashes per second on March 1 to just 75.7 EH/s on March 26, according to data from Blockchain.com.

Analytics website Coin Dance reported similar findings, with the 2020 peak standing at about 150 EH/s on March 5 and then dropping to 105.6 EH/s 10 days later, thus showing a 29% decrease.

The combined effects of the hash rate decrease and the ensuing outflow of miners from the market have resulted in arguably one of the biggest blows to the Bitcoin network since 2011. The negative impact is difficult to fully assess at this time. However, the reasons for the slump are disputable and are being attributed to a number of factors — from the upcoming BTC halving and the raging coronavirus pandemic to a worldwide recession causing miners to leave the market.

Why is this happening?

The Bitcoin network’s hash rate is designed in such a way that it adjusts the computational difficulty of the mining process after every 2,016 blocks — which happens about every two weeks. The correlation is directly proportional: If the hash rate goes up, so does the computational difficulty and vice versa. The given measure is designed to increase the challenge of mining blocks, making the process more rewarding.

The 15.5% drop has directly impacted the decrease in mining difficulty from a measurement of 16.5 trillion to 13.9 trillion on March 26, meaning that a large number of miners had disconnected from the chain. Such a turn of events was expected after the past month’s turbulent events, which saw Bitcoin roller-coasting to $3,600, showing a 60% decline. As a result, many miners allegedly found it unprofitable to keep mining and running the equipment, which consumes a lot of electricity.

Are miners really leaving the market?

Hash rates and mining difficulty are directly correlated and have historically been the trendsetters of the so-called “miners’ capitulation cycle,” which signifies that mining is profitable as long as the BTC price remains high. As the computation difficulty rises, miners with low-powered equipment are forced to sell off their assets to keep mining, which leads to an increase in the supply of Bitcoin. When miners are unable to compete, they leave the market, and this leads to a decrease in the hash rate.

Walter Salama, the chief compliance officer of mining company Bitpatagonia, told Cointelegraph that he is inclined to think that the departure of the miners has contributed to the decline of the hash rate:

“All miners invest for a long-term business and contribute to blockchain. The medium to small miners, many are closing, we have all made the same mistakes, we have entered the industry with very high costs of the machines and with a Bitcoin that never stopped falling in value and when we had an attractive price to sell and recover, we did not have stock because we were always forced to badly sell to survive.”

Pierce Crosby, the general manager of TradingView, explained to Cointelegraph that a lot of the volatility of the hash rate is based on programmatic price limits set for different mining rigs. Because of the math on hash rate rewards, the lower the price, the lower the margin per computation, so these rigs will likely slow down until the price rebounds and margins expand, Crosby said.

The theory was put into practice on March 26 and led to a reset of the network’s computation difficulty. As the difficulty shifted downward, the miners’ capitulation cycle closed the full circle. This may continue until only the strongest remain, highlighting one of the fundamental flaws of the Bitcoin network.

Related: Bitcoin Halving, Explained

However, many experts disagree that the recent BTC hash rate drop has anything to do with miners capitulating. Donnell Wright, a miner and blockchain compliance consultant, told Cointelegraph:

“Miners could be capitulating, but I don’t think that is what is happening now, especially so close to the BTC halving. Usually, after the halving, we end up seeing a huge spike in price, so based on previous data, it would be detrimental to capitulate.”

Other contributing factors

There could be a number of reasonable explanations, however, as to why the BTC network hash rate has taken a decline, as added by Wright:

“It could be that miners are competing with newer technology, so they may have to shut off current miners to upgrade. It’s also likely that mining operations may be forced to temporarily shut down due to COVID-19, depending on the region. I don’t believe the decline is linked to the halving, which may actually incentivize bigger players to mine — after the fact.”

Vector Moranov, miner and member of the Bitcoin Foundation, noted to Cointelegraph that apart from a direct relationship between the BTC hash rate drop of March 2020 and the Bitcoin price, miners also have fears of an economic crisis that might happen due to the coronavirus pandemic.

A decrease in the hash rate could also be caused by a deficit of miners and the closure of farms and production in China, as well as the rise in the price of the equipment. Over 30% of the mining takes place in China, according to Sidharth Sogani, founder and CEO of Crebaco, a research and intelligence firm focused on blockchain and crypto projects, further told Cointelegraph:

“China being under a lockdown is one of the reasons why the hash rate has reduced because the mining facilities are not operating at its best capacities.”

Sogani added that new ASIC mining machines upgraded specially for the upcoming BTC halving have been affected as well. The pandemic tossed a wrench into the introduction schedule of new mining rigs, resulting in a sell-off of BTC. Considering the immense upgrade of hardware that took place in 2019, the service life of that equipment may be coming to an end, as the almost twofold hash rate increase over the first quarter of 2020 has compressed the operating margins.

In addition, Bitcoin corrected its price by introducing a multiplier effect on low margins, leading to the capitulation of inefficient miners. The monthly production by miners of over 54,000 new Bitcoin every block is also battering the coin’s price, resulting in excess in supply.

The pressure to sell Bitcoin in order to maintain mining equipment is immense, as miners may still try to get significant profit margins. This leads to a “survival of the fittest” situation, as experienced miners with high margins will be accumulating a larger percentage of the newly minted Bitcoin and will not be selling them to maintain their operations.

Despite the technical aspect, the impact of COVID-19 and the sharp drop of the S&P 500 on the BTC’s price are also strong contributing factors that could decrease the interest of miners in the coin. Vincent Poon, a vice president at Bithumb Global, noted the economic situation as the factor that affected BTC’s hash rate most of all. He told Cointelegraph:

“I believe the miners didn’t quit the game, the hash rate drop is due to the global turmoils similar to others assets and the cash out of the Ponzi schemes which there are still a handful of them out there. Historically speaking, halving did increase the price in short term. Miners are well aware of halving and is a calculated risk when they invested in mining machines. Some miners might quit but that also means they got more market share, which is a good thing for the miners in general.”

Possible scenario

Everything depends on BTC’s price and global market conditions, as a significant drop in mining difficulty and the possible rise of BTC above the $6,000 mark could still make older mining equipment like Bitmain’s Antminer S9 profitable. The cryptocurrency mining market and miners are very much active, just operating differently, according to Stephen Gregory, the chief compliance officer of crypto exchange CEX.io U.S. He claimed in an email conversation with Cointelegraph:

“Last week, in addition to a monthly CME settlement date, we saw over 50% of open interest options expired in Bitcoin alone. To me, this shows that perhaps miners may take some machines offline to cut costs but are still very much active in the market using the ever-expanding array of financial instruments to hedge their risks effectively. Although the theory of the ‘miner’s capitulation cycle,’ [...] still has merit; now that miners can hedge with options and futures, means there is more than one route to generating yield.”

Meanwhile, the situation has led many miners to start switching between the Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) networks to remain profitable. However, that may start changing on April 8 when BCH is set to halve its block reward. The same will happen to BTC on around May 15.

The long-term prognosis is that the hash rate will go up as mining is institutionalized, according to Wright. He told Cointelegraph:

“Enterprises will also continue to find innovative ways to mine BTC without using as much energy and power. This alone might introduce new institutional players into the space, which will allow hash to continue to break all-time highs.”

The derivation of the current situation directly shifts to the near future and poses questions about the state of Bitcoin after the halving if miners are the primary source of sell pressure. Matt D'Souza gave a laconic answer to the rhetorical question in his Twitter post: “50% less potential pressure.” In other words, miners with low margins are immensely affected by any negative price movements and will leave the network.

Some miners share this point of view. The Bitcoin Foundation’s Moranov told Cointelegraph that although some miners will shut down their devices in the short term, there will be a big wave of miners abandoning the market in the long run if the decline continues, especially because of Bitcoin’s halving.

However, many experts have also suggested positive scenarios. Miner capitulation has historically been a buy signal, and a bull market always follows periods of recession, as the post-Bitcoin-halving world could see an outflow of miners and a reward redistribution under lower sell pressure — which could potentially result in a Bitcoin price increase.

Sogani told Cointelegraph that although Bitcoin’s price may fall right away. In his opinion, BTC should break its all-time price high in no more than six months time, adding:

“That’s not because of the halving but because of excessive printing of money by the central banks globally to combat COVID-19 and control the recession. Printing of money does help in the short run, but in a few months, we will see that this recession will turn into a depression which will last for over 24 months.”

Wright also shared with Cointelegraph his positive prognosis on post-BTC halving prices, saying that in the long term, the decline in the hash rate will not have an impact and that a price uptrend will accompany volatility after the halving, adding: “The hash rate reached all-time highs in January 2019, and the price was not following, which yielded confusion and then BTC took a trip to $14K shortly after.”

D’Souza gave a more precise prediction, pointing to a period of one year and stating that the “recessions typically suppress most assets — especially risk-on assets, such as Bitcoin. We don’t call bottoms. Historically, during miner capitulation, 12-month returns have been favorable.” However, there are analysts who suggest that the hash rate may further drop. For instance, Crosby opined:

“The deterioration of different coin hash rates is visible to the larger investor community and, behaviorally, creates pessimism about the fundamental value of a currency. If this is ‘acted’ on, then price declines further, and hash rate will further decline as well. Downward spiral.”

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.

Published

on

It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source: Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

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

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

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

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending