How to Last the Crypto Winter? Seek Simplicity, Manage Complexity

Jake Yocom-Piatt is the Project Lead for Decred, a hyper-secure, adaptable and self-funding digital currency.

The following is an exclusive contribution to CoinDesk’s 2018 Year in Review.

2018 year in review

In 2018, we have seen the cryptocurrency market cap go from all-time highs in January to falling over 80 percent by December, despite little changing in the context of the technological fundamentals.

If little has changed with the fundamentals, then there must be other factors driving the manic buying and panic selling cycles present in these markets? A persistent pattern I have observed in the context of investors and projects in the space is one of information asymmetry.

This information asymmetry manifests itself in various contexts, e.g. either being a very informed or a very uninformed investor, the ability to determine if a project has overpromised on its technological deliverables or not. Another way of viewing this asymmetry is that it arises from hidden complexity, whether we’re talking about perceiving the value in an asset or implementing a new piece of software.

While I can describe bitcoin in a single phrase as “gamification of time-stamping,” describing and delivering a working system that implements that concept is a serious technical challenge.

With Decred, we experienced this hidden complexity firsthand while building Politeia, a time-ordered filesystem, for use as our proposal system. Making cryptocurrency markets less volatile and projects more substantive is a matter of doing what we can to eliminate the information asymmetry that arises from technological complexity, both with investors and software alike.

Complexity for Investors

I have observed a very bimodal distribution when it comes to the extent to which cryptocurrency investors are informed. There is a minority that is incredibly well informed and a majority who are quite uninformed.

This knowledge gap often benefits the well-informed at the direct expense of the uninformed, so the former are incentivized to maintain this arrangement. Similar to many other markets, the less-informed chase the carrot of easy profits dangled in front of them by the better-informed. When this herd-like behavior is combined with relatively thinly traded markets, it creates serious volatility, which has much in common with over-the-counter (“OTC”) stocks.

The perception of value drives investor decision-making, so the collective psychological state of investors determines the value of an asset. Unlike many other assets, cryptocurrency fundamentals do not change substantially as a function of time. This constancy of fundamentals is a major driver for using cryptocurrencies as a store-of-value (“SoV”) over longer timescales.

It is this SoV property that separates cryptocurrencies from OTC stocks, and it drives a longer timescale periodicity that is not present in most OTC stocks. Many uninformed investors are keen to buy low and sell high, capturing a profit in fiat terms, whereas well-informed investors understand the SoV property is a longer term play, which incentivizes them to buy low and avoid liquidating their positions.

Informed investors using cryptocurrencies as a SoV fuel these longer term boom-bust cycles, so episodic spikes in valuation occur without the value crashing to zero after each manic buying phase.

Complexity for Projects

After managing several software projects over the past decade, I can say that, even as someone who participates on a technical level, it is easy to overpromise on deliverables.

The main driver of this disconnect between promises and quality working code is the hidden complexity of the cryptocurrency development process. Over the past few years, I have seen many projects make massive promises and raise staggering amounts of capital in ICOs and similar processes, only to not deliver, deliver incredibly late or deliver barely-working software.

Similar to the situation for investors, projects have a bimodal distribution of technical ability: a minority that keeps their promises roughly in line with what they can realistically deliver and a majority that grossly overpromises on a regular basis. Overpromising on software deliverables is often the result of a combination of underestimating the complexity of cryptocurrency software and conscious overstatement on part of project leads.

Because the domain of cryptocurrency software is still rather new and complex, there are correspondingly few people who are well-suited to understand what can and cannot be achieved in a particular amount of time, on a technical basis. So, a project may make some really impressive claims about what it will achieve, but when there are so few people who are capable of realistically assessing how feasible the claims are, it incentivizes malicious actors to bait-and-switch investors.

Numerous projects that have been funded on a bait-and-switch basis have seen their valuations collapse throughout 2017 and 2018 once investors become aware they are unlikely to deliver on their claims.

Complexity in Practice

As the Project Lead for Decred, I am familiar with the process of dealing with complexity from a technical and management standpoint, and our off-chain time-ordered filesystem, Politeia, serves as a good example for how hidden complexity can delay even seasoned development teams in the space.

Our goal was to have Politeia in production as our proposal system in roughly 12 months from the start of the project in April 2017, and we didn’t go into production until six months after the projected date in October 2018. Despite building on top of a working versioned filesystem, git and attempting to avoid complexity, it still took several additional months to get the metadata formats just right and have the frontend perform suitably.

Politeia is based on a pretty simple idea “create an off-chain store of data where you can demonstrate who said what when using cryptography and an existing blockchain.”

Once you split this apart into its components, it doesn’t seem very difficult:

  • Make episodic self-contained timestamps using the Decred blockchain
  • User identities correspond to keypairs in a PKI system
  • User messages are all signed by the corresponding identity private key
  • Up and down votes are a special form of user message
  • Tracking user ticket votes based on snapshots of the Decred ticket pool

This list is pretty short and each component is relatively simple, but handling the edge and corner cases that arise between these components quickly becomes non-trivial. Despite the final working implementation being complex, it can be described as a handful of simple components that even less-informed market participants can understand.

Simplicity for Investors

There are myriad ways to become a well-informed cryptocurrency investor, but after making my own missteps, I have a few simple policies that can help cut through some of the complexity:

  • Stay skeptical – When someone makes extraordinary claims, they need to supply extraordinary evidence. If any claim made by a project sounds too good to be true, see what someone external to that project has to say about it, and attempt to understand more about how they will deliver on their claim.
  • Do your own research – There is no substitute for doing some self-directed research about a project before investing in it. Even in my case, as someone who has been working in the space for almost six years, it still takes me several hours to do a good job footprinting another project and understanding their value proposition in some detail. Are there other projects that serve a similar niche? What makes this project better than others in the same niche?
  • Dollar-cost averaging – Not everyone has the ability to dictate the schedule on which they acquire cryptocurrency, but I recommend considering a dollar-cost averaging approach, where you make regular purchases over a longer time period. It is challenging to buy at a local minimum price, so rather than load up at single price, you purchase regularly over a wide range of prices. This way, you are not beholden to the psychology of having bought everything at a single price, and you can lower your average acquisition cost by buying as prices drop.
  • Psychological periodicity – As discussed above, there is a periodicity present in cryptocurrency markets that is not present in other similar markets. Before investing, consider that you may have to wait several years for the market to cycle to a point where you have made a good investment. 2018 has had a lot of similarity to 2014 in that all-time highs occurred near the start of the year and markets have sold off in stages throughout the year. For much of 2015, BTC/USD was in the 200s and this was an excellent time to acquire Bitcoin. I suspect 2019 will be similar to 2015, where valuations stay depressed and the market consolidates throughout the year.

Simplicity for Projects

Overcoming the complexity barrier between promises and implementation for cryptocurrency projects is challenging. Here are some policies that have served me well:

  • Avoid overpromising – It is easy to be coerced or otherwise convinced that you need to make huge promises to generate interest in your project, financial or otherwise. If you care about not looking like a doofus later on, make a point to reflect on whether or not your promises can be delivered on before making them publicly. In my case, this has meant not publishing projected completion dates for work because I am often wrong about when it ends up being done, e.g. Politeia. Managing expectations matters.
  • Avoid complexity – Once you have some established promises or have otherwise chosen a path forward to address a technical problem, do what you can to avoid complexity and still achieve your goal. Cryptocurrency software is often, as a function of the domain, quite complex, so it especially important to keep things as simple as possible. Less complexity means you are more likely to deliver your software sooner.

Conclusion

By working together to increase our collective comprehension, participants in the cryptocurrency ecosystem can take many steps to help reduce market volatility, create more substantive technology, and efficiently educate newcomers.

If 2019 is anything like 2015, the cryptocurrency market is in a consolidation phase, and the next several months will continue to shake out underperforming projects. Very little has changed with the fundamentals of the space, despite the pullback in valuations, so I expect a continued and bright future for cryptocurrencies in 2019 and beyond.

Have an opinionated take on 2018? CoinDesk is seeking submissions for our 2018 in Review. Email news [at] coindesk.com to learn how to get involved.

Cracks in the ice via Shutterstock

How to Last the Crypto Winter? Seek Simplicity, Manage Complexity

Why Traders Say Volume Is Crypto Price Indicator of Choice

When it comes to analyzing markets, developing your own trading style can be the difference between a successful trade or financial pain.

Traders utilize a variety of indicators in order to add layers of confirmation to their bias in order to get the most accurate results. But what if you could only choose one indicator to use for the cryptocurrency market, what would it be and why?

A poll recently conducted by CoinDesk Markets revealed that volume was the indicator of choice for 39 percent of respondents, while the Relative Strength Index (RSI) came in second place at 29 percent of the total vote.

The poll elicited some great responses for alternatives such as Elliott wave theory, divergences and the stochastic oscillator, which are useful in their own right but are highly dependent upon an individual’s technical charting style and experience.

We reached out to some prominent cryptocurrency traders and chartists to see what they thought was the one indicator they couldn’t live without.

Matt Thompson, Director of Business Development and Operations at Coinigy had this to say regarding his top pick for analyzing the crypto markets: “Volume is hands down the most important aspect outside of price.”

“Even for many other technical indicators, volume can serve as confirmation or rejection of a given hypothesis,” he continued.

Per definition, volume is meant to describe the total number of shares or contracts over a given period and is usually expressed in a bar chart. Professional traders and chartists use volume to great advantage, following the mantra that if the price falls along with volume, it generally marks a point of exhaustion, signaling a reversal will happen soon.

While conversely, a rise in price with a drop in total volume presents a stronger case for the bears as they drag prices for a lower bid, usually upon meeting a key resistance zone.

Crypto Twitter chartist Josh Rager agrees with that sentiment. “I think volume is a good indicator. Higher price and low volume usually lead to a drop in price,” he said.

“TheCryptoDog,” a prominent Twitter personality and chartist, also backed volume as a “crucial” element in his technical analysis, telling CoinDesk:

“Volume speaks to the sincerity of the price action it is tied to. Volume for me is imperative.”

Putting it to Practice

So, what does using volume look like in practice?

In the chart above, we can see the bitcoin price on Coinbase on December 8. The day’s trading closed mid-candle (during a price movement) at a time when volume was shooting up. If the volume is bullish and moving higher, but the price is dropping, it’s usually is a tell that traders hoping the price will rise are in danger of being trapped and are forced to sell for lower than they entered.

Price action thus turned until another decision was made two days later when on December 10 prices attempted to forge ahead beyond the $3,585 resistance level and were beaten back. A modest showing from the bears plunged bitcoin into a lower channel between $3,257 and then below $3,129 on December 12.

It has since rallied from its low position back to levels not seen in over a week with the backing of strong bullish volume.

A Useful Tool

Volume does have its faults for all its merit, however.

For example, volume on crypto exchanges might not actually represent that buyers will follow-through with an intended purchase. Volume can be faked with what’s known as “wash trading,” a term that refers to when traders put in orders for other traders to see, but withdraw them before they are filled.

It is true that particular exchanges have been caught up in a scandal surrounding true volume being displayed incorrectly, thereby manipulating traders into entering an unprofitable and risky trade.

Traders like Rager, however, believe bitcoin is a rarity among cryptocurrencies in that its market has real liquidity. “I think bitcoin is different,  there is so much liquidity compared to other cryptos,” he said.

Still, there is validity in analyzing bitcoin’s association with total volume on the charts, not least because they provide an additional signal to add to your bias, but because it can signal interest in the asset class as a whole, represented in grandaddy bitcoin’s demand – just be sure to select an exchange that can be cleared of any wrongdoing.

As “TheCryptoDog” puts it:

“If volume diverges from a trend, e.g. price continues to rise while volume falls off, then I start to think, ‘Perhaps this trend is weakening.’”

Disclosure: The author USDT at the time of writing.

River image via Shutterstock; charts by Trading View

Why Traders Say Volume Is Crypto Price Indicator of Choice

Hong Kong Exchange ‘Hesitant’ to Approve Bitmain IPO, Says Source

The Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) is reluctant to approve the initial public offering (IPO) applications of Chinese bitcoin mining equipment manufacturers, according to a person involved in the talks.

Following the 2017 cryptocurrency market boom, mining giants Canaan Creative, Ebang and Bitmain applied in May, June and September of this year, respectively, to sell shares on the HKEX. Bitmain’s bid, in particular, was seen as a watershed moment, as it marked the first time a major crypto startup sought to go public.

But the 2018 bear market has underscored the sharp ups and downs of the crypto space, making the exchange nervous about listing such companies, the source told CoinDesk. Canaan Creative’s application has already lapsed, and the other two face a high bar in convincing HKEX.

“The exchange is very hesitant to actually approve these bitcoin mining companies because the industry is so volatile. There’s a real risk that they could just not exist anymore in a year or two,” said the person, who requested anonymity because the information is private, adding:

“The HKEX doesn’t want to be the first exchange in the world to approve this and have one die on them.”

An HKEX spokesperson said the exchange does not comment on individual companies or individual listing applications. Bitmain declined to comment, citing its pre-IPO quiet period, while Canaan Creative and Ebang did not respond to CoinDesk’s inquiries by press time.

Stepping back, the IPO process in Hong Kong starts with a company filing a draft prospectus with the HKEX. Then the exchange will begin back-and-forth talks and questions with the applicant.

If the application is approved by both the HKEX and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) – Hong Kong’s financial regulator – the case will proceed to a listing hearing, during which the offering size and share price are decided and then made public.

However, if an applicant does not make it to a listing hearing after six months from filing, the application will lapse, meaning the case is no longer active, though the applicant could choose to later reactivate the case if it still wishes to pursue the fundraising.

Canaan’s application lapsed in November after the firm failed to make it to the listing hearing six months from its May filing. Ebang, which submitted on June 24, is only two weeks away from the six-month window ending. Bitmain, the best known of the bunch, is almost halfway through the six-month period.

“Right now, I don’t think that any of them could make it to the listing hearing,” said the source, noting that both HKEX and the SFC must sign off. “If either one doesn’t approve it, you can’t make it to the listing hearing.”

High hurdles

Lawyers familiar with the HKEX’s IPO process called its hesitance to list mining firms understandable.

Apart from basic listing requirements such as financial track records, the HKEX also focuses on “suitability and sustainability of the business and how risky the business is for retail investors,” said Ivy Wong, a partner at the law firm of Baker McKenzie in Hong Kong.

“I have seen cases where the applicants could satisfy the basic listing requirements for the three years’ track record, but did not manage to convince the HKEx that its business is sustainable, and the HKEX was reluctant to grant a listing approval,” she said.

Frank Bi, a partner at international law firm Ashurst in Hong Kong who regularly works with public companies, echoed that point.

“HKEX will be particularly cautious and concerned over the regulatory uncertainty arising from bitcoin mining makers’ IPOs in Hong Kong,” he said. “Coupled with the potential market speculation which has been reflected over the price of bitcoin recently, it is even more difficult to present a sustainable business model of this industry.”

Neither Ebang nor Bitmain has disclosed its financial data for the third quarter of this year when the cryptocurrency market started to take a notable dip.

“If there’s a significant drop of their revenue, profits or loss, they have to disclose that. It’s something that worries the exchange,” the source familiar with the talks said.

The source went on to explain the exchange is actually taking the advantage of the fact the crypto market is down right now because while it doesn’t want to approve the applications, it doesn’t have the grounds to reject them outright.

“What they are doing is they are just dragging the case right now,” the source said, adding:

“If the market continues going up, the exchange may be pressured to approve the cases because how well the entire industry is doing. But because the market is down, these companies really have to justify [how] this industry is sustainable.”

Bi said two common reasons for IPO delays in Hong Kong are a failure on the applicant’s part to provide due diligence and disclosure to HKEX’s satisfaction and market conditions where a realistic valuation is different from what existing investors want for their exit.

“HKEX has always been known to be cautious about scrutinizing applicants’ businesses and their sustainability,” Bi said.

More than mining?

One approach bitcoin miner makers have tried to justify their business models to HKEX is to brand themselves as having diverse lines of business, such as research and development in artificial intelligence, telecommunication and blockchain, according to the draft filings.

For instance, Bitmain claimed to be a “strong contender in the AI chip industry” in its draft prospectus, potentially joining the ranks of technology giants like NVIDIA and Google.

“Riding on our success and expertise in ASIC chip design and powerful research and development capabilities, we have extended our focus to the revolutionary field of AI and have achieved promising results,” the firm stated in the filing.

Bitmain said it launched its pilot AI chip BM1680 in the second quarter of 2017, which “functions as a tensor computing acceleration processor for deep learning, applicable to training and inference on artificial neural networks.”

But such arguments are not going over well at HKEX, according to the source involved in the talks.

“Actually what they are is they are just manufacturers who focus primarily on bitcoin mining machines. If this whole mining thing tanks, these companies will probably tank as well,” the source said.

Bi agreed, telling CoinDesk while these companies have made statements about expanding their business models beyond crypto mining, “it is likely that crypto mining-related activities and crypto holdings still comprise a majority part of their revenue.”

Another factor that can could make hurt these companies chances of approval is their vast holdings of cryptocurrencies whose value has steeply fallen in the past six months.

“Combined with a limited track record of business operations and the substantial recent decline in crypto values, likely means that regulators will be especially closely scrutinizing their businesses,” Bi added.

Bitmain, for example, disclosed that as of June 30 this year, it had US$886.9 million in crypto assets, including bitcoin, bitcoin cash, ether, litecoin and dash, among others.

Although it didn’t disclose a coin-by-coin breakdown, data from CoinDesk’s Crypto-Economics Explorer shows all of the mentioned cryptocurrencies have seen a major decline by at least 50 percent. Among them, bitcoin cash has seen the most significant drop after the recent hard fork war, in which Bitmain has played a vocal part in leading the Bitcoin Cash ABC camp.

“It [the crypto holding] certainly doesn’t help with the case, because you are just adding more risks. Now it’s not just your revenue that’s at risk, but also your balance sheet,” the source said.

Status symbol

To be sure, going public is not necessarily a life-or-death matter for the Chinese mining companies.

“These companies – Ebang, Bitmain and Canaan – want the regulatory approval and status of being a listed company. But as far as the genuine funding needs, they actually have quite a lot of money because they have made a lot in the past year,” said the source familiar with the discussions.

Indeed, the 2017 boom helped the miner makers in China to generate exponential revenue and profit growth.

Bitmain, Cannan and Ebang made $1.2 billion, $56 million, and $60 million, in profits last year, respectively. Further, the significant growth also led to a whopping increase in the firms’ compensation for their key executives.

According to the filings, Bitmain’s founders Ketuan Zhan and Jihan Wu, for instance, received $22.7 million and $20.4 million as discretionary bonuses for 2017, respectively, while their annual salaries were both $27,000.

Wong said companies’ reasons for seeking IPOs may vary – some do it for profile and presence in the market while others do it for fundraising and realizing gains.

“My guess is that their [miner makers’] reasons are likely mixed, coupled with a desire to set market precedent and be the first mover in the market,” she said.

More broadly, Wong said it may be too early to tell the success or failure of any of these crypto companies as the market is still relatively young and we have yet to see how they emerge and develop.

She concluded:

“It is, in any event, an exciting thing to see that it is able to provide investors with more investment options and satisfy the different risk appetites in the market.”

Lion sculpture image via Shutterstock

Hong Kong Exchange ‘Hesitant’ to Approve Bitmain IPO, Says Source

Crypto is for Activists: Why We Need More Cypherpunks, Not Cypherposers

Zach Harvey is the CEO of Lamassu, an early and active provider of cryptocurrency vending machines. 

The following is an exclusive contribution to CoinDesk’s 2018 Year in Review

2018 year in review

Emotions were high during bitcoin’s block size debate (each side believing bitcoin would be damaged by the other’s triumph), and they’re high again in this year’s bear market. People are once again listening to the fortune tellers, who shape their crypto outlook on market sentiment, and while there are many that signal allegiance to the cause, some are just here for the quick rewards, both social and monetary.

It disappoints me to see the toxicity in this small cryptocurrency community, but it doesn’t surprise me.

Specifically on Crypto Twitter, it’s the environment itself that rewards the group-think we’re seeing. Previously independent thinkers are rewarded for conforming and are punished for their dissent. While it’s easier to resist threats in groups, it’s harder to create and progress without being open-minded. We see similar patterns in politics and even in debates about nutrition.

All said, I must say that it is my experience that the Twitter toxicity does not transfer to offline interactions. I have met many bitcoiners from both sides of the block, and I can’t recall one time I felt any toxicity in person. In fact, the opposite is the truth, it’s always a treat. I would mention names, but I don’t want to blow their tough-guy covers.

To quote Ian Mackaye of Fugazi, the tough guys are all “ice cream-eating motherfuckers.” I mean that in the fondest of ways.

Instead of checking the daily graphs, it would better serve most crypto-enthusiasts to revel in cypherpunk writings such as Tim May’s Crypto Anarchist Manifesto and Wei Dai’s b-money paper. Both are great reminders of why we’re here in the first place. (If you’re going to look at a graph, make it the BTC:USD logarithmic graph. It has the best chance of predicting the future.)

Bitcoin is activism, not a get rich quick scheme or a startup platform. The point of bitcoin is to regulate bad laws and to democratize bad policies by way of circumventing harmful enforcement.

Any system, software or hardware, blockchain-based or otherwise, that contributes to these goals is worth paying attention to.

Equally, any software or hardware projects that fail in this manner are only of interest to me once they amend their fragility. In this regard, decentralized exchanges and ICOs are worthless in their current form, but DEX or ICO v2.0 or v3.0 may end up being decentralized and powerful tools for preventing oppression in all of its forms.

Go Gig (and Boring)

In 2012, my brother Josh and I printed up bitcoin postcards to give out at regional Students for Liberty events all over the East Coast. At the time, it was mostly the Libertarians embracing the infant technology and this was our activism.

For the International Students for Liberty Conference in early 2013, we decided to do something a bit wilder, we wanted to show these youngsters how bitcoin works. We built a little orange box that accepted cash notes and sent out bitcoin transactions. Not only was it a huge hit at the conference, it reached social media and we started getting interest from media and potential buyers.

This was our chance to take our passion for bitcoin to the next level. We founded Lamassu and started manufacturing bitcoin ATMs, a machine we like to now call “cryptomats.”

Fast forward almost six years and we’re still going strong, still advocating bitcoin and there’s a booming industry making machines that help people buy and sell bitcoin. From the get-go, our business has always been more about activism than pure short-term profit. The business decisions we make are a mix of what we need to do to succeed and how to stay in line with our techno-libertarian ideals of privacy and decentralization.

Our main goal has always been to introduce as many people to cryptocurrencies as possible. And so our software is free, open source and unlicensed. We don’t charge cryptomat operators any fees for machine usage, and they host their own servers. End-users who use the machines never have their coins stored for them by operators, but are required to actually use bitcoin to get it.

As a whole, the cryptomat industry is quite unlike others in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. There’s been very little drama of late.

We’ve seen healthy, steady growth. And the field is made of quality companies, such as our main competitors Genesis and General Bytes, that have endured radical bear and bull markets. All these are very important for the ecosystem, yet perhaps a bit mundane in terms of the news cycle. No ICOs, no mass hacks and the companies involved have at best millions worth of revenue, not billions.

But at the same time, I feel it’s the kind of boring the cryptoverse needs. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people around the world are using cryptomats every month to get small amounts of bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies directly to their wallets. No banks, no third party custody, no waiting.

It’s still the easiest way for a first time user to get crypto, and the more cryptomats there are in the world, the more useful and reliable they become. Inch by inch, row by row.

BUIDLers on the Roof

The hardest part for bitcoin was getting to $0.10.

The exponential growth since has become the norm and would take something extraordinary to derail. As such, we have to think about what happens when a growing population of the world starts owning bitcoin. Will the next financial crisis be the one that pushes bitcoin to the mainstream? What if this actually does happen, but there’s still no good user interface to protect people from losing, misusing and failing to protect their funds? Will they end up trusting people to help them?

For me, this is still the biggest question in crypto. I don’t doubt the success of bitcoin and other key cryptocurrencies, but I’m concerned things will get messy when the central banks run out of tricks.

At Lamassu, we have been keeping our heads down, working to improve our corner of the still unsolved UI problem of crypto. We’ve been aggressively hiring coders and customer support staff and expanding our manufacturing facilities.

We have fierce competition, but it’s one of mutual respect. I know our competitors are doing it for the same reasons we are, a deep rooted ideology with bitcoin at its core, to free money and markets from powerful middlemen.

The whole point of bitcoin is for people to help themselves, but it’s our jobs as proponents to make that easy. The sooner people can actually use, store, and secure their own coins, the safer they’ll be when the bank runs hit. Lest we build skyscrapers of blockchains, with no elevators in which to ascend them.

Have a strong take on 2018? Email news [at] coindesk.com to submit an opinion to our 2018: Year in Review.

Image via CoinDesk archives 

Crypto is for Activists: Why We Need More Cypherpunks, Not Cypherposers

StishApp

FREE
VIEW