Please use the below format.
For this week’s thread, feel free to make claims about crypto or anything outside of crypto. Have fun with it! Be creative!
Please use the below format.
For this week’s thread, feel free to make claims about crypto or anything outside of crypto. Have fun with it! Be creative!
Claim: Atomic swaps prevent even a hacked exchange from taking custody of a trader’s coins.
Source: Arwen Whitepaper
My stake: Backed with 100 Cred
3 questions you need to answer to prove/disprove this claim:
How centralized exchanges work
A user deposits their coins on an exchange. This happens through an on-blockchain transfer from user’s wallet to exchange’s wallet. Trading occurs within exchanges’ database (not recorded on the coin’s blockchain). After trading is complete, a user can retrieve coins (exchange’s wallet → user’s wallet) which happens on a blockchain. The problem is that there is “counterparty risk.” The trading that happens within the exchanges’ database could be compromised… because it’s happening off-the-record, behind closed doors.
Source: Arwen Whitepaper
What are atomic swaps?
They are “peer-to-peer” trades of cryptocurrencies. This allows people to trade with one another, wallet-to-wallet. Users have full control and ownership of their private keys.
The technical details are in this blockgeeks post.
How do they prevent coins from being stolen on a hacked exchange?
You’re not trusting anyone to hold onto the private keys. Because the owners of the coins are in possession of their private keys at all times, it doesn’t matter what happens to the exchange.
Claim: Most crypto hedge funds act like venture capital funds but are hedge funds, legally
Source: Coindesk article
My stake: Challenge with 100 Cred
Questions you need to answer to prove/disprove this claim:
Hedge funds are investment funds. An investment manager pools a bunch of people’s money, and invests it on their behalf, taking a cut of it. They can take long and short positions on the assets they’ve invested in.
Venture capital funds
Venture capital funds are like hedge funds in that somebody is managing rich people’s money. But whereas hedge funds can take short and long positions on assets, venture capital firms take exclusively long-positions (typically 7+ years). And the assets they invest in are companies in their toddler stage.
Both hedge funds and venture capital firms are private funds. They are not required to file with the SEC unless they are managing $150M+ in assets.
Crypto hedge funds today
This site lists the top crypto funds.
Of the funds mentioned, the funds managing over $150M (and therefore, have public filings available on the SEC site) were Polychain, Pantera, Accelerated Digital Ventures, Galaxy Digital Assets, Altana Digital Currency Fund, BlockTower, Alphabit Fund, Multicoin.
I looked up each of the firms on the SEC site and saw what they filed themselves as.
Polychain: Hedge fund. Link
Pantera: Hedge fund. Link
Accelerated Digital Ventures: Venture capital fund. Link
Galaxy Digital Assets: Liquidity fund. Link
Altana Digital Currency Fund: not listed
BlockTower: Hedge fund. Link
Alphabit Fund: Not lised
Multicoin: Hedge fund. Link
These crypto funds operate like hedge funds because they take short-positions but they operate like venture capital funds because they take long-positions on unproven, risky companies. I would disagree with the claim because hedge funds have optionality to do both, as evidenced below.
Caveats: 1. Some of the funds have raised multiple funds that can be classified as different things like Polychain. 2. I wasn’t able to see the legal status of funds below $150M AUM.
Claim: New Dapp projects are creating a massive number of wallets and writing scripts to send money back and forth to prop up hollow “success”.
Category: Use cases
My Stake: Back[50 cred] and Challenge[25 Cred]
Assumptions behind the claim/Sub claims based on my understanding:
1. “Success” for dapp projects is defined by number of transactions and new wallets created. Back[25 Cred]
We are covering ERC20 and non fungible tokens using meaningful metrics such as the number of transfers, amount of users (senders/receivers), and the volume or distinct tokens sent in the case of collectibles.
a. The above metrics can be easily manipulated. For example:
Instead of a user transferring 1 ETH from their wallet, they could split that into 10 0.1 ETH and hence, creating 10 times more users and number of transfers. Thus making two of the metrics invalid.
b. A review with an interesting title - Decentralized Apps Facing Half-Life After Peak - dating 20/27 August picks just the largest dapps and shows how the user base drops tremendously after hitting the peak. Although the reasons aren’t explained(one could be post-crypto crash in early 2018), the graphs clearly indicate how even for large dapps, measuring user base(creation of new wallets) as a metric is valid only for a short period of time.
2. A lot of high flying Dapps are creating new wallets and transactions at no cost and with no actual value. Back[25 Cred]
Dapp website rankings are measuring # wallets & transaction volume, both of which can be generated at no cost by project stakeholders, a behavior that is rewarded by headlines of new projects beating Ethereum out of nowhere, a false signal to investors.
Thanks @Catherinesjkim for asking Patrick Stanley, the primary evidence for his claim.
a. The twitter feed mentions blocktwitter as a dapp that used bot to create new transactions. One other dapp that was in news for spamming the network to simulate usage and improve their ranking new is Last Winner. Also reported by CoinDesk (Need to verify the validity of the news - the comments on the etherscan page provide some headstart.)
b. An interesting read fom Dappreview, a dapp ranking platform.
Miners and churners, one takes 70%+ transaction volume and the other takes 70% users.
Churn -> sending to yourself by creating multiple wallets? Is that definition right?
If yes, the article showcases two accounts who have created over 12k churnings between themselves.
Besides, the article also defines gambling on dapss as following:
Here’s how it works: the DApp issues its own tokens in the game and distributes the tokens proportionally by the amount users contribute in every round. The rewards also follow a halving schedule every specific period of time.
The development team periodically distributes dividends to all the token holders. For the token holders (assuming they are rational investors), although the expected value of the winning probability in such gambling games is negative, they could still realize profits from dividends and selling the tokens when the token is listed.
Since majority of dapps are gambling, especially with TRON and EOS, could this definition mean m token distributions to n set of gamblers count as m x n transactions in total?
The current status of Dapps can be understood by these two posts.
Even while considering daily user base, 80% of dapps are inactive on any given day.
3. No other benchmarks are being considered for ranking Dapps. Challenge[25 Cred]
a. The most reputed Dapp ranking platform Dapp.com have themselves realized the downfall of using daily active users & transactions as metrics for ranking Dapps and introduced Dapp.com Ranking 2.2.1 with specific focus on Daily interactive users over Daily active Users.
- Daily Interactive Users (DIU) : The number of accounts (users) that interact with the dapp’s smart contracts.
- Quality of Users : There’s a huge difference between a user with 0.01 ETH in the account and the one 100 ETH in the account, and we consider the one with 100 ETH is a high-quality user.
- Transaction Amount : It includes non-zero transactions (usually purchases) and zero transactions (actions).
- Funding Sources of User Accounts : It purges bots and fake users whose funds are from the dapp’s contracts through multiple transfers.
- User’s Attention : If a user account has 5 out of 10 contract-related activities with a dapp in one day, we consider he/she has high attention to this dapp.
- Timeliness of User Actions : If a user’s last contribution to a dapp was a few months ago, then his/her recent action(s) to the dapp should reflect differences in its dapp ranking.
- Community : It includes the community size and activeness. A community is formed by its loyal supporters and users who join the entire journey, from the dapp development to the expansion. It not only shows the potential to grow but also reflects the team’s capability of operations.
Next task: Selectively pick a few Dapps ranked on top and prove/disprove the credibility of their ranking position and validate the metrics.
DAU for blockchain applications is calculated by counting the number of unique source addresses that transact with a DApp’s contracts / addresses on a given day. However DAU as metric has its flaws:
- What are active users? You can be using a DApp without sending a transaction.
- What are users ? Do bots count? How about traders of tokens?
- The daily part heavily focusses on the hype of the moment and favours short lived FOMO gambling & fraud schemes.
- DAU is easily manipulated, there are even paid services on EOS that promise your gambling DApp to be in the top 3 for a few bucks.
After a couple iterations and tests, we came up with a weighted algorithm that is based on 14 factors including (but not limited to):
1. Daily / weekly / monthly active users
2. Transaction volume
3. Developer activity
4. Profile freshness
5. Profile strength
6. Click-Through-Rate (CTR)
7. User recommendations & feedback
While the metric on developer activity sounds fairly unique and interesting. There needs to be further investigation on whether such a metric has correlation with adding value at both the user end as well as the Dapp growth. State of the dapps have not revealed their other 7 metrics.
Next task: What other metrics can we consider or source(existing/non-existing) to create new benchmarks for Dapp rankings?
I really like how you started with definitions and then moved onto dissecting the claim.
Claim: The word soup is of Sanskrit origin! It is derived from the su and po, which means good nutrition.
Category: Word Origin
My Stake: Challenge Claim[50 Cred]
“liquid food,” 1650s, from French soupe “soup, broth” (13c.), from Late Latin suppa “bread soaked in broth,” from a Germanic source (compare Middle Dutch sop “sop, broth”), from Proto-Germanic *sup-, from PIE *sub-, from root *seue- (2) “to take liquid” (see sup (v.2)).
Although v2.sup states “to take liquid” (source also of Sanskrit sunoti “presses out juice,” soma; it has no correlation with terms ‘su’ and ‘po’.
Nowhere, does it seem that ‘su’ and ‘po’ collectively or individually signify ‘good nutrition’ as per the Sanksrit Dictionary
The list of English words originated from Sanskrit on wikipedia does not mention the word ‘Soup’
Interestingly, the word ‘supya’ as per the sanskrit dictionary has in brackets ‘of doubtful derivation’ and that ‘supiya’ means soup.
interesting. I will challenge it as well
Claim: Google is making public blockchain more searchable
Source: Ledger Insights
My Stake: 100 creds, backing the claim
The article suggests that Google is releasing 6 more public blockchains in its BigQuery service. BigQuery is Google’s enterprise cloud data warehouse that stores thousands of datasets to enable quicker SQL queries and analysis.
Google released a press statement on 2/5/19 that they now hold a copy of Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, Dash, Dogecoin, Ethereum Classic, Litecoin, and Zcash’s transaction data sets.
Using the editor is really simple, you just link your Google account to Google Data Analytics and you can search lots of public data sets, including crypto!
Claim: Price of Binance coin spiked 75% in a crypto bear market due to reduced bnb coin circulation
My Stake: 50 Challenge TruStake
The source link here makes three claims for the price surge in the recent months
I am skeptical about the first claim " decreasing circulating supply of bnb coin". Binance uses 20% of their profits every quarter to buy back bnb coins and burn them as a mechanism of managing inflation and spending tokens. This is obvious and is published on their site with all token burn details. Here is the link to their latest token burn - https://medium.com/binanceexchange/binance-coin-burn-update-303e25ab3d70
The price of bnb token has surged from $5.54 to $9.7 from Jan 2019 till date and their 6th bnb token burn coincided on Jan 15.
Terms to understand:
Circulating Supply of a Cryptocurrency: Circulating Supply is the best approximation of the number of coins that are circulating in the market and in the general public’s hands.
Total Supply of a Cryptocurrency: Total Supply is the total amount of coins in existence right now (minus any coins that have been verifiably burned).
The following chart from coinmetrics.io on the circulating supply of bnb gives a different picture which is contradictory to the decreasing bnb circulating supply claim made here. The circulating supply has surged from 129 million to 141 million during a phase of bnb coin price surge. I am not sure if the article intended to mention the Total supply or circulating supply of bnb.
The total supply of bnb after the latest 6th quarter burn is 189.2 million whereas after the 5th quarter burn it was 192.4 million. A total of 1.6 million bnb was burned in the 6th quarter burn.
This is more details
Binance’s official [whitepaper] https://www.binance.com/resources/ico/Binance_WhitePaper_en.pdf) concerning both the exchange and their ICO mentions that their ERC-20 built token, Binance Coin ($BNB), was restricted to a total supply of 200 million. 100 million tokens (50%) were assigned for the ICO, 80 million (40%) belonged to the founding team and 20 million (10%) were reserved for Angel investors.
Further down it mentions that the company was intending to gradually repurchase a total of 50% of the supply and subsequently burn them. They would buy tokens worth 20% of their profits every quarter and burn them until the market would only be left with 100 million BNB. Hence a total of 10.8 million bnb are burned so far to comply with their whitepaper proposal.
There is no clear indication that the recent price surge in bnb token during the 2019 Jan-Feb period is due to decreased bnb token supply and definitely not the circulating supply.
Claim: In the Frank Miller comic, Batman kills people all the time.
Source: Interview with Zack Snyder
Category: Comic books
My stake: Challenged with 100 Cred
The Batman in Zack Snyder’s film, Batman V Superman, is an inaccurate take on the comic book character because the Batman in the movie kills people. The classic Batman from the comics DOES NOT. It’s one of Batman’s DEFINING characteristics. He may use brute force but never crosses the line of killing.
“I’m assuming he’s referring to [the Batman from The Dark Knight Rises comic book] here but other than the Mutant Leader [comic book] which is left to interpretation (and strongly hinted that he didn’t kill him) he doesn’t kill anyone…like at all… this article just about sums it up.
In another interview he uses the same justification for why Batman uses guns here but once again, Miller’s Batman hates guns. Primary evidence.
I agree with you on this and I think the lack of regulatory clarity in the crypto space makes it even harder to categorize. Some of the “venture” investments are in companies building new token economies and tradable coins, which further complicates putting them into any specific category.
Claim : Range anxiety will limit the ability of the all-electric car, even if the battery costs come down.
Category : Electric Vehicles
Source : http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/26/will-range-anxiety-limit-the-electric-car/
My Stake : Challenge with 50 TruStake
My Argument/Evidence :
Comparing EVs with gas-powered cars presents challenges because many of the comparisons are not apples to apples.
One such issue is the idea of range anxiety - the fear of running out of battery with nowhere to charge because of a lack of charging stations. The biggest difference here is that although gas stations outnumber public charging stations by about 3:1, most (80+ percent) of EV owners charge their cars at home.
An often overlooked benefit of home charging, besides the convenience of not having to make a separate trip to a gas station, is that you start each day effectively with a full tank. You plug-in at night and wake up with a full charge every morning. Besides long-distance trips, you don’t need to calculate when you should refuel, unlike the ‘range anxiety’ caused by a gas car that needs to be monitored.
Related to this is the argument that when a station is found, it takes considerably longer to charge than to refill a gas car. This is still true. The difference is that most charging facilities are designed as destination chargers. The EV charging stations are built in mall parking lots or places with many facilities such as restaurants, stores, and bathrooms. And again, this is only for rare long-distance trips, most charing is done at home.
As far the range itself, gas and electric vehicles are starting to converge. The range of the top-selling EVs of 2018, the Tesla Model 3 and Model S, is about 300 miles (264-310 / 310-335, respectively). Admittedly this is currently lower than the median range of the top-selling sedans of 2018, about 400 miles. As battery tech improves the ranges of EVs will increase and eventually surpass that of gas-powered cars. But even at current levels, a range of 300 may be enough as a 2016 study argued that:
Of less significance but still a factor in reducing ‘range anxiety’ is that the structure of EVs allows for ‘hypermileing’ or the ability to significantly increase range by driving slow. This is possible because of the dramatic decrease in electric power needed to drive slow vs fast and because of the unique component of EVs of regenerative braking - harnesses the momentum of the car to charge the battery when you slow down. If you find yourself low on a charge with nowhere to plug in, driving slow can help significantly. This is not as true of gas cars.
The number of charging stations is also increasing rapidly year over year.
Overall I think the concern about range anxiety is a relic of the last decade when EV had ranges less than 100 miles and the stations were few and far between.
Claim : Over 91% of addresses on the Bitcoin network have been used only once.
Category : Use Cases / Scalability
Source : Google Cloud Blog
My Stake : Back claim, 25 TruStake
My Argument/Evidence :
I don’t have the sql chops to evaluate the data linked in this blog post. If anyone else does, please add onto this analysis and challenge me if I am wrong.
This chart shows the analysis, which appears to agree with the claim. However, the scale is hard to determine for the “1” unique partners addresses.
As of today, Blockchain.com reported that over 33 million bitcoin addresses have been created. Another article reports 2.3 million Bitcoin users that transact in Bitcoin. Let’s just assume that those users each have one address that is doing multiple transactions and that is only 6.9% of all Bitcoin wallets.
Chainalysis reported that 35% of the coins mined are lost or likely lost and it is not unlikely that those addresses were created for some hobby reason and forgotten/lost/abandoned. Aside from the hobbyists there are the holders, who are accumulating bitcoin and holding it in their wallet. If they are wise, they have their bitcoin in multiple wallets as well – to mitigate risk.
Thinking about the people that are likely to trade with high volume – traders, market makers, etc. The authors of the Google blog, rightly so, point out that using one-time burn addresses is a best practice. These groups can trade hundreds to thousands of times per day, which theoretically results in a massive number of single transaction wallet addresses being created on a daily, weekly and annual basis.
Based on this information and my inability to disprove this claim (I reviewed over a dozen articles that discussed wallet statistics) I am going to back this with 25 TruStake. I wish I could unpack the sql data and give a stronger stake, but I don’t have those skills.
This is exactly right. It’s best practice to use one-time addresses for privacy and security reasons. So I’m not surprised by the claim that a majority of addresses have only been used once.
@jtierney What about this piece of news - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/tesla-jaguar-and-nissan-evs-lose-power-in-freezing-temps-.html
As per this article electric cars had serious battery drains in extreme cold temperatures like the polar vortex. One thing is for sure that EV’s are not time tested and the battery technology is lithium ion system which is similar to the ones used in our cell phones. Excerpts from the above article.
The bad news is that next-generation batteries have largely been demonstrated, so far, just in the research lab. While some energy experts predict we could see solid-state batteries ready for production as early as 2022, others fear they won’t be market ready until closer to the end of the decade. That leaves BEV owners facing the range anxieties of a lot more winter storms.
@sijo0703 Great points. It might make sense if I respond to this in the form of a claim.
My Stake: Back 100 with TruStake
My Argument/Evidence: It is true. Colder temperature do incrementally lower the range of electric cars.
This is due to a few factors. One is that the transfer of electrons that create the energy of the battery is slowed at colder temperatures. This can be mitigated by ‘preconditioning’ the car. At least on a Tesla, if you have the car plugged in overnight, it will automatically precondition itself - i.e. warm the fluid surrounding the batteries before you drive. Once the batteries reach a warmer temp - ideally around 40-75F the range is close to what it would be on a milder day.
The second drain on the battery is the heating system to keep the driver warm. Unlike a gas car which can blow the excess heat from the engine onto the passengers, electric cars have to create the heat by using the batteries’ energy.
As an example, according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Telsa reports that their Model S 70D model loses about 19% range when driving in 0 degree Fahrenheit weather with the heater on, reducing the range to 195 miles.
If you live in a place that is consistently below 0 F and need to drive near 200 miles a day, then it might make sense to wait a few years for the tech to improve before going electric.
More info here: https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/electric-cars-cold-weather-temperatures
Also, it’s worth pointing out that the efficiency of gas-powered cars is reduced in cold weather as well, albeit, to a lesser extent than EVs.
Fuel economy tests show that, in short-trip city driving, a conventional gasoline car’s gas mileage is about 12% lower at 20°F than it would be at 77°F. It can drop as much as 22% for very short trips (3 to 4 miles) https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml
My Stake: Challenge with 5 TruStake
My Argument/Evidence: While electric car batteries currently are of the lithium-ion category, they have important differences from those used in smaller devices like cell phones. The ratios of secondary metals like cobalt and graphite create a battery with different characteristics than those in a cell phone. One major difference is battery life degradation over time.
Batteries in cell phones tend to lose their charging capacities over time. People fear that the same will happen to their car. But because of the different battery chemistry, and other design factors, the range reduction is far less an issue than for cell phones.
You can see in the image above that even after 220,000km (136,702 miles) of driving the capacity of the battery is only reduced by about 9% on average.
Lithium-ion batteries have a limit on how many times they can charge (cycle) from 0 to 100% before capacity is reduced.
An iPhone is estimated to fall 20% in capacity after approx. 400 cycles.
Tesla doesn’t provide the number of cycles but per a Tesla forum member:
A rough guess is 1000 full 0 to 100% cycles would result in 10% range reduction. Now that doesn’t sound like a lot of cycles, but the way Lithium batteries work, is if you charge 30-80% (i.e. 1/2) it only counts as a half cycle (or you can do this 2,000 times). Keep in mind the battery doesn’t die, but slowly reduces capacity. What you may consider end-of-life, another owner may go for years longer.
Many owners have now gone well beyond 100,000 miles of range, with little degradation.
My Stake: Back 10 with TruStake
My Argument/Evidence: This is true. Solid state batteries are not widely available yet, and as of now, nearly electric cars run on lithium-ion batteries. I disagree that this is ‘bad news.’ Lith-ion are pretty good, but solid state batteries will be amazing and solve many problems, and this is exciting news, not bad news.
Such batteries would offer a higher capacity in a smaller package, charge faster and last longer. https://www.alphr.com/science/1008867/solid-state-battery-dyson-toyota
Claim: The percentage of overall Bitcoin transactions that take place on the dark net continues to decline, though bitcoin dark net dollar volumes remain significant.
Category: Use Cases
My Stake : Back Claim (100 CRED)
Argument / Evidence :
The rise in bitcoin transaction volumes have resulted in a decline in dark net market transactions as a percentage of total volume. However, the multi-year trend in dark net volumes using Bitcoin is still growing.
Category: Aragon, Polkadot, Scaling
My Stake: Back Claim 100 Cred
Aragon is a decentralized app (dApp) on the Ethereum blockchain that allows anyone to create and manage a decentralized organization.
Evidence that Aragon is investigating on launching their own blockchain on Polkadot : From Aracon2019 as tweet suggests
Jorge Izquierdo, Co-founder of the project