Tag Archives: Nikhilesh De

Yet Another Nakamotoan “Innovation”

I know we are all shocked, shocked! to read reports that 95% of reported cryptocurrency trades are fake [3].

Nakamotoan cryptocurrency is designed for unregulated exchange, and the Nakamotoan dream is to “disrupt” money, mainly by doing away with all those “centralized” services that “censor” economic activity.

Not surprisingly, an “uncensored” market will mainly be filled with fake trading and other fraud.   (And I love the way the headlines spin this:  referring to the “95% junk trades” report, the headline is “Bitcoin Futures Volume Is More Significant Than You Think”)

Interview with a Russian Bot Master

Anna Baydakova reports on an unusually frank and easy to understand explanation of how this happens [1].  In an interview, Alexey Andryunin describes his business Gotbit, which, as the headline says, “For $15K, He’ll Fake Your Exchange Volume”.

Why would you do this?

It’s called pumping, and it’s basically fraud.

A scam ICO (and most of them are scams) “can live a couple of months on fake volume, allowing the founders to cash out, then stop paying for the “market-making,” after which the token’s price will plunge. They close down a couple of months later.

This is, of course, completely illegal on legitimate markets.  But crypto exchanges aren’t particularly legitimate.  In fact, they seem to be complicit in this sort of nonsense.

Just to be clear: this is not a brilliant invention, nor technically difficult.  This was invent thousands of years ago, and is definitely illegal.  Andryunin is a college student, which will give you an idea of the low bar for implementing this ancient scam.  (In my experience, college students have beginner’s skills, lots of time, and little sense of responsibility.)

But why can he be so open about his “not entirely ethical” (indeed, criminal) business?  For one thing, his “company” isn’t legally registered anywhere, and most of the exchanges are barely legal.  No one is going to get in trouble for admitting the crime.

The other reason is that he knows that the grown ups are coming, and regulators are cracking down on cryptocurrency exchanges.  Applying even the most basic financial and anti corruption rules will shut down these exchanges and Andryunin’s side hustle.

Get back to your school work Alexey! : – )


  1. Anna Baydakova (2019) For $15K, He’ll Fake Your Exchange Volume – You’ll Get on CoinMarketCap. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/for-15k-hell-fake-your-exchange-volume-youll-get-on-coinmarketcap
  2. Nikhilesh De (2019) Bitcoin Futures Volume Is More Significant Than You Think, Bitwise Says. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-futures-volume-is-more-significant-than-you-think-bitwise-says
  3. Matthew Hougan, Hong Kim, and Micah Lerner, Economic and Non-Economic Trading In Bitcoin:Exploring the Real Spot Market For The World’s First Digital Commodity. Bitwise Asset Management, 2019. https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca201901-5574233-185408.pdf
  4. Yogita Khatri (2019) Public Perceptions of the Bitcoin Spot Market Are Wrong, Says Bitwise. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/public-perceptions-of-the-bitcoin-spot-market-are-wrong-says-bitwise

 

Cryptocurrency Thursday

QuadrigaCX: Early Charge for Cryptotulip of theYear

The CryptoTulip of the Year competition is off to a fast start!

Canadian crypto exchange QuadrigaCX (QCX) exploded and cratered, with an unprecedented oopsie.  As even the mainstream media have reported, the big cheese of QCX died suddenly (in India), and no one seems to know where his secret encryption keys are.  This means that a bunch of customers’ cryptocurrency is locked up in accounts that no one can get to.  It’s not ever clear whether anyone knows all the accounts.

Oops!

In hindsight, everyone is wondering just what was going on. Why would you have a multimillion dollar service under the control of one guy, with no backup plan?  And why would anyone entrust their money to such a system—not that anyone really understood that was how it was set up.

The dark comedy continues, as the company managed to accidentally send yet more bitcoins to an account they can’t access [1]

Oops!  Again.

Amazingly enough, lawsuits are raining from the sky.

Yessir, definitely and innovative and disruptive technology!


QuadrigaCX has to be a strong candidate for CryptoTulip of the Year for 2019, not so much because of the epic and innovative oopsies, but because of the so-not-Nakamotoan nature of the oopsie.

The entire point of Nakamotoan cryptocurrency is to be decentralized,  so that the failure or corruption of a single institution or person does not cripple the system.

At the typical levels of irrational exuberance surrounding crypo technology, there is little room for downers like planning for the possible death of a key individual.  (“We’re disrupting money over here!  We have no time for legacy concerns like death and taxes!”)

In hindsight, it is obvious that QCX was highly centralized, and therefore highly non-Nakamotoan.

But, wait. Bitcoin is decentralized, no?  And there was no error in the Bitcoin protocols or blockchain, right?  So everything should be fine, true?

Obviously not.

QCX also gets CryptoTulip points  for being such a useful object lesson.  Essentially, QCX shows us that The alleged properties of Nakamotoan technology—decentralization, trustlessness, anonymity—cannot be assumed to be true for a real system built on top of the technology.

Once again, we see that regardless of the Nakamotoan protocol, the actual real world system includes lots more than the blockchain and “consensus” protocol.  And the rest of the system typically has “centralized” components, and “trusted” parties, and so on. The bad news is, the whole chain still is only as strong as its weakest link.

In fact, generally speaking, the trustlessness of the Nakamotoan protocol means that other parts of the system have to be trusted, including the users (who can very well lose their own keys) and exchanges (which, shockingly enough, have to enforce tax and money laundering laws).  And so on.

Basically, Nakamoto’s design has pushed “undesirable” properties (such as “centralization” and “trust”) out of the core protocol and into the rest of the system.  I think there is a sort of a conservation law for requirements, here.  The total amount of “trust” is inelastic: you can move it around, but you can’t get rid of it.

Psychologically, you may wish that you didn’t need to “trust” third parties, but the fact is that the world is mostly “third parties” and you have to figure out who and how to trust them. Like it or not.

(There Ain’t Any Such Thing As A Trustless System. (TRANSTAATS ?))


So let’s put QuadrigaCX on the board for potential Crypto Tulip of the Year for 2019.  There’s plenty of time left, of course, and who knows what great “oopsies” may happen in the rest of 2019.  (Ethereum is still working on a traumatic upgrade hard fork, so that will be interesting.)


  1. Nikhilesh De (2019) QuadrigaCX Lost Another $500K in Bitcoin By Mistake. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/quadriga-inadvertently-sent-btc-to-dead-ceos-cold-wallet-ey-report

 

Cryptocurrency Thursday

Ethereum experiments with actual software engineering

Ethereum distinguishes itself from most Nakamotoan cryptcocurrencies by the presence of a recognized and charismatic (indeed, trendy) leader [4]. Vitalik Buterin has directed the Ethereum software and led its community from the very start.  This has had the result that, unlike other major Nakamotoan communities, despite any theoretical process, decisions have been made by means other than Nakamotoan consensus.

This “key man” leadership is probably a key factor in Ethereum’s recognition as Crypto Tulip of the Year for 2017, and it’s perennial favorite position for Crypto Tulip.

Ethereum development also has been guided by Buterin’s values, e.g., the infamous “fix” to the DAO disaster (which helped Ethereum lock up the first Crypto Tulip award).  VB is also driving big changes in Ethereum, notably pushing to change the protocol to reduce the preposterous wasteful energy consumption of Ethereum’s original  (Nakamotoan) protocol [2].  (Nasty people could ask why you would build such a stupid system in the first place.  But better to recognize the error and try to fix it, than to simply deny it.)

Finally, VB seems to be leading the developers to do some actual software engineering. He has consistently argued for not only open, but professional engineering. This has resulting is rather longer development times in the last few years, as well as attention to  organizing the development efforts, for better or for worse.

In the last few months the developers have delayed a proposed update due to *gasp* software quality issues [3].  And one of the many development tracks has delayed its release to allow time for *gasp*  code audits [1].  (Code reads are one of the basic tools of software quality assurance.  Pretty much by definition, auditing is necessary for code to be trusted at all.)

Wow!  This is serious stuff.  It’s almost like there are actual professional software engineers involved!

More important, these decisions are not driven by marketers or by the interests of big users of the current system of others with interests that may conflict with good code.  You might say they are disrupting the disruptive Nakamotoan methodologies.

Let me be clear.  Buterin and the Ethereum community still strongly believe in most of the fundamental values of Nakamotoan cryptocurrencies.  The network is decentralized, and the blockchain is open, reliable, and transparent (in the Nakamotoan sense of these terms).  The blockchain is permanent, if not quite immutable.  VB himself has been mulling on various complex economic (or at least pseudo-economic) models of network protocols, which he hopes will transform the world.

And so on.

So while Ethereum is the stuff of some irrationally enthusiastic dreaming, the community gets points for at least driving toward these goals with actual human guidance, and with values that include actual software engineering and quality assurance.

This experiment might actually work!  So, well done Ethereum!

(Actually, I’m not betting on any of this actually working in the  long run because there still aren’t any significant adversarial reviews, evaluation of real and worst case scenarios, or comparisons with control or comparison technologies.)


  1. Nikhilesh De (2019) Ethereum Developers Delay Mining Algorithm Change for Code Audit. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-developers-delay-mining-algorithm-change-for-code-audit
  2. Peter Fairley, Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Absurd Energy Consumption by 99 Percent, in IEEE Spectrum – Networks. 2019. https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/ethereum-plans-to-cut-its-absurd-energy-consumption-by-99-percent
  3. Christine Kim (2019) Ethereum’s Constantinople Upgrade Faces Delay Due to Security Vulnerability. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/ethereums-constantinople-upgrade-faces-delay-due-to-security-vulnerability
  4. Nick Paumgarten, The Stuff Dreams Are Made Of , New Yorker, 94 (33):62-75, 2018.  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/the-prophets-of-cryptocurrency-survey-the-boom-and-bust

 

Cryptocurrency Thrusday

 

Archiving on the Ethereum Blockchain

The Civil project is one of those things I have trouble coming to grips with.  Everyone knows that Journalism—in the classic twentieth century version, at least—is in trouble. The Internet has lowered the barriers to mass distribution, so that anyone can communicate with everyone.  This has pretty much obliterated “filters” on what is or isn’t news or even what constitutes “facts”.  We are all familiar with the resulting flood of hype, propaganda, and just plain fake information.

Civil seeks to address this problem by creating carefully curated (to use the current word) information.  Part of this effort is pretty standard stuff: solicit people who know what they are talking about to write informative pieces about stuff they actually understand. A key piece of the puzzle is careful documentation of the source of the information, so you can try to judge the trustworthiness.  Right or wrong or questionable, at least you should know where the information comes from.

But Civil also wants to tackle the economics of Journalism.  They not only want good content, they want a way for people to be paid for producing good content. This is a hard problem, because powers that be want to control information, and use economic power to that end. In many cases, it isn’t necessary to suppress information, if people have no means to create it in the first place.

The Civil project is excited about cryptocurrency technology. Originally, I assumed that they would be most interested in the prospect of micropayments, which would let people pay as they read.   This idea is seductive, though I have yet to see it work.  Cryptocurrency seems well suited to this role: It is essentially a digital coin slot, and people can drop in small amounts of money to, say, read this blog post.  This can replace advertising, and also is a way for people to “subscribe” to things they really want.  Cryptocurrency is also global, so you don’t need to deal with local governments that want to block certain stories.

As things have developed, Civil seems to have taken a bit of a swerve.  This year they got excited about another use case for cryptocurrency, and tried an ICO—Initial Coin Offering.  Apparently the hope was to fund the project through this mechanism. In principle, this could mesh with the “coin slot” concept:  essentially, they could mint tokens that you use to buy their content.  And content providers could be paid in these tokens, which might be swapped or redeemed.

From what I read, their first try at an ICO did not go so well . ICOs are notoriously iffy, and Civil does actually care about its reputation, so this has got to be problematic.  Apparently, they are going to try again.  Sigh.

I don’t know if Civil will succeed on this economic front.  But Civil is also pursuing one more blockchain use case:  archiving.

Besides the economics, there is concern that digital information will be censored, and just plain “disappeared”.  In my own experience, most of information lost on the Internet is due to natural decay and erosion:  the Internet is a wobbly, cobbled together technology (and here I know what I am talking about [3]).  Stuff stops working all the time, and once the last copy goes down, it’s usually gone forever.  (On the other hand, other stuff that really should go away seems to last and spread forever. Sigh.)

But there are certainly powers that work to take down information they don’t like. This is certainly a hazard for  journalism (however you defined it), and also, I might add, for academic scholarship .

The technology of robust digital archiving is pretty well understood. Replicating data, checksumming, and so on have been around for a long time.  The main issue is resources: it takes money and most of all human effort to make sure that things are reliably and usefully preserved.  (The “useful” part refers to the need to be able to find and access the preserved data, not just squirrel it away.)

Nakamotoan blockchain technology emerged out of peer-to-peer server technology, which is all about replicating content to make it hard to delete or lose.  Indeed, a Nakamotoa blockchain is a massively replicated digital ledger, primarily intended to be really, really permanent. So, from the very beginning, people have put stuff on the blockchain as a way to keep it alive forever.

Civil is taking up this approach for the purpose of assuring the permanent availability of their articles. This involves storing the full text in a record or records on the blockchain, with digital signatures to assure authenticity and preent tampering.  This record will be replicated by every copy of the Ethereum blockchain, and will remain available as long as the blockchain exists.


I take Civil seriously.  They are working to solve an important problem.  But their flirtations with blockchain to date look pretty iffy ot me.

For one thing, using the blockchain is a technical solution to social and political problems.  And I have to wonder how well it will work for any of their use cases.

In the case of archiving, it certainly does work technically, but there are serious questions about possible side effects.

The technology that Civil uses to store “good” journalism will be used by every fake news troll in the world to make sure that there stuff can’t be deleted. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander:  the blockchain will fill up with propaganda, slander, and who knows what, with no way to “take it down”.  Heck, it already is used to store all kinds of iffy stuff.

Granted, browsers and other software can filter stuff, ignore junk and only serve Civil’s “good” stuff.  (Thus perpetuating the other huge problem with the Internet: information bubbles.)

The problem is that storing an article (or anything) on a blockchain means that “possession” of the blockchain requires “possession” of that information.  There is no way to use part of a blockchain, it’s all or nothing.  This means that anyone who wants to support the blockchain, for profit or just to help replicate the records, must replicate everything or nothing.

if the blockchain becomes a repository for everything, and you have to take it all or have none of it, then that will be a serious problem for many people.

Just as an example—many organizations prohibit pornography, etc., from company computers.  By extension, many blockchains are proscribed from these machines—because there is no way to store just part of the blockchain, and not the prohibited parts.  For a second example: it is a prosecutable offence to “possess” pornography on your computer, and the fact that it is buried in the blockchain may not be a legal defense in some jurisdictions.

So, storing things on the blockchain will put pressure on people to avoid replicating the blockchain, and could even get a whole blockchain banned.  This is bad for the technology (fewer replicates) and bad for other use cases (such as commerce or provenance).

So, I think there is a serious question of trade-offs here.  Plus, there is no reason why distributed replication can’t be done with other technology.  Blockchain may be easy to use, but it isn’t the only way to create a cooperating network of replicated archives.

I hope Civil succeeds, though I suspect that they will eventually abandon blockchain technology.


  1. Maria Bustillos, Popula Makes History, in Popula. 2018. https://popula.com/2018/12/17/popula-makes-history/
  2. Nikhilesh De (2018) Civil-Backed News Site Stores Full Article on Ethereum Blockchain. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/civil-backed-news-site-archives-article-on-ethereum-blockchain
  3. Nancy J. Yeager and Robert E. McGrath, Web Server Technology: The Authoritative Guide, San Francisco, Morgan-Kaufmann, 1996.

 

Cryptocurrency Thursday

Can ICO Technology Win The CryptoTulip Award?

As we enter the end of the year holidays, the competition for this years not-at-all-coveted CryptoTulip of the Year Award is still cooking.

One of this year’s hot contenders is “the ICO”, a very pure Tulip if there ever was one.  ICOs are all about speculation, and early this year they were wildly successful despite rampant fraud and unpredictability.

But the grown ups found out what they were doing, and the ICO party may be coming to an end (to quote Nikhilesh De . [1]).  The US SEC is taking a firm line that these security-like entities are—wait for it—legally considered securities.  And therefore, US security laws and regulations apply [2].

This is a rather gigantic bucket of cold water on ICO mania, which was mainly driven by the insatiable desire to raise money without bothering with the pesky regulations that conventional finance follows.  Now it is clear, as one of De’s sources recommends, you should “check in with a lawyer.” [2]   Ya, think?

Does this mean that ICO technology is out of the running for the CryptoTulip Award?  That depends a lot on what happens next. Any normal technology would be dead for sure.  Heck, any normal technology would never have been launched.  But this is CryptoTulip Land, so normal logic does not apply.

If ICOs morph into the next permutation (e.g., unregulated debt instruments), they could still be a strong contender fo rthis years award.  A true CryptoTulip is unkillable by logic or law.

But remember, other candidates are surely not out of contentiont. StableTulips are heating up  [3], including the troubled and deeply unstable Tether coin.

We’ll have to see what the judges think.


  1. Nikhilesh De (2018) After Friday’s SEC Actions, Experts Say ICO Party ‘Is Truly Over. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/after-fridays-sec-actions-experts-say-ico-party-is-truly-over
  2. Nikhilesh De (2018) SEC Settles Securities Registration Charges Against 2 ICO Startups. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/sec-settles-securities-registration-charges-against-2-ico-startups
  3. Sam Ouimet (2018) Stablecoin Purchases Surged Amid Wednesday’s Crypto Market Drop. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/stablecoin-purchases-surged-amid-wednesdays-crypto-market-drop

 

Cryptocurrency Thursday

Another CryptoTulip Contender: StableCoins

The race for CryptoTulip of the Year certainly isn’t over.

Yet another technology may slip in at the end:  so-called StableCoins.

The idea of a “stablecoin” is to create a cryptocurrency that is pegged to the dollar or some other fiat currency at a stable rate.  The goal is to mitigate the exciting uncertainty of fluctuating exchange rates that makes cryptocurrencies difficult to use in the still dominant “fiat” economy.  If your Bitcoin is worth $10,000 today and $7,000 tomorrow and who knows what next week, it can be hard to trade for dollar denominated goods or services.  How do you buy a carton of milk, if you pay with a token that may be worth a lot more or less tomorrow?   Who would want to sell you a carton of milk for this kind of crazy pseudomoney?

Basically, a lot of people would like a cryptocurrency that is worth a set number of Tulips, no matter how the Tulip market fluctuates.  The advantages of a free market without the risks of the free market.  That sounds good!  Does that sound plausible?

Until recently, the most popular StableCoin was Tether, which was supposed to be pegged to the USD.  The thing is, guaranteeing a fixed exchange rate requires a (centralized) service that maintains liquidity in dollars and crypto.  This variant of “reserve banking” isn’t especially Nakmotoan, and there are fundamental questions about the business model.  Just where do all the dollars and coins come from?  What kind of rake-off is done to support the system?  Is it sustainable?

In the case of Tether, long standing questions about liquidity and ownership (not to mention basic honesty) were exacerbated by the failure to deliver a promised audit. These troubles have come to roost as users walk away.  (The Tether coin was trading below the pegged $1 value—kind of a problem.)

There are other “stablecoins”, with varying exchange rates to the dollar.  The news is full of recently launched GeminiCoin is backed by the Winklevosses [3].  The big names give credibility and deep pockets to this otherwise pedestrian efforts. The start power and deeply wishful thinking have GUSD trading considerably above the nominal $1 mark (which doesn’t seem either logical or sustainable to me).

As they come and go, these “stable” tulips don’t seem particularly stable [2].

But more important, they are pretty totally anti-Nakamotoan.  Pegging cryptocurrency to the hated “fiat currency” is just wrongity, wrong, wrong, and I challenge you to justify it based on the sacred text [5]. Bitcoin is supposed to disrupt and obsolete the dollar, not extend the value of the dollar into cryptoland.

(We could also note that the GeminiCoin seems to carry extra value due to the patronage of celebrities [1]. This “trustless” system relies on “trust”—trust in famous people.  This is certainly not part of the Nakamotoan vision of how economics, or “trust”, should work.)


I have to say that stablecoin technology has both the “this is surely the wrong way to go” and the “this is deeply dubious” vibe that marks a strong contender for Cryptotulip of the Year.  Plus, the very spectacle of the instability of something called a stable coin” is so very, very Tulip-y.

Stablecoins have to be in the consideration for the award this year.



  1. Michael J Casey (2018) The Delicate Psychology of Stablecoins. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/the-delicate-psychology-of-stablecoins/
  2. Nikhilesh De (2018) Stablecoins All Want to Be $1, But They’re Not Worth the Same. Condesk, https://www.coindesk.com/which-stablecoin-is-the-riskiest-the-crypto-market-is-pricing-that-in/
  3. David Floyd (2018) Gemini Stablecoin Volume Doubles on Top 10 Exchange Amid Tether Turmoil. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/gemini-stablecoin-volume-doubles-top-10-exchange-bibox-tether-turmoil/
  4. David Floyd (2018) Bitfinex Is Publishing Data for a Tether Market That Doesn’t Exist. Coindesk,  https://www.coindesk.com/bitfinex-is-publishing-data-for-a-tether-market-that-doesnt-exist/
  5. Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. 2009. http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

 

Cryptocurrency Thursday

Ethereum Contracts Are Buggy!

CryptoTulip of the Year for 2017, Ethereum is still thrashing around.  It seems like there is another great idea for totally remaking the system every week or so.  Indeed, sometimes there are so many ideas flying around it is hard to see how it can all stick together in a single system.

Nevertheless, confidence and enthusiasm remain high, even though they still haven’t figured out how to deal with last year’s big “oopsie” that left millions of dollars worth of Ethereum unreachable.

Personally, I don’t really think that a gang of unelected philosopher kings is really going to solve the problem.  (Plato advocated this back in the day, but it has never worked as advertised.  “Wise dictators” are usually just dictators.)


 

Meanwhile, out in the real world….

Several exchanges reportedly have “paused” Ethererum contracts in response to reports of bugs. In fact, they basically stopped support for the problematic ERC-20 protocol completely.

Wow!  Crypto exchanges acting almost like real, grown up businesses!  What a concept!

Of course, I have to wonder, “why now?”

The particular bugs in question are just the latest of a long line of such bugs. So why were they allowing ERC-20 in the first place?

All snarking aside, this development actually raises some very important points.

First of all, the bugs in question aren’t necessarily a flaw in the protocol, they are mainly just bad programs.  There will always be bad programs.  There is no such thing as a bug free programming language, and there can never be one.  If using Ethereum contracts depends on all contracts being correct, then it will never work, it can never work. Never.

Second, despite the decentralized protocol, and the fact that “no one” is in charge, in the real world the end-to-end system does have people in charge, and can respond to problems. In this case, the operators of the exchanges have intervened to protect their customers and their business.

Unfortunately for some users, the response is a draconian ban on the whole ERC-20 protocol. In this case, I don’t see much alternative.  It’s impossible to really tell if some ERC-20 contract is a problem or not.

Third, note that just because the blockchain is decentralized and immutable doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree on what to do with it.  The ERC-20 protocol and code is still there, indeed, it will be there until the heat death of the universe. But a lot of people can’t use it because their exchange does not honor the protocol.  Ironically, the “decentralization” that assures there is no one who can “censor” the blockchain, also assures that there is no one who can “censor the censors” of the blockchain.

This kind of behavior could be problematic in the long run. If part of the network accepts some contracts and not others, then how can anyone really use the system.  This is sort of a really soft ‘fork’ that effectively splits the network Even though there is a single technical system, it is used differently by different sub networks.

Ethereum is certainly pushing hard to repeat the CryptoTulip of the Year in 2018!


  1. Nikhilesh De (2018) Crypto Exchanges Pause Services Over Contract Bugs. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/crypto-exchanges-pause-services-over-contract-bugs/
  2. Rachel Rose O’Leary (2018) Ethereum Infighting Spurs Blockchain Split Concerns. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/even-ethereums-top-developers-think-blockchain-split-might-inevitable/
  3. Rachel Rose O’Leary (2018) Ethereum Is Throwing Out the Crypto Governance Playbook. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-throwing-crypto-governance-playbook/
  4. Rachel Rose O’Leary (2018) Ethereum’s Dialogue Divide Is Slowing Answers to Its Toughest Questions. Coindesk, https://www.coindesk.com/ethereums-dialogue-divide-slowing-answers-toughest-questions/

 

Cryptocurrency Thursday