Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A comparison of GARCH ...

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results submitted by intothecryptoverse to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results submitted by intothecryptoverse to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results submitted by intothecryptoverse to intothecryptoverse [link] [comments]

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results submitted by intothecryptoverse to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results

Presenting Bitcoin Letters, a 21-page report on Bitcoin ROI, risk management, logarithmic regression, volatility, moving average derivatives, comparisons with the S&P 500, dominance compared to the total cryptocurrency market capitalization, and poll results submitted by intothecryptoverse to BitcoinCA [link] [comments]

Bitcoin’s Volatility Looks Tame in Comparison to Under Pressure Turkish Lira

Bitcoin’s Volatility Looks Tame in Comparison to Under Pressure Turkish Lira submitted by IndependentDuck4 to CryptoComes [link] [comments]

Bitcoin is not the New Gold – A comparison of volatility, correlation, and portfolio performance

Bitcoin is not the New Gold – A comparison of volatility, correlation, and portfolio performance submitted by Namensplatzhalter to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Turkish lira is so volatile it’s making Bitcoin look tame by comparison

The Turkish lira is so volatile it’s making Bitcoin look tame by comparison submitted by theprofitgod to The_Profit [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Tron vs Bitcoin sentiment comparison. Notice the volatility? Data by BittsAnalytics

The following post by PrimusAlpha1 is being replicated because the post has been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7okz4z
The original post's content was as follows:
https://i.redd.it/xrg7jr1jrh801.jpg
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

@business: RT @crypto: "The Turkish lira is so volatile it’s making Bitcoin look tame by comparison" https://t.co/UbHUnTl1CU https://t.co/ATEmP1bfZO

submitted by -en- to newsbotMARKET [link] [comments]

@BloombergQuint: The Turkish lira is so volatile it’s making bitcoin look tame by comparison. Read: https://t.co/ULq1UPTcb9 https://t.co/667MbXJ6BJ

@BloombergQuint: The Turkish lira is so volatile it’s making bitcoin look tame by comparison. Read: https://t.co/ULq1UPTcb9 https://t.co/667MbXJ6BJ submitted by -en- to newsbotMARKET [link] [comments]

Tron vs Bitcoin sentiment comparison. Notice the volatility? Data by BittsAnalytics /r/Bitcoin

Tron vs Bitcoin sentiment comparison. Notice the volatility? Data by BittsAnalytics /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

@BloombergQuint: The Turkish lira is so volatile it’s making Bitcoin look tame by comparison. Read: https://t.co/KZuvaHtM1m https://t.co/P3BJ68pZmj

@BloombergQuint: The Turkish lira is so volatile it’s making Bitcoin look tame by comparison. Read: https://t.co/KZuvaHtM1m https://t.co/P3BJ68pZmj submitted by -en- to newsbotMARKET [link] [comments]

@business: RT @crypto: "The Turkish lira is so volatile it’s making Bitcoin look tame by comparison" https://t.co/DHJwCoZKby https://t.co/8UQ7fILKJQ

submitted by -en- to newsbotMARKET [link] [comments]

Volatility comparison - Swiss National Bank vs Bitcoin /r/Bitcoin

Volatility comparison - Swiss National Bank vs Bitcoin /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Volatility comparison - Swiss National Bank vs Bitcoin

5 days and 5 years view here
submitted by Qris_7 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Real-time Bitcoin Volatility Tracker - with Trends and Comparisons to S&P500/Gold/Euro/etc.

Real-time Bitcoin Volatility Tracker - with Trends and Comparisons to S&P500/Gold/Euro/etc. submitted by Terpbear to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I bought $1k of the Top 10 Cryptos on January 1st, 2020 (Sept Update)

I bought $1k of the Top 10 Cryptos on January 1st, 2020 (Sept Update)

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2020 - Month Nine - UP +56%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr
  • I thought I'd mix it up and start with the 2020 Top Ten first this month.
  • Rough month, but still way up in 2020, and still way ahead of the stock market.
  • I purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2020, haven't sold or traded. Did the same in 2018 and 2019. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experiments here.
  • Sept - down month for 2020 Top Ten, except for BNB, which crushed it (+25%)
  • Overall since Jan. 2020 - ETH in the lead (+187%), BNB in distant second place. 100% of 2020 Top Ten are in positive territory and have a combined ROI of +56% vs. +5% of the S&P
  • Combining all three three years, Top Ten cryptos underperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.

Month Nine – UP 56%

2020 Top Ten Overview
After a rough start to the month, most of crypto had a Wake Me Up When September Ends moment. For the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio, it was bad, but could have been (as has been) much worse: it was the best performing of the Top Ten “Index Fund” Experiments in September and at least one of the cryptos (BNB up +25%) had a great month.

Question of the month:

In September, this decentralized exchange (DEX) overtook Coinbase in trading volume:

A) UniswapB) AaveC) CompoundD) Both A and B
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and September Winners and Losers

2020 Top 10 Rank
Lots of movement this month: six out of the Top Ten changed positions in September. BCH climbed one from #6 to #5 and BNB made a big move from #10 to #6. Going the opposite direction were BSV, EOS, and Tezos, dropping one, two, and four places respectively.
The big story though, at least for anyone who’s been watching crypto for a while, was the ejection of Litecoin from the Top Ten. In just 30 days, LTC fell five places from #7 to #12. For some context, Litecoin’s absence from the Top Ten is a Top Ten Experiment first. It is also the first time since CoinMarketCap has tracked crypto rankings that Litecoin has not has not held a spot in the Top Ten.
Drop outs: after nine months of the experiment, 30% of the cryptos that started 2020 in the Top Ten have dropped out. LTC, EOS, and Tezos have been replaced by ADA, LINK, and most recently, DOT.
September Winners – Winner, singular: BNB was the only crypto to finish in the green, finished up +25% for the month, and gained four places in the rankings. A very good month for Binance Coin.
September LosersTezos was the worst performing crypto of the 2020 Top Ten portfolio, losing nearly a third of its value, down -31% for the month. LTC also had a bad month, losing -24% and dropping out of the Top Ten.
Since COVID-19 has hammered the sporting world, let’s be overly competitive and pit these cryptos against each other, shall we? Here’s a table showing which cryptos have the most monthly wins and losses nine months into the 2020 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment:

Wins/Losses
ETH is in the lead three monthly Ws, followed by Tether and Tezos with two wins each. Even though it is up +79% since January 1st, 2020, BSV has the most monthly losses: it has been the worst performing crypto of the group four out of the first nine months in 2020.

Overall update – ETH maintains strong lead, followed by BNB. 100% of Top Ten are in positive territory.

Ethereum remains firmly in the lead, up +187% on the year. Thanks to a strong month for BNB and a weak month for Tezos, Binance Coin has overtaken XTZ for second place, and is now up +109% in 2020.
Discounting Tether (no offense Big-T), EOS (+4%) is the worst performing cryptocurrency of the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio. 100% of the cryptos in this group are in positive territory.

Total Market Cap for the cryptocurrency sector:

The overall crypto market lost about $35B in September, ending the month up +85% since the beginning of this year’s experiment in January 2020. Despite a rough month, this is the second highest month-end level since the 2020 Top Ten Experiment started nine months ago.

Bitcoin dominance:


Monthly BitDom - 2020
BitDom ticked up slightly this month, but is still lower than it has been for most of the year. As always, a low BitDom reflects a greater appetite for altcoins. For context, the BitDom range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2020 has been roughly between 57% and 68%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2020:

After an initial $1000 investment on January 1st, the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio is now worth $1,536, up +56%. This is the best performing of the three Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Portfolios, but not by much: the 2019 Top Ten came in at +54% in September.
Here’s the month by month ROI of the 2020 Top Ten Experiment, hopefully helpful to maintain perspective and provide an overview as we go along:
Monthly ROI - 2020 Top Ten
Even during the zombie apocalypse blip in March, the 2020 Top Ten has managed to end every month so far in the green (for a mirror image, check out the all red table you’ll find in the 2018 experiment). The range of monthly ROI for the 2020 Top Ten has been between a low of +7% in March and high of +83% in August.
So, how does the 2020 Top Ten Experiment compare to the parallel projects?
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for the three portfolios:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, the combined portfolios are worth $‭3,340‬ ($238+ $1,538 +$1,564).
That’s up about +11% for the three combined portfolios, compared to +31% last month.
Here’s a table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios:
Combined ROI - UP +11%
That’s a +11% gain by buying $1k of the cryptos that happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
But what if I’d gone all in on only one Top Ten crypto for the past three years? While many have come and gone over the life of the experiment, five cryptos have started in Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC (Big L, no pressure, but if you don’t claw yourself back in the Top Ten by January 2021, you’re out of the club). Let’s take a look:

Three Year Club
At this point in the Experiments, Ethereum (+104%) would have easily returned the most, followed by BTC (+77%). On the other hand, following this approach with XRP, I would have been down nearly a third at -31%.
So that’s the Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiments snapshot. Let’s take a look at how traditional markets are doing.

Comparison to S&P 500

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point to traditional markets. The S&P slipped a bit from an all time high in August and is now up just +5% in 2020.
Over the same time period, the 2020 Top Ten Crypto Portfolio is returning about +56%. The initial $1k investment in crypto is now worth about $1,563. That same $1k I put into crypto in January 2020 would be worth $1050 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 instead. That’s a $513 difference on a $1k investment, one of the largest gaps in favor of crypto all year.
But that’s just 2020. What about in the longer term? What if I invested in the S&P 500 the same way I did during the first three years of the Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiments? What I like to call the world’s slowest dollar cost averaging method? Here are the figures:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018 = $1260 today
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019 = $1350 today
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020 = $1050 today
So, taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,660.
That $3,660 is up +22% since January 2018, compared to a +11% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios over the same period of time.
That’s an 11% swing in favor of the S&P 500 and breaks a two month mini-streak of wins from the Top Ten crypto portfolios.
For those keeping track or unable to see the table above: that’s seven monthly victories for the S&P vs. two monthly victories for crypto. The largest gap so far was a 22% difference in favor of the S&P back in June.

Conclusion:

September saw losses for both traditional and crypto markets, but crypto got hit harder. What can we expect for the rest of 2020? The Neverending Year is entering the final quarter and is not finished with us yet: a lot can and will happen in the remaining months. More volatility is no doubt to come as we enter the final stretch of a truly unpredictable and exhausting year. Buckle up.
Stay healthy and take care of yourselves out there.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the 2019 Top Ten Experiment follow up experiment.

And the Answer is…

A) Uniswap
As part of the DeFi/DEX wave, in late August/early September, Uniswap surpassed Coinbase in trading volume.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I bought $1k of the Top 10 Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Sept Update)

I bought $1k of the Top 10 Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Sept Update)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2018 - Month 33 - Down -76%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr
  • First one to find the three hidden cultural references gets some moons.
  • What's this all about? I purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2018, haven't sold or traded. Did the same in 2019 and 2020. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experiments here.
  • September - BTC, although -8%, outperforms the field this month.
  • Overall since Jan. 2018 - Bitcoin miles ahead of the pack, and only one close-ish to break even point.
  • Combining all three three years, Top Ten cryptos underperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.

Month Thirty Three – Down 76%

2018 Top Ten Summary for September
After a rough start to September, crypto spent the month trying in vain to claw back ground. While a few coins rebounded quite a bit from the monthly lows, most ended up finishing the month significantly down. Out of the 2018 Top Ten group, Bitcoin lost the least, down -8% in September. NEM followed it’s winning August (yes, you read that right) with the poorest performance, down -26%.

Question of the month:

Which cryptocurrency exchange won approval to create America’s first crypto bank in September?

A) Binance B) Binance.us C) Kraken D) Coinbase
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and September Winners and Losers

Rank of 2018 Portfolio - 50% no longer in Top Ten
A lot of shuffling in September. On the upside, Bitcoin Cash and Cardano gained one place each landing at #5 and #10 respectively. Cardano gets special mention for re-entering the Top Ten.
Heading the wrong direction were IOTA, NEM, Dash, and Stellar each falling two or three spots.
The big story though, for long time crypto watchers, was the ejection of Litecoin from the Top Ten, down five places from #7 to #12 in just one month. For some context, Litecoin’s absence from the Top Ten is a Top Ten Experiment first. It is also the first time since CoinMarketCap has tracked crypto rankings that Litecoin has not been in the Top Ten.
Drop outs: After thirty-three months of this experiment 50% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out. NEM, Litecoin, Dash, IOTA, and Stellar have been replaced by Binance Coin, Tether, BSV, LINK, and most recently, DOT.
September Winners – Although it lost -8% of its value, this month’s W goes to Bitcoin. ADA gets second place, down -15% and climbing back into the Top Ten.
September Losers – As most probably expected after an extremely out of character victory last month, NEM came back down to earth in September, bigly, down -26%. Litecoin finished right behind, down -24% and dropping out of the Top Ten.
For the overly competitive, below is a tally of the winners of the first 33 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment. Bitcoin still has the most monthly wins (8) and Cardano in second place with 6 monthly wins. With its poor September performance, NEM now has 7 monthly losses.
Ws and Ls - One clear winner
Every crypto has at least one monthly win and Bitcoin is unique as the only cryptocurrency that hasn’t lost a month yet since January 2018.

Overall update – BTC solidly in the lead, followed by ETH. Dash in the basement, LTC drops out of the Top Ten.

Even though BTC took a bit of a detour on its way back to break-even point, it is still far ahead of the field, down -17% since January 2018. The initial investment of $100 thirty-three months ago is now worth about $83. Second place Ethereum is down -49% over the same time period.
At this point in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, Dash is at the bottom. It is currently worth $70.49, down from a January 1st, 2018 starting price of over $1,000. That’s a loss of -93%. The initial $100 invested in Dash 33 months ago is now worth $6.77.
The big story this month is LTC’s departure from the Top Ten, the first time since I started the experiment back in January 2018. Whether or not it will eventually fend off the new generation of coins remains to be seen, but it certainly is noteworthy to have one of the most well known and long standing cryptos drop out of the Top Ten. Consider pouring one out for Litecoin.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market lost over $35B in September and is down -39% since January 2018. The value of the overall crypto market is near where it was in August of this year, just a few months back. As painful as the beginning of the month was, looking at a table like this helps with perspective, especially if you’re panic prone.

Bitcoin dominance:

After steadily dipping for months, BitDom increased a bit in September, up to 57.5%.
For some context: since the beginning of the experiment, the range of Bitcoin dominance has been quite wide: we saw a high of 70% BitDom in September 2019 and a low of 33% BitDom in February 2018.

Overall return on $1,000 investment since January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio lost -$50 this month. If I cashed out today, the $1000 initial investment would return about $238, down -76% from January 2018.
September broke an encouraging upward trend, but at least the portfolio is taking a break from the -80% range. Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month, for some context:
33 Monthly ROIs on Top Ten since Jan 2018
The absolute bottom was -88% back in January 2019.
So the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018 are down -76%. What about the 2019 and 2020 Top Tens? Let’s take a look:
So overall? Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $‭3,340‬ ($238+ $1,538 +$1,564).
That’s up about +11% for the three combined portfolios, compared to +31% last month.
Here’s a table to help visualize:
Combined ROI on $3k over 3 years - UP +11%
That’s a +11% gain by investing $1k on whichever cryptos happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st for three straight years.
But surely you’d do better if you went all in on one crypto, right?
Depends on your choice. Let’s take a look:

ETH for the win
Only five cryptos have started in the Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC (unless Litecoin can make a comeback by the 1st of Jan. 2021, it’s not going to make the four year club!). Knowing what we know now, which one would have been best to go all in on?
Ethereum, by a pretty good margin: the initial $3k would be up +104%, worth $6,118 today. The worst choice of a basket to put all your eggs in at this point in the experiment is XRP, down by almost one third.

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 Index fell from an all time high in August, but is currently up +26% since January 2018.
S&P since Jan. 2018
The initial $1k investment into crypto on January 1st, 2018 would have been worth about $1260 had it been redirected to the S&P.
But what if I took the same invest-$1,000-on-January-1st-of-each-year approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments? Here are the numbers:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018 = $1260 today
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019 = $1350 today
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020 = $1050 today
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,660.
That is up +22% since January 2018, compared to a +11% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
That’s an 11% swing in favor of the S&P 500 and breaks a two month mini-streak of wins from the Top Ten crypto portfolios.
S&P vs. Top Ten Crypto Experiments
That’s seven monthly victories for the S&P vs. two monthly victories for crypto. The largest gap so far was a 22% difference in favor of the S&P in June.

Conclusion:

September was a tough month for both traditional and crypto markets. What’s next for the rest of 2020? More volatility is no doubt to come as we enter the last quarter of a truly unpredictable and exhausting year. Buckle up.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.

And the Answer is…

C) Kraken
According to an official announcement in September, Kraken is “the first digital asset company in U.S. history to receive a bank charter recognized under federal and state law.”
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoiners vs Altcoiners, and a lesson learned.

Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. It's only my personal opinion. You can agree or disagree. Stay civil.
It seems clear that we're in a new Bitcoin rally. With Bitcoin ready to attack its latest ATH, the question arises: Should we buy Bitcoin? My answer is: It depends. If we buy a Bitcoin now and it reaches its current all time high, we'd be talking about a return of less than double. That's very little considering that this is crypto and crypto means sick profits. If the good predictions came true and it reached $100,000, we would be talking about something less than x10 of profit. This is a lot. Not bad at all. But being crypto and being Bitcoin, I still find it a bit poor considering the tremendous effort that Bitcoin would need to make. One thing is clear, if you want an insane profit, the moon, the lambo, you have to go for altcoins and use Bitcoin as a volatility catalyst. That is, when Bitcoin goes up and drags the whole market up. If you're looking for the dream of becoming a millionaire, you have to assume it's too late to buy Bitcoin, unless you're willing to invest a lot of money or you're convinced it can reach 500k or even 1 million. Which I personally see as unlikely, at least in the short term. Bitcoin, however, can be used as a store of value. Even if some people disagree with this, the truth is that Bitcoin is nearly 12 years old and has only been more expensive than today during a few days in all this time. This is what a store of value is supposed to be. And it's not even mainstream yet.
So what altcoins to buy? When I think of altcoins I am thinking of tokens with less than 1B market capitalization. Tokens with a great growth potential. Of course, the smaller their market capitalization the more price potential, but also the risk is higher. Personally, I think the risk, during the Bitcoin bull cycle, is a bit overestimated, since the whole market goes up. It's very difficult for the lowcap token you've bought not to appreciate by at least a X10. I speak from the experience of having lived the 2017 bull market. It is very important to choose tokens with the lowest possible supply. In a frantic market, where Bitcoin is spreading collective hysteria throughout the market, the utility of the token takes a back seat. It's the scarcity of that token what will determine its price potential. And the exposure. And the exchanges the token is being traded on, or potential big exchanges that it will be added.
Lesson that I learned.
I have explained this a few times already on reddit. I once had 18 Bitcoin. Today it would be $234,000. I didn't sell them to make a profit, I've always been convinced that Bitcoin was going to reach 6 digits and I'm still convinced of that right now. I lost 18 Bitcoin for trying to tame the market. It's impossible to tame the market. An idea as seemingly simple as buying cheap and selling expensive unwittingly changes into buying expensive and selling cheap. Cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile. There is no comparison to anything else. No one is mentally prepared to see Bitcoin fall by 50% after buying, or to see Bitcoin increase in value by 50% after selling. The stress that these situations put on our weak minds is what makes us fail. Taming the market is exactly the same as gambling. You're betting that Bitcoin will go down and therefore you're selling. Or you bet that Bitcoin will go up and therefore you buy. You can get it right once, but sooner or later you'll fail and ruin everything. It's a lottery. Everybody in Reddit likes to show off when they make a successful trade, but only a few post when they fuck it up.
In 2017 I had around 2500 tokens of a shitcoin called XLM (Solaris). A very scarce token I bought very cheap. If I recall correctly, I sold them all at 20something cents and placed a buy order at 15 cents. The shit went down to 16 or 17 cents… then skyrocketed to $40 in December. My buy order was never executed.
There's no way to predict the future, even with all those lines that people who want to be famous do at the expense of your naivety, the market analysts. Just buy and hold. Don't trade. Don't risk losing. Don't play like this is a casino, this is an investment and investments take time. I was one of the lucky ones who bought XRP for less than a penny. I find it very funny when people make jokes about the price of XRP. A lot of people are in the red with XRP and think that XRP is a shitty coin. However, there is something they don't understand. They are not objectively evaluating XRP because they bought it at a very specific time. I have never been in the red with XRP because I bought before the 2017 jump. They and I simply see reality from different perspectives. The token is the same for us, our point of view is not. They call a token that has yielded a fantastic X100 from my investment a shitcoin. It's a matter of perspective. I want to tell you that for years, people who bought Bitcoin at $1000 were suffering tremendous losses, as Bitcoin dropped to $200 after that. Today everyone would kill to be able to buy a single Bitcoin at $1000. PERSPECTIVE. The casino is a short term game. The investments are LONG-TERM projects.
The 2017 bull run took the whole market to a new level and never went back. Are we going to see a new level in 2021?
submitted by cecil_X to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Paying less fees using BTC

First of all, if you live on US or China this is probably not for you!

DISCLAIMER

I am not affiliated to any bitcoin broker (or any financial company, actually) nor agent. I will explicitly show the names of those services to provide a real example so you could follow my exact steps.
The goal of this post is to show you how you could reduce fee/taxes that you pay by recharging your agent balance using bitcoin (in the case this is new information for you). So, if saving money is something you like, keep reading.
I’ll now compare two distinct recharge methods including the math behind each US dollar conversion rate, agent/payment processor fees and operational taxes. Let’s go:

Rates (16/09/2020)

USD Ptax 1.00 = BRL 5.254
USD 1.00 = CNY 6.501 (Cssbuy’s rate)
BTC 1.00 = USD 10,974.90 (high volatility)
USD Ptax is the dollar rate charged by Brazilian international credit cards. It’s slightly higher than mid-market.

PAYSSION/BTC

First of all, you have to buy bitcoins. I’ve used a broker called BrasilBitcoin. The general requirements for a good broker are no deposit (on your local currency) or transfer fees. Here I’m talking about platform fees. All bitcoin transactions have a fee that’s paid to some agent in the blockchain network. Note that this fee is a fixed amount no matter the transfer amount. So, of course, high amounts are preferable.
I’ve made a deposit on this broker of BRL 1,000.
BRL 1,000 = BTC 0.01742291
At that time, the network fee was BTC 0.00017697. So, the value available for transfer was BTC 0.01724594.
BTC 0.01724594 = USD 189.27
Cssbuy has a fee of 1% for bitcoin recharge operations. So, this USD 189.27, minus operational fee, becomes USD 187.37.
USD 187.37 = CNY 1,218.15

PAYPAL

This is, of course, the most straightforward and recommended payment method. I’ve been using it for some time and it’s just easy and works fine, but, unfortunately, it’s also really expensive.
PayPal fee (using Cssbuy) is 3% of total value + USD 0.30. For instance, if you intend to recharge USD 10 the actual amount you’ll pay is 10.3 + 0.3 = 10.6.
Banks, usually, charge an additional spread fee on the USD value. My bank sets a 4% fee. International payments in Brazil also have a tax called IOF and it’s 6.28% of the total amount in BRL.
In order to have a final credit card charge of BRL 1,000, removing bank fees and taxes, the actual transactional amount was 1,000 * (1 - 0.0638) * 0.96 = 898.75.
BRL 898.75 = USD 171.06
Removing PayPal charges, I ended up with (171.06 - 0.3) / 1.03 = 165.78.
USD 165.78 = CNY 1,077.73

COMPARISON

(PayPal) BRL 1,000 = CNY 1,077.73
(BTC) BRL 1,000 = CNY 1,218.15
As you can see, using bitcoin I had a 12% increase on the final balance on my agent. Also remember that bitcoin transactional fees are a fixed amount. So, the higher the recharge amount, the lower is the percentual fee, whereas the credit card fees/taxes are proportional to this recharge amount.
I know that fees/taxes I pay for credit card usage in Brazil are different from other countries' but do the math and check whether this strategy is good for you.
If you are interested in trying this kind of payment, I would recommend starting with the lowest recharge amount possible (USD 10) in order to do an end-to-end test. In the case everything goes right you do with your originally intended amount.
submitted by SnooPineapples7331 to FashionReps [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Volatility: China Ban, Crash + Spike and Altcoin Prices [One Minute Answers] Tesla ‘Eating Bitcoin’s Lunch’ as Realized Volatility Hits 3 Year Low Bitcoin Volatility ? Market Cap affect. Good News, Key Bitcoin Indicator (Volatility) Is Dropping Like A Rock (The Cryptoverse #203) What's Behind Bitcoin's Volatility?

As Bitcoin is mainly used for investment purposes, examining its volatility is of high importance. This paper investigated the ability of several competing GARCH-type models to explain the Bitcoin price volatility. We found evidence that the optimal model in terms of goodness-of-fit to the data is the AR-CGARCH, a result which suggests the importance of having both a short-run and a long-run ... Bitcoin Volatility In a previous volatility study , I established that bitcoin is well on the path to being the most stable currency in the world, an astounding claim, one that surprised even me. Crypto Volatility - Learn more about volatility statistics with our online tool that calculates the historic volatility for bitcoin and crypto currency markets. volatility. indicator . contact us. cookie policy. privacy policy. volatility. indicator. contact. menu . menu . volatility per hour (GMT) (accum avg / hour / satoshi's) volatility per day (accum avg / day / satoshi's) historic ... Figure 4: Comparison of Bitcoin (BTC/USD) volatility to that of FX pairs. Dashed line: BTC/USD historical volatility (left axis); Continuous lines: FX pairs historical volatility (right axis). Correlations. Finally, the correlation between Bitcoin returns and other assets is shown in Figure 5. The sign of the correlation between Bitcoin and the S&P 500 reversed from January to March, evolving ... Compares Bitcoin volatility to other asset classes. Bitcoin Money Supply vs USD Is Bitcoin trending towards a world reserve currency? Bitcoin Inflation Rate Track the historic inflation annual rate of Bitcoin's money supply. Bitcoin Monetary Velocity Is Bitcoin trending towards payments or savings/investments? Bitcoin Volume vs Network Value Volume transmitted by Bitcoin's blockchain tracks ...

[index] [23626] [28364] [35165] [36633] [10045] [4895] [3110] [14479] [30611] [1874]

Bitcoin Volatility: China Ban, Crash + Spike and Altcoin Prices [One Minute Answers]

Bitcoin volatility has fallen since 2011 and compared to the U.S. dollar currently sits at about 3-4 times higher than the Japanese yen, British pound, and euro. Because they can make money off the volatility," Williams said. Williams also noted that it is extremely interesting to compare Bitcoin to more established commodities like gold. With gold ... Bitcoin throughout its short decade long history has been on a steady uptrend in price and in a secular bull market. But while price is rising, volatility has long been trending down. But what are ... Three bitcoin volatility-related questions have been in the spotlight on this week's edition of One Minute Answers from One Minute Economics: 1) a question a... Bitcoin ( BTC ) set another dubious record on July 15 as realized volatility sank to its lowest in three years. According to data from on-chain analytics resource Skew, 30-day realized volatility ...

#