Semua tulisan dari Ahmad Sobirin

The Borderless State of DeFi

The Borderless State of DeFi

Will innovation and growth within DeFi continue to expand beyond the scope of the crypto-industry?
Binance Research (Etienne), in collaboration with the team of DApp.Review
January 8th 2020 (updated on January 22th)
DeFi has become one of the critical growth areas for Ethereum since 2019. Other competing blockchains are also building DeFi products, yet at a much slower pace.
Ethereum-based DeFi’s user-side remains small, with an average number of more than 40,000 monthly users, and 90% of these users are using decentralized exchanges.
Meanwhile, the number of active projects, i.e., with more than 50 daily users, nearly doubled in 2019, while a growing pool of developers has been building new products and establishing new services.
Since its beginning, the DeFi space has been traditionally dominated by SAI/DAI, the decentralized stablecoin minted in the MakerDAO ecosystem, which released its MCD (Multi-Collateral Dai) in November 2019. 
Since then, its migration from SAI to DAI has been occurring at a fast pace, with an estimated 64% of the supply being converted (as of December 31st).
The incorporation of USDC into multiple DeFi platforms has challenged DAI, owing to reasons such as its more abundant supply, different interest rate dynamics, and greater peg-price stability.
Lending platforms like Compound have increasingly challenged the dominance of Maker, measured by the total collateral value locked in DeFi, which currently stands at ~50% (vs. more than 90% in early 2019).
Decentralized exchanges “2.0” also picked up in volume. Uniswap was used by more than 19K users, exhibiting a total annual volume of $390 million. Similarly, Kyber was used by more than 35K users and displayed a yearly volume of $387 million.
In 2020, we expect new developments on Ethereum-based DeFi (e.g., derivatives, undercollateralized initiatives, the inclusion of ERC-20 USDT), staking to become a fundamental building block of DeFi, and Alt-DeFi to gain momentum owing to reasons such as more prominent cross-chain interoperability solutions.
DeFi (Decentralized Finance) has become one of the most significant areas for Ethereum, with more than 100 projects and teams building applications and protocols in 2019.
Binance Research started in June a series of reports focusing on Decentralized Finance (“DeFi Series”); this third report discusses recent developments and critical narratives in the DeFi space, focusing mostly on Ethereum, though other blockchains are also considered.
Most of the data used in this report are provided by DApp.Review, one of the new members in the Binance ecosystem.
Please read DAppReview’s annual overview of the state of DApps, which includes high-quality insights about all decentralized application fields such as Game, Social, and Casino.

1. The growing importance of DeFi in Ethereum

As illustrated in our report about the world of tokenization, Ethereum’s spectrum of applications is more extensive than other blockchains. However, its primary focus has shifted to exchange and financial applications1, as discussed in our previous report about Ethereum-based DeFi.
DeFi includes (decentralized) exchange services and financial applications like borrowing and lending markets, asset management services, and payment solutions.
Chart 1 – Price of Ether (ETH) in USD in 2019
Sources: Binance Research, CoinMarketCap.
In 2019, the price of Ether fluctuated within a $100-$350 range, with a median price of $173.
Regardless of its price, most of the decentralized financial ecosystem is, so far, being built on Ethereum.

Chart 2 – Monthly unique users in Ethereum DeFi in 2019

Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
In 2019, the monthly number of unique DeFi users ranged between 40,000 and 60,000.
However, there was a significant difference between the user counts for financial applications (e.g., lending platforms) and exchange services (i.e., token-to-token trading platforms).
Chart 3 – Monthly unique users in Ethereum DeFi: Exchange vs. Finance in 2019
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
The number of monthly unique users was 34,244 users for decentralized exchanges and 4,649 for financial applications in January 20192.
Over 2019, the number of users for DEXs increased and peaked at 48,934 in August 2019, before dropping back close to its initial level, with 34,033 users recorded in December.
On the other hand, the number of users for financial applications has kept increasing since January. In August, it broke 10k monthly users and, in December, a total number of 25,925 single users were recorded using decentralized financial applications on Ethereum.
Chart 4 – DeFi on-chain activities relative to the Ethereum DApp industry based on USD volume
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
This chart represents all on-chain activities, which may include some exchanges that are not fully-decentralized (e.g., IDEX).
As illustrated by the above chart, more than 90% of all on-chain volume for Ethereum-based DApps come from DeFi-related applications: DeFi has been the growth gist of Ethereum in 2019, from the perspective of users.
In short, Ethereum and DeFi have become a two-headed monster, each leading the growth of further development in the other. The main characteristics of their interplay are defined in the next section.

2. Exploring the inners of Ethereum DeFi

As depicted in Table 1, the total number of single users per platform varied greatly in 2019.
Table 1 – Count of single users in 2019 per platform

PLATFORM

NUMBER OF USERS
Kyber 35,570,  Compound 21,424, Uniswap 19,161, MakerDAO 17,994, Synthetix 10,741, dYdX 3,694,  Oasis 3,101, Nuo Network 3,007, Fulcrum 853,
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
Kyber was the most used project in DeFi, with a total of 35,570 unique users in 2019.
Compound was the second most popular project in DeFi and the leader in the “finance” sub-category.
However, these figures do not necessarily illustrate the overall use of some underlying assets powered by some of these protocols. For instance, DAI could be used (e.g., trading, payment) without interacting with MakerDAO smart contracts. Similarly, cTokens (Compound) and iTokens & pTokens (Fulcrum) can be exchanged outside of the designed protocol. As more of these tokens circulate, a statistic to watch closely is their average daily transactions and the number of active addresses holding them.
2.1 USDC: DAI’s nemesis
At the cornerstone of DeFi, DAI, the decentralized stablecoin minted in the MakerDAO protocol, has historically been at the heart of DeFi.
However, in 2019, USD Coin (USDC), the fiat collateralized stablecoin issued by Centre consortium, became its nemesis.
Chart 5 – Evolution of USDC and SAI/DAI supply in 2019
Sources: Binance Research, Etherscan.
As illustrated in chart 5, the gap in total supply between USDC and DAI accelerated in 2019, partly due to single-collateral DAI being restrained by a 100 million supply cap (acting as a debt ceiling for the Maker ecosystem). However, the protocol voted an increase to the supply cap only in November, raising it to 120 million. The supply cap increase was the first since 2018 when the ceiling was raised from 50 million up to the 100 million mark. 
Meanwhile, USDC supply grew from 261.3 million to 518.5 million during 2019, an increase of +98.4%. In comparison, the aggregated SAI+DAI supply increased only +60.4% YoY, from 69.6 million to 111.6 million.
Chart 6 – Breakdown of DAI/SAI as of December 31st 2019
Sources: Binance Research, Etherscan.
Mirroring the growth of the total market cap of USDC, the use of USDC as collateral also steadily increased in 2019.
More than 30 million of USDC has been supplied to the Compound protocol alone, representing more than 25% of the value of all DAI/SAI in circulation, as of December 31st.
Chart 7 – Evolution of the total USDC locked in Compound
Sources: Binance Research, Compound.
Compound added support for USDC on May 23rd. The number of USDC provided to the protocol rapidly increased through September, where the total amount deposited reached above 30 million USDC. Since then, it has remained around this level.
However, its larger total supply may not necessarily be the only reason for the growing popularity of USDC in the DeFi world.
USDC also displayed greater price stability than DAI in 2019, as illustrated in the chart below.
Chart 8 – Daily close prices of SAI and USDC in 2019
Sources: Binance Research, CoinMarketCap.
Finally, minting DAI entails a variable borrowing cost (paid by the stability fee to MKR holders), while minting USDC does not require more than minor negligible fees (from Centre). The stability fee is discussed in-depth in subsection 2.3.
2.2 MakerDAO challenged by the multi-digit growth in Compound and Synthetix
As the supply of DAI kept increasing (see subsection 2.1), Maker itself also displayed a net positive growth in the value of its collateral.
Chart 9 – Evolution of the total value of the collateral in MakerDAO (in USD)
Sources: Binance Research, MKR.Tools.
The total value of the collateral in MakerDAO increased in the first half of 2019, owing to the respective rise of the price of ETH. Similarly, it decreased in the second half of 2019. However, more ETHs were added to the platform, and the supply of SAI (and then SAI +DAI) also increased. As a result, in 2019, the total value of the collateral in MakerDAO increased from $249 million to $342 million, an increase of +37%. Meanwhile, in 2019, the price of ETH dropped by -2%.
Yet, despite the growth of the total collateral locked in MakerDAO, its “DeFi dominance” decreased in 2019, from ~90% in January 2019 to less than 50% in December.
Chart 10 – Historical dominance of MakerDAO (by the value of the collateral locked in USD)
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
Specifically, MakerDAO was challenged in 2019 by mostly two platforms: Compound and Synthetix.
Chart 11 – Evolution of the value of the total collateral in Compound (in USD)
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
The USD denominated value of collateral in Compound grew from $13.4 million at the beginning of the year to $104.7 million at the end of the year. This represents an annual increase of +678%.
Chart 12 – Evolution of the value of the total collateral in Synthetix (in USD)
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
Even more impressively, Synthetix’s total collateral value moved from $1.6 million on March 1st to more than $160 million (EOY), owing to the meteoric increase in SNX price, the Synthetic Network token.
So far, the main asset minted in the Synthetic ecosystem has been sUSD (Synthetic USD), which is mostly backed by SNX tokens. As of December 31st, it had a supply of ~11 million units.
However, SNX is not as liquid (based on orderbook data) as cryptoassets like BAT and ETH, the two eligible collateral assets in the MakerDAO ecosystem. Hence, it remains to be seen how the system would behave with high volatility in the price of SNX.
Nevertheless, the total collateral value in other small DeFi platforms also increased dramatically in 2019 despite the price of ETH lagging in fiat terms (see chart 1).
We used the examples of Fulcrum, and Nuo Network to illustrate the overall yearly trend.
Chart 13 – Evolution of the value of the total collateral in Fulcrum/bZx (in USD)
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
bZx displayed moderate yet steady growth in the total value of the collateral locked on the platform. Only starting in June 2019 with no dedicated collateral, the value of its collateral quickly increased to well over $4 million in only seven months.
Chart 14 – Evolution of the value of the total collateral in Nuo Network (in USD)
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
Nuo Network, a margin trading decentralized platform, experienced rapid growth in its total collateral in its first six months, with peaks above 17 million in July and August. Since then, its total collateral locked has steadily decreased, partially owing to the decrease in the price of the locked assets.
2.3 High volatility and spreads in DeFi interest rate markets
According to the table below, interest rates vary significantly amongst assets. For instance, 0x token (ZRX), Augur (REP), and Ethereum (ETH) displayed the lowest annual average lending rates. Conversely, only ETH and REP exhibited the lowest borrowing rates (2.20% and 2.12%) as the spread is much higher for ZRX. Stablecoins like DAI and USDC displayed the largest borrowing and lending rates.
The covered interest rate parity approach indicates that ETH and other cryptoassets might be undervalued.
On the other hand, it may sometimes be cheaper to execute specific trading strategies for ETH and BTC (through WBTC) than on many centralized exchanges (e.g., Binance).
However, liquidity (depth of the books, volumes) on centralized exchanges remains much higher than on decentralized exchanges.
Chart 15 – USDC borrowing interest rates (%) from June 2019 to December 2019
Sources: Binance Research, LoanScan.
Borrowing interest rates on USDC have declined since June 2019. While dYdX rates fluctuated in greater terms, its borrowing rate on USDC has almost always been considerably lower than the borrowing rate on Compound.
Chart 16 – USDC lending interest rates (%) from June 2019 to December 2019
Sources: Binance Research, LoanScan.
Lending interest rates on USDC have steadily and slowly declined since June 2019. While the spread between Compound and dYdX is much lower than for the borrowing rate, the dYdX USDC lending rate displayed, once again, higher volatility than Compound’s.
Chart 17 – SAI borrowing rates and SAI stability fee (%) until November 18, 2019
Sources: Binance Research, LoanScan.
The stability fee set by MakerDAO governance mostly stayed above the market borrowing rate on Compound and dYdX, with Compound’s borrow rates consistently below the stability fee until the middle of September.
Meanwhile, dYdX exhibited higher spikes in borrowing rates due to a more sensitive rate formula.
This stability fee premium can be explained in a number of ways. Firstly, stability fee rates are up for a vote on a periodic basis (every weekly governance vote), whereas interest rates on Compound and dYdX are always live and reflect real-time market dynamics. As a result, users must price in the volatility that they may face on open lending pools. In addition, as more smart contract insurance platforms like Nexus Mutual and derivatives protocols like UMA Protocol develop, users may have more options to price in this risk in the future accurately.
However, as the launch of the Multi-Collateral DAI (MCD) approached, the stability fee quickly dipped below the open rates on Compound and dYdX.
Chart 18 – SAI lending rates (%) until November 18, 2019
Sources: Binance Research, LoanScan.
Furthermore, there has been an arbitrage opportunity, in a similar vein to the ones described in our previous report. Specifically, ETH coin-holders can borrow DAI from dYdX and park it to earn the Dai Savings Rate (e.g., through Oasis), which has been higher than the borrowing rate.
Chart 19 – DAI savings rate and dYdX DAI borrowing rate since November 2019
Sources: Binance Research, LoanScan.
While DeFi increased in scope, its market size remains small, and as a result, DeFi interest rate dynamics are highly dependent on platform-specific factors (e.g., different lending and borrowing market environment, fee structure, etc.).
2.4 The growth of “2.0 decentralized exchanges”
In 2019, many decentralized exchanges displayed fast growth in daily volumes.
Chart 20 – Daily trading volume of Kyber (in USD)
Sources: Binance Research, Kyber.
Kyber saw its volume picking up over 2019, with peaks in June-July and in late November (up to daily volume spikes of $7 million).
Meanwhile, it also experienced rapid growth in the value of its total collateral locked. As of January 1st 2019, it was worth around half a million USD. At the end of 2019, the total value locked in Kyber was worth ~$3.4 million.
Chart 21 – Aggregated daily trading volume of 0xProtocol-based DEXs (in USD)
Sources: Binance Research, 0XTracker.
0XProtocol-DEX notably includes Raday Relay, DDEX, imToken (ex-TokenIon), Paradex, and DeversiFi3. The aggregated trading volume of 0XProtocol-based DEXs has been growing since the beginning of 2019. In 2019, they displayed an aggregated average daily volume of $702k.
Chart 22 – Daily trading volume of Uniswap in 2019 (in USD)
Sources: Binance Research, DApp Review.
Uniswap also experienced impressive growth in the value of its total collateral locked. As of January 1st 2019, it was worth around half a million USD. At the end of 2019, the total value locked in Uniswap was worth ~$28 million.
Despite their impressive growth patterns in 2019, Uniswap and Kyber still ranked below Oasis (operated by Maker) and IDEX (KYC required), two of the oldest Ethereum DEXs, in terms of annual volumes.
Despite Ethereum being the main platform for DeFi builders, “non-Ethereum” blockchain developers have also been working on DeFi applications and protocols.
3. Alternative DeFi (Alt-DeFi): heterogeneous but mostly lagging
In this section, we explore what we defined as “Alt-DeFi”: the alternative DeFi space, outside of Ethereum. Alt-DeFi applications run on a variety of blockchains such as EOS, Binance Chain, Bitcoin, Cosmos, and others.
Regarding the current state of DeFi’s Bitcoin, its main application relates to payment.
Specifically, solutions have been developed to improve the scalability of Bitcoin for small payments. The most prominent example of them is the Lightning Network, which operates as a second layer for Bitcoin.
Chart 23 – Daily Lightning Network capacity growth in BTC (left axis) and USD (right axis)
Accurate data is hard to estimate for the Lightning Network. However, its adoption likely remains feeble with its total capacity at around 854 BTC (i.e., $6.2 million) on December 31st. So far, only one significant exchange (Bitfinex) has adopted the Lightning Network for Bitcoin deposits and withdrawals.
On the other hand, EOS also displays some interest from market participants. First of all, EOSREX, the lending and borrowing platform for computing resources in the EOS ecosystem, was launched in April.
Chart 24 – Daily EOS’ REX evolution of locked amount in EOS
Sources: Binance Research, DApp Review.
Since its inception, this application has displayed significant growth in the resources being provided to the platform. However, there are significant imbalances in the demand/supply dynamics as more resources have been provided than borrowed.
In Q4, however, the total amount of EOS provided declined from a peak above 105 million EOS to 75.6 million (as of December 31st).
Furthermore, while the Kyber Network is extremely popular in Ethereum, its team has also worked on several implementations of Ethereum-based KyberSwap on other blockchains:
TomoChain: TomoSwap
ETH/EOS Cross-chain: Waterloo (not implemented yet)
Similarly, the success of both MakerDAO and Compound in the Ethereum space also led to the creation of similar platforms on competing blockchains.
In the EOS ecosystem, the Equilibrium protocol works in a similar fashion as MakerDAO. DAI’s counterpart is referred to as EOSDT, and the eligible collaterals are EOS coins. However, Equilibrium’s collateralization requirement is set at 130%, slightly lower than Maker’s 150%.
Chart 25 – Evolution of EOSDT’s total collateral (denominated in EOS)
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
Since its creation, it has displayed significant growth. As of December 31st 2019, its total collateral locked was estimated to be worth more than 4 million EOS. However, its total marketcap remains relatively small at around 1.8 million EOSDT.
Similarly, Acueos is an EOS implementation of the Compound protocol. Unfortunately, it is not yet widely used as Compound, as illustrated by the chart below.
Chart 26 – Acueos and Compound daily number of unique users since October 2019 (log)
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
Furthermore, Cosmos also possesses a similar project (as Maker), focusing on fiat-pegged crypto-backed stablecoins: Kava. On October 23rd, Kava raised funds successfully on Binance Launchpad.
Meanwhile, NEO also has its own similar MakerDAO-like project named Alchemint, where SDUSDs are minted by collateralizing NEO. As of December 31st 2019, less than 60,00 SDUSDs were issued within the Alchemint platform.
PEG Network also launched its own MakerDAO-style collateralized debt smart contract, allowing users to print USDB against Bancor Token (BNT, available on both Ethereum and EOS chains) deposits.
Also, it is worth noting that many traditional decentralized exchanges exist on many blockchains such as Binance Chain (Binance DEX), NEO (e.g., Switcheo), EOS (e.g., NewDEX), and Tron (e.g., PoloniDEX).
Chart 27 – Daily volume on Binance DEX (in $ million) since its inception
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
For instance, Binance DEX launched on March 23rd 2019. Since June 2019, its average daily volume has mostly declined. It remained over $1 million for most of the year. In total, Binance DEX displayed a total volume of $755 million in its first nine months.
Switcheo offers a decentralized exchange on NEO and Ethereum, with full interoperability across the two blockchains.
Chart 28 – Daily volume of Switcheo on NEO/Ethereum (in USD)
Sources: DApp Review, CoinGecko, Binance Research.
In 2019, Switcheo displayed a total annual volume of $49.5 million.
Other exchanges, with cross-chain interoperability, include Bancor Network (EOS/Ethereum) and other projects being developed such as Thorchain, which performed its own coins’ IDO on Binance DEX.
In addition to other blockchain interoperability DeFi applications, Loom Network has been working on bringing DeFi onto alternative, large marketcap, blockchains, such as Tron and Binance Chain.
4. The paradox of DeFi and 2020’s views
4.1 DeFi: a small but dynamic ecosystem
While DeFi represents a tiny segment of the crypto-industry, it is one of its most vibrant areas.
Chart 29 – Evolution of total daily unique users in Ethereum-based DeFi
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
On average, Ethereum-based DeFi platforms displayed a number of unique daily users of 3456 users in 2019.
Chart 30 – Number of active DeFi projects (projects with more than 50 daily unique users)
Sources: DApp Review, Binance Research.
The number of active projects, defined as projects with more than 50 daily unique users, nearly doubled over 2019. However, this number remains small, in absolute numbers, as less than 20 projects are being used.
Furthermore, within the crypto-space itself, DeFi remains small. For instance, the total collateral locked in staking is much more significant, worth ~$6 billion, representing more than five times greater than the total collateral in DeFi.
Finally, the size of DeFi remains negligible compared to the (traditional) fixed income market. Recent estimations of the total debt market range are ~$250 trillion4 in 2019. In the US alone, consumer loans were estimated at ~$1.6 trillion5 in 2019.
4.2 The growth of staking
Unlike lending, staking is conducted at the protocol level where users lock funds to secure the network and subsequently earn staking rewards. This is discussed in-depth in our report about the Rise of Staking.
Chart 31 – Expected yields (%) for assets supported for staking on Binance.com
Sources: Binance Research, Binance.com.
As staking is conducted at the first layer of the blockchain, any rational coin-holder is ought to trust the staking protocol. Hence, we expect growing awareness in staking and more long-term investors to participate in on-chain governance and other activities. As of December 31st, according to StakingRewards.com, the cumulative market cap locked in staking protocols was estimated at $6 billion. This number should significantly increase in 2020 as more staking-based protocols launch their mainnets, and Ethereum switches over from PoW to PoS.
However, lending could potentially cannibalize staking, owing to the promise of higher lending rates. Yet, as of December 31st, funds locked in DeFi are estimated worth ~$670 million for Ethereum and ~$200 million for EOS (mostly from EOSREX).
We also expect consolidation toward large staking services provided by both crypto-exchanges, such as Binance (i.e., Binance Staking), Coinbase (e.g., Tezos), and KuCoin’s staking services), and dedicated providers. Will staking lead to centralization through economies of scale?
Yet, as illustrated in our recent institutional report, staking is not yet one of the critical growth drivers for the crypto-industry, according to large traders and institutional investors. Will the expected launch of the beacon-chain of Ethereum shake up the industry?
4.3 Ethereum’s DeFi
In 2020, we expect several trends regarding Ethereum-based DeFi:
The end of the Maker’s dominance: we expect Compound to take over Maker in 2020, by both volumes and locked amounts. Furthermore, Synthetix will likely also challenge Maker as it allows greater flexibility in regards to what assets Synths can be pegged to (e.g., Silver Ounce/sXAG or inverse BNB/iBNB). However, the collateral used in Synthetix remains tied to an asset (SNX) that is not liquid, which raises concerns. In comparison, all the assets eligible as collateral in Maker are very liquid (ETH and BAT).
Maker’s DSR integration: despite our expectation that MakerDAO’s dominance will likely be challenged, it will remain one of the most centerpieces in the DeFi industry. While the addition of new collateral (e.g., BAT) garnered most of the interest, the Dai Savings Rate (DSR) will likely become one of the most important rates in the DeFi space. For instance, Fulcrum has already integrated DSR’s into its platform. Exchanges, which list DAI for trading, will also continue to integrate the Dai Savings Rate onto exchanges.
The nascency of under- or even less-collateralized solutions: as discussed in our first report about DeFi, over-collateralization does not help the unbanked. New solutions are being considered, such as social fund recovery, credit scoring, zero-knowledge proofs, and credit market DAOs. We also expect further use of the time value of money relationship to allow users to borrow on the promise of future expected cash flows. Experiments with Sablier could pave the way for dedicated protocols. In early 2020, Aave (LEND) will be moving over its lending markets to mainnet, from its current testnet implementation, including its undercollateralized flash loans.
The launch of DeFi derivatives on Ethereum mainnet: Convexity Protocol and other platforms (e.g., UMA Protocol) are likely to bring new trading opportunities for the DeFi space. However, skepticism remains on how to manage risk and rewards from the perspective of the option underwriters. Furthermore, hedging solutions against DAI price risk6, like SwanDai, are also likely to be deployed on mainnet.
USD Tether (USDT): USD Tether, following the migration of a large chunk of its circulating supply to Ethereum, is likely to be integrated in the near future into some DeFi protocols in 2020. For instance, USD Tether will be included in the Compound protocol.
The growth of “one-stop” solutions: platforms like Zerion and InstaDApp aim to offer a superior user experience and make the use of DeFi easier. Specifically, these single UIs allow interaction with various platforms. Also, protocol-aggregators such as DeFiZap and Dex.ag should also get traction as they typically allow users to minimize gas fees and to hedge against platform-specific risks.
4.4 Expansion of the Alt-DeFi
Regarding the non-Ethereum DeFi space, we expect several developments from the perspective of other blockchains such as:
Bitcoin (BTC) is likely to play a more significant part of DeFi, both on Ethereum and as a stand-alone solution.
BTC as collateral: Bitcoin, the largest crypto-asset by marketcap, could potentially be added as collateral in MakerDAO (e.g., tBTC, WBTC), and further garner adoption in established Ethereum-based DeFi applications. SODA also allows borrowing of ERC-20 tokens with BTC as collateral.
BTC side-chains: DeFi on Bitcoin sidechains are also likely to draw more attention and to be investigated. Initiatives such as Money On Chain serve this purpose.
Binance Chain: owing to BEP-3, DeFi on the Binance Chain is likely to garner attention from crypto-participants. Early initiatives from Loom Network illustrate the growing appeal from third-party contributors7.
EOS: greater synergies with Ethereum (e.g., Bancor, Kyber) should occur. Furthermore, its own DeFi ecosystem is being developed, as discussed in the previous section.
NEO: NEO has SDUSD, minted in the Alchemint ecosystem, and the Switcheo exchange that operates on both ETH and NEO blockchains. We expect additional DeFi solutions to be implemented in 2020.
Cosmos: Kava is expected to go live in 2020, which could mark the birth of Cosmos’ first decentralized crypto-backed stablecoin. Kava plans to include collaterals such as XRP and BNB.
Tezos: DeFi was specifically added in September 2019 to the new RFP for ecosystem grants by the Tezos foundation.
Algorand: the Algorand foundation released in November 2019 a statement where it mentioned specifically its interest in the “DeFi movement”.
TomoChain: with the launch of TomoX and an extended TomoBridge (cross-chain swap), TomoChain could potentially see new projects being developed.
Tron: while initiatives from Loom could port over MakerDAO onto Tron, decentralized exchanges (e.g., PoloniDEX, Zethyr) are one of the largest DeFi applications on Tron.
Waves: its recent annual event focused almost entirely on DeFi applications. The announcement of Gravity Hub, a cross-chain interoperability service, could potentially bring some of DeFi onto the Waves ecosystem.
Ontology: bolstered by the addition of PAX into its network, it aims at developing DeFi use-cases on its chain, as announced in August 2019.
While the Alt-DeFi space will likely grow in 2020, it remains to be seen whether a significant number of users would be willing to use these services.
4.5 Final words
In this report, not all the platforms and protocols were discussed, as the scope of this industry is too broad to analyze in a single report. For instance, asset management platforms (e.g., Set Protocol and Melon) and relayers (e.g., Loopring) were not included in the discussion.
In our views, we expect DeFi to further garner interest from industry participants. However, use-cases have, 
so far, remained mostly confined within the existing crypto-community.
Furthermore, this report added decentralized exchange applications as part of DeFi, but the scope of DEXs typically expands beyond the unique world of DeFi.
Once some technical and legal challenges are solved, we expect a meteoric growth in the decentralized financial industry, likely to attract individuals and capital beyond the scope of the existing crypto-industry.
To conclude, the rapid development of DeFi has already led to the creation of an active and creative global community, building the first blocks to challenge traditional financial platforms.
Is the world ready for the borderless state of DeFi?
On the other hand, Tron and EOS DApps are mostly related to gambling and gaming activities, with the majority of their on-chain DApp volumes accounting for services such as casino-like services, etc.
The sum of the two is less than the figures in chart 2 as users can rank in both categories.
While some NFT exchanges were included, their contribution to total volume is negligible (less than 1%).
Prediction markets like Augur can also serve this purpose.
Binance X is working with third-party developers to push for Binance Chain’s applications. https://binancex.dev/

Binance Research: BNB Performed Best, BTC Dominated Market in 2019

A new report from Binance Research discusses the levels of correlation between different cryptocurrencies, as well as their market performance, during 2019.
Binance Research, the market research and analysis arm of Binance, released a new report that looked into how much Bitcoin (BTC) has increased its market dominance, as well as how correlated cryptocurrencies are to each other, and why BNB is the best-performing asset of 2019.
According to the “Annual Crypto-Correlations Review,” which analyzed potential similarities between valuations of various cryptoassets, BNB value increased by 128%, highest among the 10 biggest cryptoassets by median market capitalization over 2019. BTC was the second best-performing asset in this group, with 87% growth.
Bitcoin also grew its market dominance last year, with a strong climb from around 50% to begin 2019 to 68% by the end of the year.
On the correlations front, Binance Research found that Ethereum (ETH) is the highest correlated asset, with an average correlation coefficient of 0.69 throughout 2019. Meanwhile, the lowest correlated asset was Cosmos (ATOM), with a median annual correlation coefficient of 0.31.
“The median correlation between most large cryptoassets slightly declined over the fourth quarter of 2019. This trend upholds the annual median correlation, which is lower than in Q3 or Q4. Nonetheless, cryptoassets remained highly correlated with each other in 2019,” according to Binance Research.
Here are other findings from the recent report.
* Besides ETH, BTC was strongest correlated with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Monero (XMR).
* Programmable blockchains, such as NEO, ETH, and EOS often show higher correlations with each other than with non-programmable assets. 
* Assets listed on Binance displayed higher correlations compared to the cryptoassets not listed on Binance.
* Assets might show stronger correlations with each other during adverse price movements.
About Binance Research 
Binance Research provides professional, data-driven insights and analysis for investors in the crypto space to increase the level of transparency and improve the quality of information within the current crypto ecosystem. The team consists of professionals with experience in blockchain engineering, investment banking, strategy consulting, academic research, and data science. For more information, visit: https://research.binance.com/

Bitcoin.com is building the tools & products that help the world use Bitcoin.

The new developer funding proposal got off to an interesting start, to say the least! Though the conversation didn’t open up in the most productive way, we’re now having the conversations we need to have.
If anything, the bumpiness over the last few days is all a reminder that these are difficult questions!—how does development get funded on a decentralized currency and what’s the process by which we decide this and make it happen?
We participated in this process because we know that developer funding is an important issue to solve and that a proper funding mechanism will help Bitcoin Cash continue to grow as fast, reliable cash for the world.
Here is a quick update on where things are at Bitcoin.com.

We need more agreement

As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.
We think it is clear that the existing proposal does not have enough support, and we will be working to come up with a plan that is profitable for all the relevant parties and which preserves the fundamental economics of Bitcoin Cash.
Keep sharing your thoughts online. We read them all.

This is a great opportunity for developers to clarify what they need funding for, and provide the specific budgets and timelines they have for their work.

We think the lack of clarity in this is one of the main drivers of confusion and contention around the various funding proposals.
In venture capital, investors do not find talented technical individuals and hand them money to “do something.” Rather, those individuals put together business plans with clear roadmaps, timing estimates and resource requirements that allow the investor to make rational decisions with their money. In business, you do not begin with a pot of money then figure out something to do with it. You begin with an idea of what needs to be done and then allocate funds to achieve it. This makes all parties involved more accountable and more efficient.
Developers in need of funding should put together clear funding proposals soon and publicly before any specific proposal is agreed upon. Likewise, miners and businesses should make clear to developers what they need for Bitcoin Cash to be more valuable for their business. This type of discussion is the only way any funding proposal should begin.
It may be the case that after we have some real concrete numbers to look at, new possibilities for funding open up, or that the community will be more receptive to one of the existing options. 

We reiterate that any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.

Protocol development in Bitcoin Cash is an important temporary phase to prepare for global adoption and as such, a funding proposal must be temporary. 
A permanent proposal would be in effect a carte blanche on development and would incentivise “development for development’s sake,” which would defeat the purpose of the fundraising and is entirely against what ought to be the goal of the whole Bitcoin Cash ecosystem: to create fast, reliable, digital cash upon a stable, largely unchanging, economically rational Bitcoin protocol.

Remember that the goal is global, fast, reliable digital cash.

No proposal should put this goal at risk.
The reason funding discussions are taking place is because proper funding will strengthen the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem, but it cannot come at the expense of compromising the foundational goals of Bitcoin Cash.
Bitcoin.com will not risk a chain split or a change to the underlying economics. In order to do this, any proposal will need to have as many people of economic weight on-board as possible, including businesses, exchanges, miners, and Bitcoin Cash implementations.
We’re excited to continue the discussions.
Bitcoin.com

DOES BITCOIN REALIZE HENRY FORD’S DREAM OF ENERGY CURRENCY?

Almost 100 years ago, industrialist and automobile magnate, Henry Ford, proposed an ‘energy currency’ to replace gold. Does Bitcoin finally fulfil some of the promise of this ‘energy currency’ Yes, according to a recent Medium post by Capriole Investments.

CURRENCY BACKED BY ENERGY

Ford’s argument for energy currency was that, unlike gold, it could not be controlled. Instead, every country could issue currency based on the natural wealth of its energy resources. The standard of value for this system was to be a certain amount of energy exerted for one hour which would be equal to $1.

This kilowatt hours (kWh) backed currency has some parallels with Bitcoin, which can also be considered as ‘backed’ by energy input.

For around 80% of its existence, Bitcoin’s price history correlates very closely to the raw amount of energy (in Joules) needed to create it.
FORD’S ‘ENERGY’ VALUATION OF BITCOIN

Using Ford’s standard, Bitcoin’s current value can be determined by it’s energy value (in kWh) multiplied by a factor of 0.00173 (to convert between Joules and kWh).
As the Bitcoin network currently consumes around 6.9 million kWh of energy, a bitcoin is ‘worth’ around $12,000.

However, Bitcoin is unique due to its decreasing inflation rate. The effect of the halving event in May, will essentially mean that the energy required to create each bitcoin doubles. This will have the same doubling effect on its intrinsic value.
PLANS SHELVED DUE TO POWER POLITICS

Of course, Ford eventually had to give up on his plans. After all, why would a government consider a system which could make its control of wealth redundant.
A simple affair of business which should have been decided by anyone within a week has become a complicated political affair.
Over 60 years later, Austrian economist, Friedrick Hayek, echoed this frustration, that the monetary policy of governments had only harmed the concept of ‘good mney’.

I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government. That is, we can’t take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop.
IS BITCOIN AN ENERGY CURRENCY?

So is Bitcoin, an energy-backed currency, immutable and uncontrollable by governments, a realization of Ford’s plan, and Hayek’s ‘Good Money’?

Potentially, ‘Yes’, says Capriole, as Bitcoin has, to date, found a way around politics. There are potential risks, but Bitcoin’s energy value hit an all-time high this month, despite a prolonged bear market.

As Ford says:

It’s simply a case of thinking and calculating in terms different from those laid down to us by the international banking group to which we have grown so accustomed that we think there is no other desirable standard.

Do you think Bitcoin satisfies Henry Ford’s vision of an energy currency?

These three cryptocurrencies could serve as a hedge against Bitcoin

These three cryptocurrencies could serve as a hedge against Bitcoin

Disclaimer: This article contains technical analysis, which is a methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through
the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. The content presented in this article is the opinion of the author.
None of the information you read on CryptoSlate should be taken as investment advice. Buying and trading cryptocurrencies should be
considered a high-risk activity. Please do your own diligence and consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
The cryptocurrency market tends to move in one direction,
which is mostly defined by Bitcoin’s price action. However,
a recent report shows that several cryptos have proved to be highly uncorrelated.
This feature makes them ideal to use as a hedge against the rest of the market.
The most uncorrelated assets
Investopedia defines the term correlation as a statistic that measures the degree t
o which two assets move in relation to each other. This gauge can be implemented in portfolio management and is computed as a value that must fall
between -1.0 and +1.0.
Assets with a correlation above 0.5 have a strong positive linear relationship.
Conversely, assets with a correlation below -0.5 are considered to have a
strong negative association,
which indicates that they move in opposite direction to the rest of the market.
If the correlation coefficient is 0,
this implies that there is no observable linear relationship between the two assets.
According to a recent Binance report,
the lowest correlated assets in the cryptocurrency market are Cosmos (ATOM), Chainlink (LINK), and Tezos (XTZ).
Throughout 2019, these cryptocurrencies displayed a correlation coefficient of 0.31, 0.32, and 0.40, respectively. But, there are other factors to consider, as the report reads:
“One differentiating factor between Cosmos and the other large-cap cryptoassets is the listing time – Cosmos only got launched and listed during the end of Q1 2019. As the median correlation of ATOMs appears to be increasing – annual corr. coeff. of 0.31 for 2019 with a coefficient of 0.56 for Q4 2019 -, the lower listing time might be one factor to explain this phenomenon.”
Source: Binance Research
The fact that these three cryptocurrencies moved opposite to Bitcoin during 2019 makes them useful as a hedge against it. Under this premise, analyzing their price behavior could provide some insights on where the pioneer crypto is heading next.
Cosmos (ATOM)
Cosmos is contained within a parallel channel since Jan. 19. Since then, every time this cryptocurrency plunges to the bottom of the channel, it bounces off to the middle or the top. But, when it surges to the top of the channel, it pulls back to the middle or the bottom.
Due to the inability to determine whether ATOM could breakout to the downside or to the upside, the trading range between $4.38 and $4.68 is a reasonable no-trade zone. Closing below or above this area will define the direction of the trend.ATOM/USD by TradingView
An increase in the amount of sell orders behind Cosmos could push it to break the support level. Moving below this significant price hurdle, could send this cryptocurrency down to the 38.2 percent Fibonacci retracement level that sits at $4.05.
Conversely, a spike in demand for ATOM that allows it to breakout of the current consolidation period could take it to retest the recent high of $5.38.
ATOM/USD by TradingView
Chainlink (LINK)
Like Cosmos, Chainlink’s price action is also contained in a no-trade zone since trading within this area poses a high level of risk. In fact, LINK has been consolidating between the 50 and 61.8 percent Fibonacci retracement levels since Jan. 27. These levels sit at $2.60 and $2.66, respectively.
Closing below the 50 percent Fibonacci retracement level could push Chainlink to the next level of support that sits at $2.54. However, a move above the 61.8 percent Fibonacci retracement level could allow it to surge to $2.76 or higher.
LINK/USD by TradingView
Tezos (XTZ)
On Jan. 28, Tezos went from trading at a high of $1.57 to a low of $1.51. The sudden 3.55 percent nosedive created a bearish engulfing candlestick on XTZ’s 4-hour chart. This technical pattern is considered a bearish formation that is likely to reverse the bullish trend seen over the last few days. The bearish outlook will be confirmed once the succeeding candlestick closes below the engulfing one.XTZ/USD by TradingView
An increase in the downward pressure around the current price levels could take XTZ to breakout of an ascending parallel channel where it has been trading since Jan. 25. Such a bearish impulse would likely trigger a steep correction.
Nonetheless, the ascending parallel channel could continue to hold. If so, then Tezos could bounce off the lower boundary of the channel to the middle or the upper boundary.
XTZ/USD by TradingView
Factors to consider
While Cosmos, Chainlink, and Tezos are contained within a consolidation period, Bitcoin recently failed to break above the $9,000 resistance level once again. Now, the pioneer cryptocurrency appears to be bound for a retracement.
The TD sequential indicator presented a sell signal in the form of a green nine candlestick on BTC’s 6-hour chart. This technical index estimates a one to four candlesticks correction or the beginning of a new downward countdown. A red two candlestick trading below a preceding red one candle could confirm the bearish outlook.
Additionally, an evening doji star candlestick pattern appears to be developing within the same time frame. This is a bearish reversal formation that occurs at the top of an uptrend.
Evening doji stars are composed of three candlesticks: a long green candle, a short candle, and a red candle. The combination of these three candlesticks indicates that BTC is losing its bullish momentum and could enter a corrective period.
BTC/USD by TradingView
Assuming that Cosmos, Chainlink, and Tezos are the most uncorrelated assets to Bitcoin, one could argue that if the flagship cryptocurrency retraces then these three cryptos could surge. If this is the case, such a dissociation would be important to have in mind when building a crypto portfolio.

Bitcoin, Ethereum & Litecoin – American Wrap: 1/28/2020

Bitcoin Price Analysis: BTC/USD bulls set to make a critical break above last week’s high

Bitcoin price is trading in positive territory, up +1.40% in the second half of the session. 
BTC/USD bulls are firmly back into control following a break north of $8500 again.
A big boost for the bulls as the $9000 price mark is reclaimed. 

Stocks To Watch Daily

What if you didn’t have to hunt around the internet looking for trade ideas every day? What if top researchers, analysts, and news correspondents did all the research for you? What if you could get all of that research in the easiest possible format every morning before the market opens? That’s exactly what you get when you subscribe to Benzinga Stocks To Watch. Click here to subscribe.

Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH/USD heading for a critical retest of last week’s high area

Ethereum price is trading in the green by 2.50% in the session on Tuesday. 
ETH/USD has been rallying for three straight days, as the bulls resume control, following a cooling period. 
The price must break above last week’s high area current resistance, for greater upside pressure. 

Litecoin Price Analysis: LTC/USD bulls have room to run higher following flag breakout

Litecoin price is trading in positive territory by 1% in the session on Tuesday. 
LTC/USD extends to the north, three straight days in the green, following flag breach. 
Supply can be observed around the $62-64 price range. 
Posted-In: Cryptocurrency News Emerging Market ETFs Currency ETFs Forex Global Markets ETFs

Major Exchange Restricts Crypto Transactions Linked to Coin Mixing, Sparking Privacy Concerns

Another crypto trading service appears to have started flagging transactions associated with coin mixing services. Although good for regulatory compliance in the industry, the emerging trend represents a clear invasion of privacy.
Paxful seems to have joined Binance in restricting transactions involving coin mixing services. A user of the peer-to-peer marketplace reports the platform questioning them over a recent Bitcoin transaction involving a coin mixer.
Users of Crypto Coin Mixers Targeted by Another Exchange
According to a Twitter user, the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency market place Paxful has started restricting services to users of privacy-enhancing tools. In the following tweet, Ronald McHodled (@RonaldMcHodled) shows a message apparently from the platform’s support team.
Wtf?? Apparently you are not allowed to do what you want with your bitcoin once you own the keys. Fortunately that’s not how Bitcoin works, but the level of chain analysis here is alarming. What is a correct response? @MartyBent @matt_odell @vandrewattycpa

View image on Twitter
It informs the user that the company has identified a withdrawal from the platform involving a coin mixing service. According to the message, Paxful does not permit such transactions.
A crypto coin mixer or tumbler is a service intended to improve the privacy of digital assets built on open public blockchains. They work by pooling a group of the same asset and distributing random “coins” from the pool back to each participant. This obscures efforts by blockchain forensics companies to track digital assets.
In a subsequent tweet to the above thread, the user explains that the terms and conditions they originally agreed to did not mention mixing services. They add that they simply were mixing the coins as a privacy measure before placing them in long term cold storage.
Commenting on the level of “chain analysis” on display, Ronald McHodled notes that they actually first sent the Bitcoin withdrawal in question to a private address. They then went on to mix the coins, which prompted the alert from Paxful.
The Paxful example is the second of its kind in less than two months. At the end of last year, NewsBTC reported on the experience of a Binance Singapore user.
The user was withdrawing Bitcoin to Wasabi, a wallet with a built-in Coin Mixing service. The exchange froze their account and demanded information relating to the nature of the transaction, including the user’s annual income.
A Dangerous Precedent for Privacy?
Although a clear attack on financial privacy, the censorship of the above transactions should hardly come as a surprise. After all, exchange platforms like Binance and Paxful are attempting to remain as regulatory-compliant as possible in an ever-changing landscape.
Such reports are still isolated, yet it’s likely we’ll see more of them in the future as crypto exchanges attempt to curry the favour of global regulators. One of the major bones of contention lawmakers have with the industry is that crypto assets may enable money laundering. The fear is that coin mixing services make such financial crimes easier.
Exchanges clamping down on coin mixing users seems likely to drive more privacy-conscious and technically able crypto users to build alternatives to centralised exchanges. Although examples of decentralised exchanges do exist, they don’t yet solve the problem of trading digital currency for fiat. If the market demands more privacy, such platforms may well evolve to encompass trades to fiat. In turn, they may well become the go-to solution for crypto trading.
Source : NewsBtc.com

Masalah Yang Sering Terjadi Pada Kelistrikan

Gangguan pada jaringan listrik atau sering disebut gangguan listrik sering terjadi dan tidak terdeteksi secara kasat mata, permasalahan jalur tenaga listrik tersebut diantaranya banyak gangguan seperti fluktuasi tegangan atau bahkan terputusnya tenaga listrik. Langkah penanganannya pun tidak mudah. Berikut uraian permasalahan dan solusinya.

Sumber tenaga listrik saat ini merupakan kebutuhan

5 Langkah Persiapan Kuliah S2 di Jerman yang Wajib Dipersiapkan

Kuliah S2 di Jerman – Jerman merupakan negara dengan sistem pendidikan yang sangat disegani di dunia internasional. Institusi pendidikan tinggi seperti universitas menawarkan berbagai macam fasilitas khususnya untuk riset. Macam-macam jurusan dapat dipilih sesuai dengan passion. Satu hal lagi yang menarik minat banyak orang untuk kuliah di Jerman adalah biaya yang gratis. 

Siapa saja yang

Mengenal fitur Dark Mode pada Instagram dan cara menerapkannya

Berwarna, terkonsep dan eye-catching. Tampilan keren dan memukau mata itu terlihat di salah satu feed Instagram milik jasa layanan on-demand di Jakarta Halo Jasa. Feed yang eye-catching tersebut terlihat semakin menarik saat Dark Mode diaktifkan. Tapi tunggu dulu, kita bukan ingin membahas mengenai feed. Tapi membahas mengenai dark mode itu sendiri.

Setelah diakuisisi oleh Facebook, Instagram