[HN Gopher] An Economic Analysis of Ethereum
___________________________________________________________________
An Economic Analysis of Ethereum
Author : jger15
Score : 92 points
Date : 2021-01-17 15:20 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lynalden.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lynalden.com)
| bo1024 wrote:
| Enjoyed the article. I think one can boil it down pretty simply:
| decisionmakers at Ethereum don't care about investors. They're
| going to make decisions that support and enable interesting
| decentralized applications, and "defi" is incidental to that, but
| in they end they wouldn't care if Eth gets massively devalued or
| something as long as the ecosystem is healthy and growing.
|
| Disclaimer: this is just my own perspective and speculation based
| on a bit of reading and brief convos with Ethereum foundation
| people.
| grubles wrote:
| That's not true at all. The decision makers in Ethereum care
| overwhelmingly about maximizing the value of their massive
| premine holdings. The latest EIP-1559 proposal (tl;dr ETH gets
| burned in every transaction) makes their stash an even larger
| percentage of the overall ETH distribution. Which is even more
| egregious when you learn that proof-of-stake rewards those with
| the most money (read: the decision makers).
| chrisco255 wrote:
| That's not true. If ETH gets devalued through inflation by too
| much the security of the network would be compromised. They are
| explicitly moving to a 100% proof of stake model for securing
| the network (already partially deployed). This directly
| incentivizes stakeholders to protect the valuation of ETH.
| Finally, if EIP-1559 is implemented, the network will begin
| burning transaction fees. That is to say, it's possible in the
| future more ETH will be burned via transaction fees than
| produced from staking, in which case ETH issuance will go
| negative.
| tubbyjr wrote:
| Some good points, but for as many good points, there is a similar
| amount of misinformation, whether purposefully or due to lack of
| understanding.
|
| - The claim that BTC chose a non-scalable solution for ease of
| running a node isn't true. The claim at the time was that Segwit
| and LN were sufficient to solve all the scaling issues, the
| hardforks were going to solve anyways with their block size
| increase. It also falsely states that the hard forks take up more
| hard disk space, when in fact BTC still takes more...
|
| - The hashrate comparison, the way it is charted is completely
| nonsensical, between BTC & ETH... it is quite literally comparing
| apples to oranges, their POW algorithms are completely different
| from one another and cannot be compared in hash/s terms. They are
| each respectively at the top of their hash domains. I'm doubtful
| this is due to ignorance, but moreso malice. Would love to see
| BTC miners do a 50% attack on ETH, which the author is
| essentially trying to instill into the minds of readers.
| dylkil wrote:
| >The claim that BTC chose a non-scalable solution for ease of
| running a node isn't true.
|
| Except that it is true. There were few reasons for not
| increasing the block size limit, one of those was the cost of
| running a node. If the costs became too much for normal people
| to afford, it would centralize the system in a small number of
| big miners.
| tubbyjr wrote:
| The only huge pushers of that were the like of core dev
| LukeJr... who wants to decrease the block size down to 100k
| or by 10x.
|
| The article states that claim, as though it was the sole one,
| when it was just one small reason pushed by Raspberry Pi
| hobbyists... while the average person doesn't even know wtf a
| Pi or ARM SBC is.
| dylkil wrote:
| Why not increase the block size limit then?
| xorcist wrote:
| This is also what happened. Larger blocks was implemented
| with segwit. This played out during an infected debate
| that provided the perfect cover to launch an altcoin
| without it, that changed the name and some constants in
| the code. The free PR gave them more economic activity
| from the start compared to similar coins, and was likely
| quite lucrative.
| elif wrote:
| non-mining nodes have zero bearing on chain consensus
| dylkil wrote:
| Yes id agree with you there, many dont though.
| jude- wrote:
| That's not really true. If the vast majority of user- and
| exchange-operated nodes decided a miner's well-formed block
| is invalid, then other miners would be dissuaded from
| building on it, and would instead orphan it.
| dylkil wrote:
| if a non mining node decides a block is invalid it will
| fork onto its own chain. If no mining nodes start mining
| on this forked chain then the original node is left on a
| chain where no transactions can be processed.
|
| Non-mining nodes have no power or influence over the
| networks state. It is the mining nodes who decide which
| chain lives and which chain dies.
| jude- wrote:
| Non-mining nodes are still responsible for storing and
| relaying blocks. If no one stores and relays your block,
| was it ever mined?
| Blockbuster wrote:
| I never understood this argument. The cost of mining already
| centralizes nodes to the point where block size is not a
| factor. People that are able to run cost effective mining
| setups are also able to support blockchains of any size.
| Given the current state of mining, how would switching to
| 10mb blocks increase centralization?
| grubles wrote:
| Block propagation speed.
| xorcist wrote:
| Miner centralization is not without risks, but is
| fundamentally very different from centralizing economic
| activity, with different security outcomes.
|
| A dominating miner runs the risk of a 51% attack, which can
| cause denial of service or censorship, but game theory
| dictates that the missed opportunity cost is huge. A
| dominating economic actor makes the whole blockchain an
| obsolete backend to something like Paypal.
| grubles wrote:
| >They are each respectively at the top of their hash domains
|
| This doesn't matter much for ETH because its mining algorithm
| dissuades ASIC production. So there are some (large) number of
| GPUs out in the world not mining ETH that can in theory be used
| to attack Ethereum. The same can't really be said for Bitcoin
| because ASICs serve no other purpose besides mining.
| reissbaker wrote:
| It felt a bit like doublespeak when the author claimed ETH was
| more vulnerable to a 51% attack because it (intentionally) aims
| to make ASIC mining difficult -- the whole point of making ASIC
| mining difficult is that Bitcoin is centralized and vulnerable
| to 51% attacks because there are very few miners (because
| capital expenditure to become a miner is high). If the few
| miners collaborate to cheat you, they can get away with it.
|
| That being said, it's not even true anymore that ETH is GPU-
| only; despite attempting ASIC-resistance, there are now ASIC
| miners for ETH too, although unlike with Bitcoin, Ethereum is
| still able to be mined with GPUs.
|
| The complaints that ETH has little real-world utility and is
| mostly speculation-driven felt similarly nonsensical compared
| to Bitcoin. What real-world utility does Bitcoin have? The
| whole thing is HODL-driven speculation on an inherently-useless
| deflationary asset.
|
| (Unlike the author, who claims to have no stake in the debate a
| breath before admitting he's long BTC and doesn't own ETH -- by
| definition, a stake -- I truly have no stake in this debate,
| and currently own neither BTC nor ETH.)
| spurdoman77 wrote:
| I havent heard of any claims that segwit and LN would be
| sufficient. It is very clear mathematics that they cant scale
| far. However they provide safe way to scale for short-term.
| Long-term solutions have to be found. If they are not found
| there is thousands of shitcoins claiming to solve the
| scalability issues better.
| tubbyjr wrote:
| I agree that mathematically, they are not the scaling
| solutions they were touted to be, as they both have a direct
| dependence on the base layer size, among many other issues
| respectively.
|
| You did mention yourself, under however, that it can help
| scale in the short-term. Many of the 'tech gurus' were
| essentially saying that Segwit was the short-term fix, and LN
| wich would take 18 months(seemingly a perpetual timeframe),
| would be the medium-term fix. The BTC maxi thought leader
| morons, like Tone Vays, who are technically ignorant, were
| selling noobs that both were a complete fix. I didn't choose
| the thought leaders for BTC.
| tubbyjr wrote:
| I really feel the article's quality would greatly improve,
| focusing on just Ethereum 2.0, where fair points regarding its
| issues are brought up.
|
| Showing the node count for BTC and making it seem huge, while
| trying to sell the fact of how terrible it is to run a ETH node
| instead, and not mentioning the fact that there are actually
| more active ETH nodes online than BTC, is highly disengenious,
| and unfortunately just makes this seem like a bagholder trying
| to discredit competition.
| tchalla wrote:
| TL;DR from the Author Lyn Alden
|
| > TLDR; Ethereum could indeed do very well over the next year in
| terms of price, but as long as it's transforming its base layer,
| it remains a speculation in alpha development, rather than a
| finished/stable product.
|
| https://twitter.com/lynaldencontact/status/13508211296367370...
| brightball wrote:
| Thank you
| ogogmad wrote:
| Is it at the moment possible (or even advisable) to use
| stablecoins like DAI to buy things directly on the Dark Web?
| Because if not, then that forces you to use exchanges to convert
| the stablecoins to fiat, which themselves are still subject to
| KYC regulations. So in that case you haven't really got around
| KYC.
| RyanShook wrote:
| Thankful for the in-depth analysis. I'm still bullish on ETH
| because the entire blockchain economy is very speculative. Trying
| to fault Ethereum because it's not as stable or secure as BTC
| doesn't seem very fair.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I wonder if this is not part of a ramp up of subtle marketing
| toward ETH. The google trends is already growing up
| https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=e...
| jondwillis wrote:
| Anecdotally, Google Trends correlates with the market price of
| cryptocurrencies. Ether has gone up in value substantially this
| year.
| satellite2 wrote:
| I had a similar feeling. The net effect of reading that article
| was to make me want to invest in ETH.
| agumonkey wrote:
| And if the usual saying is true, be prepared to sell soon.
| EGreg wrote:
| I think the same analysis applies to Bitcoin in fact.
|
| Funny that this upvoted article says much of what I said
| yesterday in a comment that was originally heavily downvoted,
| then went back:
|
| _The Ethereum solution to serve this demand, however, ironically
| has semi-centralized clusters. While it's more decentralized than
| purely-centralized systems, it's not really the level of
| decentralization that some were hoping for, and Buterin has
| admitted as such. These clusters of centralization serve as
| potential attack surfaces for governments to crack down on these
| methods of going around regulated and fully centralized and KYC-
| regulated firms.
|
| One could almost say it's a veneer of decentralization over a
| system that is actually quite centralized. There's a step here
| towards decentralization, but it's not actual decentralization in
| its current form._
|
| I went further. Let me reproduce it here: No, blockchains are not
| the future, they are really the reason why one transaction can
| happen at a time in the whole world. Even Ethereum 2.0 will have
| shards which will do away with this anomaly. The only reason
| flash loans even work with no collateral is because you can be
| sure nothing else is running on the "world computer" while your
| transaction runs, so you can roll it back with no risk except gas
| fees. Vitalik himself acknowledges this, the guy is quite honest
| and straightforward about its limitations:
|
| _Vitalik Buterin: Using Ethereum is expensive, and its
| blockchain is 'almost full' He also said blockchain 's 'problem'
| is that every computer verifies every transaction_
|
| Actually blockchains are a first-generation technology that do
| global consensus for every block, which literally means all
| transactions in the world must go through one computer in the
| world (the miner) although it's a different one each time. And
| the situation is actually worse, since you don't know who would
| mine the next block in advance, every transaction must be sent to
| every potential miner! Imagine if BitTorrent had every computer
| store and seed every movie instead of using DHT.
|
| The ability to send or loan arbitrarily large amounts for a fixed
| fee is a symptom of centralization. In a fully distributed
| network, transaction fees would have to be proportional to
| transaction size!
|
| Almost every other protocol on the Internet does not have such
| bottlenecks in its design. No one asks how many emails or
| websites can be served per second. Blockchain is trying to secure
| every transaction using the entire network! That is why so much
| electricity is wasted just to do 7 transactions per second. The
| next generation of crypto will actually be able to power payments
| using embarrasingly parallel architecture. Until then, we have
| blockchain. Ethereum is nicknamed the "world computer" for a
| reason. Gas fees are super high for small transactions like
| paying for coffee or voting in a secure election. Just one app
| KryptoKitties can clog up the entire network.
|
| As one example, we built Intercoin apps on top of Ethereum
| (https://intercoin.org/applications) but we are not going to wait
| around for Ethereum 2.0 - which is blockchain also. Kik Messenger
| and others have long gotten off. Ripple, MaidSAFE and Solana use
| different technologies.
| 1996 wrote:
| You were downvoted because you are tooting your coin, your
| argument is weak, and your examples meaningless.
|
| Your argument boils down to: not enough TPS, because bad
| technology. It's good enough for now and can always be changed
| later. Changing the distribution of the mempool to miners is
| trivial. But the game theory consequences (MEV for flash
| lending) are not. So no one wants to change what is not yet
| broken until the implications become clear.
|
| > The ability to send or loan arbitrarily large amounts for a
| fixed fee is a symptom of centralization. In a fully
| distributed network, transaction fees would have to be
| proportional to transaction size
|
| With UTXO, there is no correlation between amount and
| transaction size (cf "dust")
| EGreg wrote:
| I think you are wrong on all counts.
|
| My "argument" is just stating facts.
|
| How is it good enough for now, when none of the tokens are
| actually usable for their intended purpose onchain - and no
| one uses decentralized crypto systems for everyday payments?
| Our society relies on centralized server farms run by huge
| states and corporations and we see the result. Suddenly
| people care about Big Tech because of Parler and WhatsApp but
| these are just two blips in a long line of consequences of
| living in a Feudal society.
|
| WeChat for example is used every day in China and has
| replaced cash for millions of businesses, and now you have a
| centralized social credit system, controlled by the Party,
| and anyone can be blocked at any time, as can those who
| associate with them. And the digital dollar is coming soon to
| your neighborhood, which means one account at the central
| bank, and yes most people will sign up. Meanwhile you're
| sitting around saying 10 transactions a second is good
| enough... this is how the centralized state and corporation
| wins. When cypherpunks do nothing.
|
| Enjoy living in a world where Facebook and Amazon and your
| Federal government OWN your identity, data, transactions and
| let you live as a digital serf under strict supervision.
|
| But yeah, it's all about "shilling my coin" LOL
| EGreg wrote:
| And as a separate thread:
|
| UTXO is just "unspent transaction outputs". The reason
| Bitcoin and Ethereum can send transactions of any size for
| the same fee is because ALL transactions are secured by the
| entire network, regardless of their size. So they just charge
| the cost of what a consensus process would take (proof of
| work, nakamoto consensus in this case) for the entire network
| to agree on the linear order of that transaction in the
| sequence. It's a brute force inefficient approach. Like
| transporting $1 in the same armored vehicle with a convoy as
| $1,000,000
| TTPrograms wrote:
| I feel like I disagree with the bottom-line a bit - a 100/0 split
| seems to ignore the possibility that a future stable state of the
| Ethereum network will be capable of supporting stablecoins or
| other coins with arbitrary monetary policy that are capable of
| matching or surpassing Bitcoin in all metrics of technical merit.
| I would not want to be a Bitcoin maximalist in that situation.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Stablecoin is an untractable problem by design, isn't it being
| solvable in the future by crypto a myth?
| rglullis wrote:
| Is it? I have been using MakerDAO and it has been holding up
| without any problem. Even the crash last March didn't cause a
| major lack of liquidity or lost backing value.
| ogogmad wrote:
| Can you explain what you use it for exactly?
| rglullis wrote:
| Three cases for now, mostly:
|
| - It's an excellent way to make payments and transfer
| value without giving up on your position on more volatile
| assets that you'd like to hold. E.g, I am long BAT. I can
| deposit my BAT stash on a MakerDAO vault to make an
| overcollaterized loan of DAI. I go on then to use DAI to
| pay people and services and other investments (see next
| point). If BAT's value falls between a certain threshold
| and the loan is no longer collaterized, then the loan is
| liquidated.
|
| - Provide liquidity in a volatile-stable pair (e.g,
| ETH/DAI) on a decentralized exchange like Uniswap and
| reduce what is commonly called _impermanent loss_ or
| _impairment loss_.
|
| - Provide liquidity on Curve Finance on the DAI/USDC
| pool. The fees I get to collect from that so far more
| than offset the interest rate from the original loan, and
| if you put on top of that that Curve gives their own
| tokens as an incentive to liquidity providers, I am
| getting around 2% ROI _per month_ by holding fairly
| stable and low-risk crypto assets.
| wmf wrote:
| Bitcoin's adoption isn't based on technical merit though. It's
| a Schelling point for digital gold.
| lacker wrote:
| It does have the technical merit of not collapsing so far. A
| lot of the previous attempts at digital currency collapsed
| because they had more of a dependency on some quasi trusted
| intermediate party.
| ogogmad wrote:
| I'm wondering whether Bitcoin has a chance of being anything
| other than a store of value, or a means to settle accounts (if
| even that). Given the long list of problems with Lightning (e.g.
| [1]), and the many years it's been in development for, I'm
| growing increasingly skeptical. I'm wondering how that fits into
| people's economic analysis of Bitcoin.
|
| P.S. I'm long Bitcoin, so I hope I'm wrong!
|
| [1] - https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-lightning-network-
| vulnerabi...
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| I think alternatives like Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are more
| likely to be adopted as a transactional tool in that case.
|
| Bitcoin - speculation on digital store of value and solutions
| to hedge against fiat currency risks. The valuation model is to
| try to determine what X% of the global demand for store of
| value assets might shift towards Bitcoin in the long run.
| Probably nowhere close to the level of a fiat currency market
| or the gold market, but perhaps much higher % than it is today.
|
| Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash - attempting to make crypto transactions
| common. Higher capacity, faster transaction processing. The
| valuation model is X% of casual transactions. X is probably
| never going to be an appreciable percentage compared to big
| transaction platforms like Visa or Mastercard, but it may grow
| steadily and find niche areas where the ability to quickly
| transact in a cryptocurrency is highly valued. This is likely
| to remain correlated to cryptocurrencies that act as a store of
| value because one main area for demand of casual cryptocurrency
| transactions will be hedging risk of fiat currencies. Eg if I
| live in a region with government currency instability, I'll
| want to decouple my cash asset values from that government
| risk, and look to a platform where I can still buy toilet paper
| or bread without hyperinflation.
|
| Ethereum, Polkadot, Cosmos - network effects and ecosystems of
| smart contracts. The valuation model is like an app store mixed
| with a cloud vendor. Much harder to state a clear valuation
| model, likely very volatile due to perceptions of "killer apps"
| and how much staying power they would really have, as well as
| the interplay with regulators.
| xorcist wrote:
| Even if Bitcoin only gets to be the reserve currency of all
| digital currencies in the future, the petrodollar that oils the
| defi machinery, that's enough of a use case to drive valuation.
|
| People like to ask Bitcoin investors if they really think it
| will be the last and optimal digital currency. And no, that's
| not likely. But that reasoning must be applied to each and
| every other coin as well, including Ethereum, and that is
| doubly likely for them. One could easily imagine a future coin
| that does what they do, only better.
| UShouldBWorking wrote:
| The Bitcoin core project died years ago as soon as the GitHub
| repo was hijacked by corporate interests like Adam Back's
| Blockstream.
|
| Bitcoin cash is much closer to what is described in satoshi's
| white paper and infinitely more useful than Bitcoin core at
| this point.
| porknubbins wrote:
| I'm starting to see Bitcoin and ETH/ other alt coins a kind of
| mutually dependent relationship. Bitcoin succeeding as a store
| of value allows that narrative to continue, drawing in
| institutional investment while other faster projects allow the
| narrative about changing all monetary transactions to continue.
| I don't think maximalists on either side would like the price
| if the other side failed.
| grubles wrote:
| I predict more and more blockchains in the future won't have
| extraneous speculative tokens (like ETH) since BTC has
| remained dominant for more than a decade. There are simply
| less and less reasons to buy or hold ETH when sidechains like
| Rootstock replicate the technology used on Ethereum...but
| without needing to use another less dominant less liquid
| asset.
| dustymcp wrote:
| I completely agree with this
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Sure it is, on Ethereum: https://defipulse.com/btc
|
| More tokenized Bitcoin is transacted on the Ethereum network
| every day than on the Lightning network, by orders of
| magnitude.
| grubles wrote:
| Most of the "tokenized Bitcoin" you're referring to is just
| an ERC20 promise of redemption from Bitgo's coffers. It's not
| at all comparable to Bitcoin's Lightning Network.
| skybrian wrote:
| There is still a big question of whether a panic that breaks
| Tether's peg might cause enough chaos to discredit the entire
| market for a while. It's odd that Alden doesn't address that.
|
| Some other cryptocurrencies could go up when that happens, but it
| seems like it would be bad for demand in the slightly longer run.
| seibelj wrote:
| I keep reading people post this on HN but I promise you it
| won't matter. The shock of Tether not being fully backed
| already happened back in 2018 and the $1 peg briefly broke
| before recovering. What's the next shock? It's still not
| backed? The market already knows this and doesn't care. Retail
| currently can't cash out USDT and still won't later.
|
| IMO the only way USDT dies is if the US government makes using
| it illegal. Nothing else will make a dent in it.
| flignats wrote:
| ETH past 3k in 2021
| bhaak wrote:
| Overall, a very good and thorough analysis with a completely
| comprehensible explanation why she's preferring a 100% BTC, 0%
| ETH strategy.
|
| I have only some minor quibbles.
|
| GPUs are very much not abundant. Gamers were complaining a lot
| during the last bull run that those crypto nuts were buying up
| all available high-end GPUs.
|
| Also comparing the hashrates doesn't make sense. Those are
| different algorithms that run on completely different hardware.
| Bitcoin ASICs can only be used for Bitcoin (or Bitcoin forks that
| haven't changed the POW algorithm) where GPUs as general
| programmable device can be repurposed for mining other
| cryptocoins which might be more profitably to mine at any given
| time. Together with the fact (as stated in the article) that
| Ethereum has reduced the block rewards over time, it's not
| surprising that the hashrate isn't bigger than during the
| previous bull run.
|
| This leads to the criticised monetary policy of Ethereum. This
| wasn't explicitly mentioned in the article but Ethereum's
| monetary policy can best be summarized as "don't overpay the
| miners for securing the network".
|
| Many see it as a necessary evil that Ethereum is still running on
| POW and they are eagerly awaiting the jump to POS. It is seen as
| a design flaw of Bitcoin that it has a rigid coin issuance that
| isn't dynamically adjusting to the actual demand.
| sjtindell wrote:
| To your point, some farms will swap the coin they are mining in
| real time on the fly (given some baking period to see a real
| price difference) based on profitability and are continually
| selling on exchanges to capture current rate.
| hehehaha wrote:
| I was hoping for a real economic analysis. You know one written
| by someone who studied monetary theories and policies.
| u678u wrote:
| In this day an age a previously unknown writer who rights long
| blog posts with lots of words counts as an expert. Especially
| if they recommend BTC.
| llampx wrote:
| Lyn is previously unknown?
| reducesuffering wrote:
| She definitely studies monetary theory and policy. Read a few
| more articles that are unrelated to crypto.
| sova wrote:
| "as an oil-like enabler of dapps, rather than as a gold-like
| scarce collateral" is an economic statement (!)
| bo1024 wrote:
| I've read a few of her articles recently and been very
| impressed. I understand a default stance of skepticism but the
| writing speaks for itself. I would be curious for your
| criticisms on this "petrodollar" article, for instance:
| https://www.lynalden.com/fraying-petrodollar-system/
| worik wrote:
| They are a investor in Bitcoin.
|
| So they clearly do not get it
| dustymcp wrote:
| No reason why both cant coexist and compliment each other
| like they do today.
| porknubbins wrote:
| I hadn't really sat down and thought how much more complicated
| ETH 2.0 is than Bitcoin so that was interesting. I don't think
| that the Concord metaphor is very meaningful though. Isn't
| supersonic flight hard and inconvenient for real world physics
| and engineering reasons while cryptocurrency relies on CS/ math
| developments but if those problems are solved there is no reason
| to think the solution will remain impractical. Crypto won't burn
| excess fuel or make sonic booms.
| seibelj wrote:
| The majority of the serious innovation and development in the
| crypto space currently happens on Ethereum, which keeps the money
| people interested and sniffing around. The existence of Ethereum
| IMO helps the price of bitcoin increase, especially as ever more
| bitcoin is "wrapped" and ported to the ETH network.[0]
|
| I think this article is really solid, as are all of her articles.
| Part of what I love about Ethereum and altcoins is exactly
| because of the speculative, fast-money, insanely risky and exotic
| assets and protocols it creates. Where she sees that as a
| negative, I see it as a positive. ETH and its tokens have helped
| my crypto friends amass more wealth than we would have made
| working at FAANG companies, and without slogging through all of
| the bullshit and pain of working at huge corporations. Plus we
| get to work on super interesting tech rather than middleware that
| powers the middleware that powers the data mining pipeline that
| extracts money out privacy violations.
|
| If you want the "safe" crypto play, I tell people to do 60/40
| BTC/ETH on Coinbase so they can hold it safely and never look at
| it again. If you want to make the 10x fast money gains
| speculating like a crypto degen trader, then the only game in
| town is ETH and the alts running on its ecosystem.
|
| [0] https://wbtc.network/
| grubles wrote:
| "Wrapped Bitcoin" is not "porting" BTC to Ethereum. It's merely
| a token that represents some sort of claim on actual BTC held
| with a single custodian (Bitgo).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-17 23:01 UTC)