In an announcement thats shaking up the NFT space, OnChainMonkey NFT collection is making a daring transition. The collection is moving its comprehensive array of 10,000 NFTs from Ethereum to Bitcoin. As first reported by Cointelegraph, this massive transition is set to span several months and is a testament to the overwhelming trust the community has in Bitcoins unparalleled security and decentralization mechanisms.

Deciphering the Bold Move

Danny Yang, CEO of Metagood, unveiled this impending transition on September 7th. He emphasized that their prime collection, OCM Genesis, will transition from Ethereums realm to that of Bitcoin. Originally launched on Ethereum in September 2021, the OnChainMonkey collection is making this stride mainly because of the communitys unanimous sentiment. They resoundingly believe in the security and decentralization features Bitcoin Ordinals offers over Ethereum.

Highlighting this sentiment, Yang stated, The Bitcoin Ordinal protocol distinctly outshines the Ethereum NFT protocol in areas of decentralization and security. This paves the way for high-caliber NFTs to truly shine on Bitcoin. A monumental 99% of OnChainMonkey tokenholders endorsed this shift, spotlighting their shared conviction in the benefits of Bitcoin.

However, transitioning isnt a cakewalk. Metagood anticipates a sizable expenditure, which might exceed $1 million, to ensure this migration is hiccup-free.

Preserving Legacy and Authenticity

Amidst the intricacies of this process, every newly crafted OnChainMonkey on Bitcoin promises to have a clear lineage traced back to its Ethereum counterpart. To effectuate this, holders will be awarded the corresponding Bitcoin Ordinal once theyve decommissioned their Ethereum NFT.

Yang also revisited Metagoods prior ventures to showcase their proficiency in handling such tasks. He remarked, Our trailblazing endeavors include inscribing 10,000 images of a collection on Bitcoin, initiating a parent-child collection with OCM Dimensions 300, and pioneering recursive inscriptions on Bitcoin.

Yet, Ethereum continues to reign supreme in the NFT marketplace. As per CryptoSlams recent data, Ethereum is leagues ahead with a whopping $236.8 million in NFT deals over the past month. Bitcoin, while making commendable strides, is currently placed sixth with $11.1 million.

Yang, however, is buoyant about Bitcoins prospects. He envisions a vibrant Bitcoin-centric NFT ecosystem and believes that both Bitcoin and Ethereum have the potential to co-exist and prosper.

Ordinals is an elegant protocol, and like Bitcoin, is both simple and powerful.

Snapshot of the Present Market

Presently, OnChainMonkey NFTs are traded at an average baseline price of 1.10 Ether (ETH). Theyve accumulated an impressive transaction volume exceeding 20,550 ETH since debuting on the illustrious NFT marketplace, OpenSea, in September 2021. Notably, a hefty 31% of the 2,900 OnChainMonkey NFT aficionados are unique, as stated by OpenSea.

The transition was further facilitated by the inception of Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens at the beginning of this year, a development following the successful Taproot soft fork in November 2021.

TL;DR: As first spotlighted by Cointelegraph, OnChainMonkey NFT collection is transitioning its entire assortment of 10,000 NFTs from Ethereum to Bitcoin. The communitys faith in Bitcoins security and decentralization features fuels this move.

Read the original here:

OnChainMonkey Embarks on a Bold Migration from Ethereum to Bitcoin, Citing Enhanced Security - NFT Culture

In a thought-provoking presentation at the recent Future of Decentralization, AI, and Computing Summit by UC Berkeley, renowned AI expert Dr. Mike Jordan took the stage to talk about a unique perspective of how AI should be viewed.

To start his presentation, Dr. Mike noted that it is more important to consider the why behind AI development in addition to the what and how, challenging the audience to reflect on the legacy they are leaving behind in this era of technological advancements.

The talk is less about the what and how, which occupy most of our time in AI, and more about the why,' Dr. Mike added. We often start in this field because its cool or fun, but as we grow older, we should think about the impact on society.

He urged the audience to consider the broader societal implications of their work. What legacy are you leaving? Dont be naive in thinking technology alone can fix everything, he cautioned.

Dr. Mikes perspective shifted the focus from individual AI advancements to the creation of collective systems.

Its not just about individual AI replacing humans; its about creating new kinds of collectives, he explained. These collectives, he said, involve networks of people with diverse desires and aspirations.

He narrated how humans have created transportation and communication collectives where we have shortened the distance between one person and another.

Also, we have seen how the field of medicine has evolved to give humans better services. The same needs to be replicated in the realms of economics, the earning power of people.

The talk delved into the decentralization of data and the importance of market mechanisms, fairness, and economic viability in a connected world.

The Professor challenged the audience to think beyond conventional AI paradigms and consider the impact of their work on markets and society.

One of his key points revolved around data ownership and value. Were living in a world where data creation is constant, from music to novels, and were using our devices for various creative activities. Its essential to value this data properly, both ethically and economically, he stressed.

To illustrate his point, Dr. Mike shared his involvement with UnitedMasters.com, a startup revolutionizing the music industry.

UnitedMasters operates as a three-way market, where musicians songs are produced, listened to, and brand deals are struck based on data flows.

It exemplifies the power of combining technical innovation with economic models to benefit artists and society.

Dr. Mike called attention to the need to solve complex problems that arise when creating such systems, urging AI researchers to think about equilibria and dynamics within these systems.

He called for a shift from traditional AI thinking to building technology that supports unforeseen collective intelligence.

Addressing the topic of federated learning, he challenged the current approach, stating that it lacks economic value for participants and suggested reevaluating the market mechanisms.

Federated learning is a machine learning approach where multiple decentralized devices or servers collaborate in training a shared model while keeping their data locally. This technique allows for privacy-preserving model training, as the raw data remains on the individual devices and is not centralized.

Instead, only model updates or gradients are exchanged during the training process, making it suitable for scenarios where data privacy is a concern, such as in healthcare or finance.

Dr. Mike concluded his talk by introducing the concept of statistical contract theory and its potential to revolutionize economics and incentives by incorporating data into contract design.

He noted that the use of incentives in the data economy has been shown to improve the rate at which users want to share their data as opposed to sharing their data without their consent. An incentive model in data sharing will help the industry improve.

View original post here:

AI expert cautions researchers to think long-term - CryptoTvplus

The world got familiar with the concept of decentralization with Bitcoin. Its the base of every cryptocurrency and its functionality. Today, decentralization itself has become an adaptable mechanism for businesses. Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) has established itself as an important concept in the market. To know it better, one must dive deeper into its workings and concepts.

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are self-governed and self-regulated groups. They run on blockchain and keep all the information on the open-source shared network. For business owners and stockholders, this system has great significance. It is because it brings transparency and better security. It also rules out any chances of fraudulent activities and unfair practices.

However, shared business structures arent entirely a new concept. Markets have actually tried them, but they couldnt be useful because of centralization. With DAO, the scope of centralization ceases altogether. No single entity or person can have more dominance than the others in it. In fact, the network ensures that every single member has the same privileges.

DAOs focus on automation and to determine that they totally eliminate third-party involvement. In order to join this network, users must buy the networks native tokens. Some examples of DAOs are Decentraland, Bitshares, MakerDAO, Augur, and DASH. They use smart contracts to implement the organizations rules.

The core development team creates these contracts and applies them to the network. With these digital agreements, the company makes the operations auditable too. They essentially lay the groundwork for the DAOs operations. Furthermore, they let any network member look into the protocols working at their will.

It goes beyond determining the fundamentals and figures out the financing structure too. It gives explicit instructions on how to go about funding and investments. To accomplish that, it makes use of a token issuance method. Under that, protocol sells tokens and pads up the companys coffer. Moreover, it entitles the token holders to receive voting rights in lieu of assets.

Once the funding is finished, the development team deploys the DAO. Mostly, developers use Solidity programming language to create DAO code. The next thing one needs to know about this network is its types.

Surprisingly, its not very costly to set up a DAO for a company. With easy and affordable development, it becomes the go-to governance setting for any business. At the same time, it brings more scalability and heightened security. Due to all these benefits, this platform is gaining popularity and it will most probably continue that streak for a long time.

Follow this link:

Get a Full Understanding of Types of DAOs and Their Creation - The Coin Republic

Pitango HealthTech II makes initial seed investmentsinQuantHealth.ai and Nevia Bio

HERZLIYA, Israel, Sept. 6, 2023 /PRNewswire/ --Pitango HealthTech, Pitango VC's dedicated healthcare fund, today announced the first closing of its second dedicated healthcare fund, Pitango HealthTech II. Pitango HealthTech II, a $175M fund, will be dedicated to investing in entrepreneurs leveraging data science, AI, medical devices and novel biology at the forefront of the transformation of healthcare.

The $9 Trillion global healthcare market is undergoing dramatic shifts, and Israeli entrepreneurs are building companies that are spearheading this transition.

Pitango HealthTech II invests in healthcare innovation, including the decentralization of healthcare, personalized medicine, medical devices and diagnostics, as well as artificial intelligence, software and data infrastructure.

"Despite the global and local macroeconomic challenges, the healthcare sector continues to show resilience and growth. Recent events such as the pandemic, decentralization of healthcare, and value-based care, have resulted in unprecedented openness towards the adoption of new technologies," said Ittai Harel, Managing Partner at Pitango HealthTech. "We're launching this new fund to continue to back entrepreneurs and invest in companies that are revolutionizing the healthcare industry. Pitango believes that the most promising healthcare innovations occur at the convergence of life science and medical technologies with data science and AI, coupled with innovative services. This revolution is at its early onset, and is yet to accelerate."

Pitango HealthTech invests in companies from seed to commercial stage. The fund's investment strategy is focused on all segments of healthcare and life sciences. Previous investments include value-driving companies such as Protai, Laguna Health, Vertos, Visby, Clew and Magenta. The first investments of the newest fund are QuantHealth.ai, an AI company focused on clinical trial simulations to accelerate and de-risk drug development, and Nevia Bio, a FemTech company developing an AI-based biomarker platform for early detection of women's health diseases.

Story continues

"The current environment offers great investment opportunities for health tech investors," said Hila Karah, Managing Partner at Pitango HealthTech. "Our team has decades of experience working with global healthcare providers, payers, medical device and pharma companies. We garner this expertise to support our portfolio companies from inception to scale. We're seeing an incredible generation of companies being formed right now and are looking forward to working with the best of them."

The Pitango HealthTech team is made up of Ittai Harel (Managing Partner), Hila Karah (Managing Partner), Dr. Jonathan Glazer (Partner), JoelSchoppig (Senior Principal) and Dr. Seth Rudnick (Special Advisor).

Pitango HealthTech is committed to promoting diversity within the healthcare technology space, upholding ESG standards and ensuring women founders in the domain receive the same access to investment opportunities.

Pitango HealthTech is part of the Pitango investment platform, operating alongside Pitango First and Pitango Growth Funds. Since its inception in 1993, Pitango has invested in over 250 companies and seen more than 85 become publicly traded companies, or acquired by strategic players.

"Pitango has been a key player in the healthcare ecosystem in Israel since its inception. Over the last three decades we've had the opportunity to invest in over 50 healthcare companies and see 15 of them exit successfully and many others on a strong growth trajectory," said Rami Kalish, Managing Partner and Co-Founder at Pitango. "It's a track record we're proud of and that gives us the confidence to double down with a second dedicated healthcare fund."

About Pitango HealthTech

HealthTech is Pitango's dedicated health tech fund investing in seed to commercial stage companies, ranging from digital health, medical devices, techbio and diagnostics, foodtech, ag-tech, biotech and life sciences. Pitango HealthTech investors combine clinical and operational experience with nearly three decades of investing in over 50 healthcare companies, with 15 successful exits.

About QuantHealth

QuantHealth has built a unique AI-based clinical trial simulation platform that allows pharmaceutical companies to simulate their upcoming clinical trials in a cloud environment, and test thousands of protocol variations to discover the trial design that will maximize the likelihood of success. The Tel Aviv based company is led by Orr Inbar and Arnon Horev.

About Nevia Bio

Nevio Bio is revolutionizing early disease detection in women, by developing a machine learning empowered platform for early detection of women's health indications. With non-invasive and easy-to-use diagnostics, Nevia aims to offer both point-of-care and at-home solutions. The Haifa based company is led by Dr. Inbal Zafir-Lavie and Dr. Shlomit Yehudai-Reshef, both experts in the life science field.

Media Contact

Sharon Erdesharon.e@pitango.com

Cision

View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pitango-healthtech-announces-the-first-closing-of-its-new-fund-pitango-healthtech-ii-301918976.html

SOURCE Pitango HealthTech

Read the rest here:

Pitango HealthTech Announces the First Closing of Its New Fund, Pitango HealthTech II - Yahoo Finance

Description

Blockchain technology has revolutionized the way we think about digital transactions, offering a decentralized platform where data is immutable and transparent. However, the industry faces a significant challenge known as the Scalability Trilemma, which posits that a blockchain can excel in only two out of three core aspects: Security, Scalability, and Decentralization. Understanding the architectural Read more

Blockchain technology has revolutionized the way we think about digital transactions, offering a decentralized platform where data is immutable and transparent. However, the industry faces a significant challenge known as the Scalability Trilemma, which posits that a blockchain can excel in only two out of three core aspects: Security, Scalability, and Decentralization.

Understanding the architectural differences between modular vs monolithic blockchain is crucial for anyone involved in this space. These architectures offer distinct approaches to solving the Scalability Trilemma, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

This Cryptopolitan guide aims to provide a comprehensive comparison between modular and monolithic blockchains, focusing on their impact on scalability, security, and decentralization. By the end, readers will have a clear understanding of which type of blockchain architecture best suits their specific needs.

Monolithic blockchains operate as a single-layer solution, where all core functions are integrated. This means that transaction execution, data availability, and consensus mechanisms all occur within the same network layer.

One of the primary benefits of monolithic blockchains is their simplicity, making them relatively easier for developers to build upon. This design has a proven track record, with notable examples being Bitcoin and Ethereum, both of which have garnered significant trust and credibility in the blockchain community.

However, monolithic blockchains come with their set of challenges. Their integrated design often leads to scalability issues, especially when transaction volumes surge. Additionally, their rigid structure can make it challenging to implement upgrades or adapt to emerging technological advancements.

In contrast to monolithic designs, modular blockchains employ a layered architecture. This allows for the separation of primary tasks such as transaction execution, data availability, and consensus mechanisms into distinct layers or modules.

Modular blockchains offer several compelling advantages. Scalability is significantly enhanced through the use of Layer 2 networks. At the base layer, a strong focus on security and decentralization is maintained. The architecture also supports flexibility and interoperability, enabling a wide range of applications. User experience is often superior due to this flexibility, and the design is future-proof, allowing for easier upgrades and adaptations.

Despite these benefits, modular blockchains are not without drawbacks. The layered architecture introduces complexity, making development and maintenance more challenging. Additionally, modular blockchains generally have a shorter track record compared to their monolithic counterparts, which may raise questions about their long-term viability.

When it comes to scalability, monolithic and modular blockchains adopt different strategies. Monolithic blockchains, with their single-layer architecture, often face bottlenecks when transaction volumes surge. On the other hand, modular blockchains use Layer 2 networks and sharding techniques to enhance scalability, distributing the workload across multiple layers or shards.

Security is a paramount concern in both architectures but is approached differently. Monolithic blockchains like Bitcoin rely on the robustness of their single-layer design, where each node validates every transaction, enhancing security but at the cost of scalability. Modular blockchains, however, focus on security at the base layer while offloading transaction processing to secondary layers, thereby maintaining a balance between security and scalability.

Decentralization is another critical factor in the blockchain world. Monolithic blockchains maintain decentralization by having each node participate in all core functions, but this can lead to inefficiencies. Modular blockchains, conversely, maintain decentralization at the base layer while allowing for more centralized solutions in the upper layers for specific tasks, offering a more balanced approach.

Choosing between modular and monolithic blockchains requires a thorough assessment of project requirements. If the project demands high scalability and is willing to employ multiple layers for different tasks, a modular blockchain is more suitable. For projects that prioritize simplicity and have a lower transaction volume, a monolithic blockchain may be the better choice.

Every choice comes with its set of trade-offs. Monolithic blockchains offer ease of development but may face scalability issues. Modular blockchains, while scalable, can be complex to develop and maintain. Security and decentralization are also factors that can be compromised depending on the architecture chosen. Its essential to weigh these trade-offs carefully to align with the projects long-term goals.

In the real world, different projects have leveraged these architectures based on their specific needs. Bitcoin, with its monolithic design, has become the gold standard for cryptocurrencies but faces challenges in scalability. Ethereum is transitioning to a modular architecture to address scalability issues while maintaining security. Newer platforms like Nervos and Polkadot have also adopted modular designs to offer more flexibility and scalability, targeting a wide range of decentralized applications.

Consensus mechanisms serve as the backbone of any blockchain network, dictating how transactions are verified and added to the blockchain. In monolithic architectures like Bitcoin, Proof of Work (PoW) is often the go-to mechanism. Here, every node in the network participates in solving complex mathematical problems, ensuring both security and decentralization but at the expense of scalability.

Modular architectures, on the other hand, can employ a variety of consensus mechanisms, including Proof of Stake (PoS). In PoS, validators are chosen based on the number of coins they hold and are willing to stake as collateral. This mechanism allows modular blockchains to achieve scalability without compromising much on security, especially when combined with Layer 2 solutions.

The choice of a consensus mechanism can significantly impact the decision between a monolithic and a modular blockchain. If a project prioritizes energy efficiency and scalability, a modular blockchain with a PoS consensus might be more appropriate. However, if the focus is on established security and decentralization, a monolithic blockchain with a PoW consensus mechanism may be the better fit.

For instance, Ethereums transition from a monolithic PoW architecture to a modular PoS design in its Ethereum 2.0 upgrade is a testament to the influence of consensus mechanisms. The shift aims to address scalability issues while maintaining a strong security posture.

The consensus mechanism is a pivotal factor in choosing between monolithic and modular blockchains. It directly affects scalability, security, and decentralization, key elements that any project must consider. Therefore, understanding the nuances of PoW and PoS, and how they fit into monolithic and modular architectures, is essential for making an informed decision.

The size of a blockchain network, determined by its number of nodes and transaction volume, plays a pivotal role in its performance. In a monolithic blockchain, as the network grows, every node must validate every transaction. This ensures a high level of security but can lead to congestion, slowing down transaction speeds, especially during peak times.

Modular blockchains, with their layered approach, are designed to handle growth more efficiently. As the network expands, transactions can be processed in parallel across different layers or shards. This means that even with a significant increase in nodes or transaction volume, modular blockchains can maintain, or even improve, their performance.

For projects anticipating rapid growth or high transaction volumes, modular blockchains offer a scalable solution. Their design ensures that as the network grows, performance doesnt degrade significantly. This makes them ideal for applications like decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms or large-scale supply chain management systems.

Conversely, if a project expects a stable, moderate-sized network without drastic growth in transaction volume, a monolithic blockchain might suffice. Such blockchains are simpler and might be more suitable for projects like niche community currencies or specific-purpose decentralized applications.

The expected size and growth rate of the network are crucial factors in determining the most suitable blockchain architecture. Projects must assess their long-term goals, anticipated user base, and transaction volume to make an informed decision between monolithic and modular designs.

Regulatory compliance is an often overlooked but crucial aspect when choosing a blockchain architecture. Monolithic blockchains, with their established track record, often have clearer regulatory guidelines. However, their transparency and immutability can sometimes conflict with data protection laws, such as the GDPR in the European Union.

Modular blockchains, being relatively new, may not have as well-defined regulatory frameworks. Their layered architecture allows for more customization, which can be both an advantage and a challenge. On one hand, it enables compliance with specific industry regulations by tweaking individual layers. On the other hand, the lack of standardization can create ambiguities in compliance.

When choosing between monolithic and modular architectures, projects must consider the regulatory landscape of the jurisdictions they operate in. For global operations, this means understanding and complying with multiple regulatory frameworks, which can be complex.

Here are some tips to navigate these considerations:

The choice between monolithic and modular blockchains extends beyond technical considerations to include regulatory and compliance aspects. Projects must undertake a comprehensive review of these factors to ensure that their chosen architecture aligns not just with their technical needs but also with legal requirements.

Cost is a critical variable when deciding between monolithic and modular blockchain architectures. Monolithic blockchains, given their simpler design, generally require less upfront investment in development. However, their scalability limitations can lead to increased operational costs as the network grows, particularly if costly upgrades or forks are needed to improve performance.

Modular blockchains, on the other hand, may require a higher initial investment due to their complex, layered architecture. Yet, their design allows for more efficient scaling, potentially leading to lower operational costs in the long run. Additionally, modular blockchains can integrate specialized layers to handle specific tasks, which can be more cost-effective than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Budgeting for a blockchain project must consider both initial development costs and ongoing operational expenses. Here are some insights for effective budgeting:

1. Initial Development: Assess the complexity of your project to estimate initial development costs. Modular blockchains may require specialized expertise, increasing initial expenses.

2. Operational Costs: Consider the expected transaction volume and network size. Monolithic blockchains may incur higher costs for scaling, while modular ones could offer cost savings in this regard.

3. Upgrades and Maintenance: Factor in the costs of potential upgrades, especially for monolithic blockchains that may require significant changes to improve scalability or add features.

4. Regulatory Compliance: Dont overlook the costs associated with meeting regulatory requirements, which can vary depending on the architecture.

5. Risk Mitigation: Allocate funds for unexpected challenges or changes in regulations, as these can impact both types of architectures.

The choice between monolithic and modular blockchains has significant cost implications. By understanding these factors and planning accordingly, projects can make informed decisions that align with their financial constraints and long-term objectives.

Blockchain technology is in a constant state of evolution, influenced by emerging trends and technological advancements. Key developments such as quantum computing, machine learning integration, and the Internet of Things (IoT) are poised to shape the future of both monolithic and modular blockchains. Additionally, the growing emphasis on sustainability is pushing the adoption of energy-efficient consensus mechanisms like Proof of Stake (PoS) and sharding.

Quantum computing, with its ability to crack cryptographic algorithms, presents a challenge for both types of blockchains. However, modular architectures, with their inherent flexibility, may find it easier to integrate quantum-resistant algorithms, offering a more future-proof option.

Machine learning and IoT are other areas where modular blockchains could excel. Their layered structure allows for the seamless integration of these technologies, providing enhanced functionality and user experience. As these technologies become more prevalent, the appeal of modular blockchains is likely to increase.

The sustainability trend is also worth noting. With environmental concerns gaining prominence, the energy-intensive nature of Proof of Work (PoW) used in many monolithic blockchains could become a drawback. Modular blockchains, with their ability to implement more energy-efficient consensus mechanisms, may gain an edge in this regard.

In terms of regulatory compliance, as laws around blockchain technology become more established, modular blockchains may offer an advantage. Their ability to adapt specific layers to meet regulatory requirements could make them more attractive for projects in regulated industries.

In summary, modular blockchains offer scalability, flexibility, and adaptability, while monolithic blockchains provide simplicity and a proven track record. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, influenced by emerging trends and regulatory landscapes, the choice between these architectures will increasingly hinge on specific project needs and future-proofing considerations.

Modular blockchains have a layered architecture that separates tasks, offering scalability and flexibility. Monolithic blockchains handle all tasks in a single layer, providing simplicity but limited scalability.

Monolithic blockchains often use Proof of Work (PoW), which is secure but less scalable. Modular blockchains can use various mechanisms like Proof of Stake (PoS), offering better scalability.

Initially, yes. Modular blockchains require specialized expertise and multiple layers, increasing upfront costs. However, they may offer long-term operational savings.

Monolithic blockchains have clearer but rigid compliance guidelines. Modular blockchains offer the flexibility to adapt individual layers to meet specific regulatory requirements.

Modular blockchains, due to their flexibility, are generally better suited to adapt to emerging technologies and trends.

Read this article:

Modular vs Monolithic Blockchain: Which Architecture Type Suits ... - Cryptopolitan