Category Archives: Decentralization
Criticisms and Controversies Surrounding USD Coin Adoption – BTC Peers
USD Coin (USDC) is a stablecoin cryptocurrency that aims to maintain parity with the U.S. dollar. As one of the largest and most widely used stablecoins, USDC has seen growing adoption in recent years. However, its increased usage has also brought criticisms and controversies.
One of the main concerns surrounding USDC is its centralized governance model. Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, USDC is issued by a consortium of companies, with Circle being the primary issuer. This raises questions over the level of centralization and potential regulatory risks.
Critics argue that USDC's reserve backing by Circle reduces decentralization. The company holds the reserve dollars and issues USDC tokens accordingly. This means trust is consolidated into a single entity rather than distributed across a decentralized network. Some worry that this centralization could lead to censorship and lack of immutability.
Additionally, being regulated in the United States and complying with its laws exposes USDC to potential overreach. For example, the government could freeze accounts or seize reserves. While proponents view its regulatory compliance as beneficial, critics see it as antithetical to cryptocurrency ideals of censorship resistance and decentralization.
As a stablecoin, USDC's core value proposition relies on maintaining a 1:1 peg with the U.S. dollar. This requires full backing of circulating USDC by equivalent fiat reserves. However, some critics point to a lack of reliable transparency and auditing of these reserve funds.
Although monthly attestation reports are provided by certified public accounting firms, critics argue that real-time provable reserves are needed to verify 100% backing. The current attestations are not cryptographic proof and require some trust in the auditors and Circle. Many argue that true transparency requires an on-chain mechanism for proving reserves cryptographically.
Without robust transparency and reserves reporting, some question whether USDC is consistently maintaining sufficient fiat reserves to redeem all tokens. These concerns around provable reserves have led critics to categorize USDC as opaque in comparison to alternatives like DAI.
USDC is often compared against stablecoin competitors like DAI and algorithmic stablecoins. Critics argue alternatives like overcollateralized DAI have a more decentralized structure and issuance mechanism.
DAI uses collateralized debt positions and decentralized autonomous logic to algorithmically adjust supply, rather than relying on a central issuer. This decentralized structure means DAI has built-in transparency and doesn't require trusting a third party's attestations.
Similarly, algorithmic stablecoins aim to use bonding curves and incentive mechanisms to stabilize a coin's value without any centralization. Advocates argue these projects espouse the ethos of decentralization more fully compared to USDC's consortium model.
However, defenders of USDC counter that decentralization exists across multiple dimensions. They highlight USDC's decentralization in holders, use cases, and validators. And they argue its structure strikes the right balance between decentralization and efficiency.
As a digital currency aiming for widespread adoption, USDC inevitably confronts criticisms around enabling illicit transactions and money laundering. Its pseudo-anonymous nature mirrors criticisms of cryptocurrency in general. However, USDC's regulatory compliance also sets it apart.
Critics argue that although KYC is required for USDC redemption and issuance through regulated entities, illicit actors can still transact freely peer-to-peer once USDC enters secondary markets. They express concerns around this untraceability and USDC's use in money laundering, terrorist financing, and dark web markets.
Defenders counter that fiat currency is also used illicitly. And major issuers like Circle use blockchain analytics to monitor for suspicious activities. However, fresher critiques argue that USDC's design still lacks adequate safeguards against illicit financing compared to traditional finance.
USDC's hybrid model reconciling centralized and decentralized features prompts fundamental questions:
Critics contend USDC's dependence on Circle fundamentally limits decentralization. And its regulatory compliance enables censorship and seizures antithetical to censorship-resistance. Paradigm shifts may require rethinking what decentralization means when stable assets integrate fiat backing.
But proponents see USDC's hybrid model as a pragmatic path to mass adoption. Mainstream users require the stability and legitimacy offered by oversight and transparency. USDC makes trade-offs but retains degrees of decentralization and autonomy exceeded in traditional finance.
The debate raises complex issues around balancing competing needs. But USDC's continued growth suggests there is merit to hybrid models that blend centralized and decentralized mechanisms for stability and oversight. Their success likely hinges on transparency and minimizing consolidated control wherever possible.
Stablecoins enable permissionless innovation but also carry risks around illicit usage. This prompts questions around how to develop USDC responsibly:
Technology like zero-knowledge proofs may offer solutions that balance legitimacy and autonomy. Regulation can also be targeted and layered to mitigate risks of centralized governance overreach. But the ecosystem must prioritize openness and freedom to realize the paradigm shift promised by cryptocurrency.
There are no perfect solutions yet. However, thoughtful evolution of community norms and technology that enshrine accountability and peer validation could support the growth of USDC responsibly. The path forward requires upholding the principles and potential that make this ecosystem compelling to so many.
In summary, as a widely used stablecoin, USD Coin has faced reasonable criticisms around centralization, transparency, and illicit usage. However, its continued adoption also suggests the merits of its hybrid model in balancing regulatory legitimacy and decentralization. Moving forward thoughtfully will be critical as USDC solidifies its important role in the maturing cryptocurrency ecosystem.
Read this article:
Criticisms and Controversies Surrounding USD Coin Adoption - BTC Peers
What Advantage Does Ethereum Have Over Hedera? – Programming Insider
To sign up for our daily email newsletter, CLICK HERE
Ethereum stands as a beacon in the blockchain world, not just for its innovative technology, but for the thriving community that fuels its growth. As you are reading about Ethereum, you must also like to know about the top Ethereum gas fees tools and anticipate the costs.
Decentralization: Ethereums Key Selling Point
Decentralization has always been at the heart of the blockchain revolution, and Ethereum stands as a testament to this principle. Unlike traditional systems where power, decision-making, and control are concentrated in the hands of a few, decentralized systems distribute these aspects across many nodes or participants.
Ethereums decentralized nature is ingrained in its DNA. From its inception, Ethereum was envisioned as a platform where no single entity could have undue influence or control. This philosophy was not just a theoretical ideal but was practically implemented in its consensus mechanism and the architecture of the Ethereum network. By relying on a broad network of nodes to validate and record transactions, Ethereum ensures that no single party can manipulate or control the network to their advantage.
But why is decentralization so crucial? First, it offers a higher degree of security. A decentralized network is less vulnerable to attacks as there isnt a single point of failure. If one node gets compromised, the network as a whole remains operational and secure. Secondly, decentralization fosters trust. Participants in the network know that their transactions are being processed transparently without the risk of censorship or interference by a central authority.
Comparing Ethereums decentralization to Hederas provides some interesting insights. While Hedera has brought innovative features to the blockchain world with its Hashgraph consensus algorithm, some critics argue that its governance model introduces a level of centralization. Hederas council, composed of pre-selected organizations, has decision-making powers, which can be seen as a departure from the completely decentralized ethos of Ethereum.
Smart Contracts: Ethereums Pioneering Achievement
In the vast and evolving landscape of blockchain technology, Ethereums most groundbreaking contribution has undoubtedly been the introduction and popularization of smart contracts. While the concept of computerized transaction protocols that execute the terms of a contract isnt entirely new, Ethereums platform brought this idea to the forefront, allowing for a democratization of its application on a global scale.
Smart contracts are essentially self-executing contracts where the agreement between buyer and seller is directly written into lines of code. These contracts live on the blockchain and are automatically enforced once certain predetermined conditions are met. This means that middlemen traditionally required for contractual agreements, such as notaries or legal intermediaries, become largely obsolete.
Ethereums brilliance lies in its provision of a platform where these smart contracts can be developed with relative ease. Through the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), developers are given a sandboxed environment to create and deploy these contracts. This environment provides the security and robustness of the Ethereum blockchain, but with the flexibility needed to develop a wide range of applications.
Comparing Ethereums smart contract capabilities with other platforms brings its pioneering role into sharper focus. While many blockchains now support smart contracts, Ethereums early entrance and its developer-friendly tools have given it a significant first-mover advantage. The vibrant community of developers, attracted by Ethereums promise, has led to an ecosystem teeming with innovation and experimentation.
Ecosystem and Developer Community: Ethereums Strength
At the core of any thriving technology platform lies not just its technical prowess but also the vibrant community that supports, develops, and innovates upon it. Ethereum, beyond its technical achievements, is a shining example of how a robust ecosystem and an engaged developer community can drive a platforms success and impact.
From its early days, Ethereum was more than just a blockchain or a cryptocurrency; it was a vision of a decentralized future where applications could run without censorship, downtime, or interference from third parties. This vision resonated deeply with developers around the globe, leading to a surge of interest and participation.
However, what truly set Ethereum apart was the ecosystems commitment to nurturing and supporting its developer base. With abundant resources, toolkits, and educational materials, newcomers to the platform found it relatively easy to navigate and contribute.
Contrast this with other blockchain platforms, and Ethereums edge becomes evident. While many platforms offer unique technical capabilities, Ethereums expansive developer community has been its trump card. This is not to say that other platforms lack developer interest, but the sheer scale and dynamism of Ethereums community are unparalleled. This vast pool of developers not only ensures a continuous influx of innovative dApps and solutions but also enhances the platforms resilience and adaptability.
Conclusion
The success of Ethereum underscores the importance of a robust developer community. As the blockchain landscape evolves, the harmony between technology and its community remains pivotal, with Ethereum exemplifying this dynamic relationship.
See the article here:
What Advantage Does Ethereum Have Over Hedera? - Programming Insider
Introducing Timpi’s Revolutionary Decentralized Web Index: Pioneering Data Accessibility and Autonomy – EIN News
Timpi debuts a decentralized Web Index, ushering a new era of unbiased data access and innovation in the digital landscape.
Joerg, Co-Founder of Timpi
Timpi's infrastructure is designed to cater to the diverse informational needs of users looking for independent data without biases. By championing decentralization, Timpi aims to democratize data access, promoting equitable data accessibility for a broad spectrum of users, including tech developers, budding entrepreneurs, and established organizations. The objective is crystal clear - cultivating a data-rich and inclusive digital environment.
In today's data-centric world, the importance of an independent and unbiased web index cannot be overstated. Timpi's web index offers unfettered and unbiased access to data, empowering businesses and consumers alike. The access provided to Timpi's index not only meets immediate needs of researchers and developers but also enables quick adaptations, fostering innovation in response to new technological evolutions.
It's noteworthy that Timpi has firmly positioned itself as the 6th actively maintained web index, rubbing shoulders with industry juggernauts. However, Timpi stands apart with its relentless focus on unraveling the potential of decentralization and its self-reliant web index.
Beyond its web index, Timpi is launching a privacy-centric search engine integrated with its own conversational AI, Wilson. Simultaneously, Timpi is diligently working to strengthen the broader data ecosystem and invigorate AI training arenas by offering the use of its decentralized network to power 3rd party AI models.
"Timpi represents the next evolution in the digital space, upholding values such as decentralization, democratization, and ethical data practices," stated Joerg Buss, Co-Founder of Timpi. The impressive trajectory of Timpi's web index signals its vast potential. However, it's more than just about scaling; it's about restoring data autonomy to individuals. Even in its early stages, Timpi is already making noticeable impacts in the digital world, driven by the ambition to lead significant changes in the digital age.
About Timpi: Headquartered in New Zealand, Timpi is at the forefront of creating decentralized data solutions. With an unwavering emphasis on privacy, unbiased data, diversity, and real-time responsiveness, Timpi offers a range of services, including Conversational AI and a privacy-centric and unbiased search engine. Timpi continues to innovate and deliver cutting-edge solutions to a global user base.
Timpi LtdTimpiemail us hereVisit us on social media:Twitter
View post:
Respiratory Rare Disease Trials — Optimizing Diversity and Decentralization, Upcoming Webinar Hosted by – Benzinga
August 31, 2023 8:30 AM | 2 min read
Massive returns are possible within this market! For a limited time, get access to the Benzinga Insider Report, usually $47/month, for just $0.99! Discover extremely undervalued stock picks before they skyrocket! Time is running out! Act fast and secure your future wealth at this unbelievable discount! Claim Your $0.99 Offer NOW!
Advertorial
In this free webinar, learn from subject matter experts (SMEs) on their insights into developing and evaluating rare disease trials in multiple respiratory indications, and learn strategies to overcome obstacles that arise in the clinical development, testing and regulatory approval of treatments for rare diseases.
TORONTO , Aug. 31, 2023 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Respiratory rare disease trials come with challenges ranging from the demand placed on sites and patients to managing multiple vendors and ensuring diversity. Achieving success in respiratory rare disease trials requires a flexible approach, a strong emphasis on site selection and key opinion leaders (KOLs) with a deep regulatory understanding.
Enter your email and you'll also get Benzinga's ultimate morning update AND a free $30 gift card and more!
Achieving success in respiratory rare disease trials requires a flexible approach, a strong emphasis on site selection and key opinion leaders (KOLs) with a deep regulatory understanding.
Join this webinar to hear from subject matter experts (SMEs) on their insights into developing and evaluating rare disease trials in multiple respiratory indications, and learn strategies to overcome obstacles that arise in the clinical development, testing and regulatory approval of treatments for rare diseases.
Join experts from the PPD clinical research business of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Francis Jones, Senior Director Project Management Respiratory; Christian Lloyd, Associate Medical Director; and Terri Myers, Global Head of Biotech Operations, for the live webinar on Monday, September 25, 2023, at 10am EDT ( 4pm CET /EU-Central).
For more information, or to register for this event, visit Respiratory Rare Disease Trials Optimizing Diversity and Decentralization.
Hidden gems are waiting to be found in this market! Don't miss the Benzinga Insider Report, typically $47/month, now ONLY $0.99! Uncover incredibly undervalued stocks before they soar! Limited time offer! Secure your financial success with this unbeatable discount! Grab your 0.99 offer TODAY!
Advertorial
ABOUT XTALKS
Xtalks, powered by Honeycomb Worldwide Inc., is a leading provider of educational webinars to the global life science, food and medical device community. Every year, thousands of industry practitioners (from life science, food and medical device companies, private & academic research institutions, healthcare centers, etc.) turn to Xtalks for access to quality content. Xtalks helps Life Science professionals stay current with industry developments, trends and regulations. Xtalks webinars also provide perspectives on key issues from top industry thought leaders and service providers.
To learn more about Xtalks visit http://xtalks.com For information about hosting a webinar visit http://xtalks.com/why-host-a-webinar/
Media Contact
Vera Kovacevic, Xtalks, +1 (416) 977-6555 x371, vkovacevic@xtalks.com
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prweb.com/releases/respiratory-rare-disease-trials--optimizing-diversity-and-decentralization-upcoming-webinar-hosted-by-xtalks-301914429.html
SOURCE Xtalks
Massive returns are possible within this market! For a limited time, get access to the Benzinga Insider Report, usually $47/month, for just $0.99! Discover extremely undervalued stock picks before they skyrocket! Time is running out! Act fast and secure your future wealth at this unbelievable discount! Claim Your $0.99 Offer NOW!
Advertorial
2023 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Read this article:
Introducing Okta for Global 2000: Identity Solution to Give CEOs and Board of Directors Flexibility to Centralize or Decentralize their Business…
Delivering Choice Through Agile Identity Management for Organizations Such as Indeed, NTT DATA, ENGIE
SAN FRANCISCO, August 29, 2023--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA), the leading independent identity partner, today announced Okta for Global 2000, an industry leading solution designed to give the worlds largest organizations choice in how they run their technology infrastructure with flexible and automated identity management. Okta for Global 2000 enables the technical agility executives need to balance centralization and decentralization of their organizations as well as resources and governance models with secure identity infrastructure.
The most complex technology environments need agility
Okta for Global 2000 supports every aspect of a large organizations transformation, from M&A and divestitures to new business unit creation and restructuring. Identity is foundational to these organizations success as it sits at the intersection of the people, customers, suppliers, and partners they rely on to grow and support their stakeholders. The complexity of the Global 2000s technology environments mean they need an automated, neutral identity technology that enables their business strategies, not constrains them into a single platform.
"Todays enterprises cant be constrained by a single platform as they look to drive growth and value in a world where supply chains and customer expectations have shifted dramatically over the last two years," said Todd McKinnon, CEO and co-founder at Okta. "Okta for Global 2000 gives executives choice in how they evolve their technology strategies to keep pace with this new environment, centralizing security and improving efficiency and employee productivity."
Achieving the best balance between centralization and decentralization
Okta for Global 2000 enables the technical agility executives need to shift between fully centralizing all users and resources with consolidated access controls, decentralizing business units or sub-brands to manage their own users and resources, or delivering a hybrid model to support different phases of company growth.
Story continues
Regardless of an organizations structure, Okta for Global 2000 delivers deep identity management automation through a single source of truth, and a centralized security control plane to deliver consistent security and access policies for all users and resources.
"At Indeed, our mission is to help people get jobs," said Anthony Moisant, CIO at Indeed. "As a subsidiary of Recruit Holdings, Indeed relies on Okta to deliver the agility we need to make our own technology decisions while still providing our parent company with broad visibility."
Through flexible deployment models, broad and deep automation, and real-time reporting across the organization, Okta for Global 2000 reduces complexity for large organizations and increases their agility. Key features and functionality include:
Flexible User Management: Collect and sync users and groups from extended workforces across directories including Active Directory and systems of record through centralized hubs or through spoke Okta tenants.
Automated identity actions across tenants: Automate complex lifecycle management actions across distributed business units and shared corporate resources alike, minimizing manual workloads and driving efficiency.
Delegated control and autonomy: Empower distributed tenants with fine grained access permissions to adopt new technologies and manage user identities without creating new identity silos.
Seamless user experiences: Enable the use of existing identity providers for acquisitions or subsidiaries to avoid impacting end user experiences.
Availability
Okta for Global 2000 is now generally available for Workforce Identity Cloud.
About Okta
Okta is the Worlds Identity Company. As the leading independent Identity partner, we free everyone to safely use any technologyanywhere, on any device or app. The most trusted brands trust Okta to enable secure access, authentication, and automation. With flexibility and neutrality at the core of our Okta Workforce Identity and Customer Identity Clouds, business leaders and developers can focus on innovation and accelerate digital transformation, thanks to customizable solutions and more than 7,000 pre-built integrations. Were building a world where Identity belongs to you. Learn more at okta.com.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230829837673/en/
Contacts
Joel Jamorapress@okta.com
Read the original:
Web3: Five Key Characteristics of the Decentralized Internet – The Coin Republic
Centralization contributed to the onboarding of billions of individuals to the WWW along with developing a robust and steady infrastructure. However, centralized internet also comes with several speculations such as Web monopolization by large technology companies and less possibility of data backup. Web3 is the solution to all these plights. The concept offers power in the hands of individuals instead of corporations, which means built, owned, and operated by users.
Lets take a look at the journey of Web3 and why you should care about it.
It all started in 1990, with the introduction of Web 1.0, a platform allowing information sharing from anywhere on Earth. As a static website, the platform has close to zero interaction between operators and is mainly known as a read-only web. The WWW concept took the next step towards success in 2004 with the introduction of Web 2.0, a web compatible with read-write operations. This all happens with the emergence of social media platforms, making it relaxing for companies to share content as well as collect users perceptions.
The term Web3 came into light in 2014 by Ethereum Gavin Wood, the co-founder of Ethereum. However, the idea caught fire in 2021 from large technology organizations, cryptocurrency enthusiasts, and venture capital firms. Unlike Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, Web3 offers individuals the functionality to read, write, and own the web. With the vision to offer a new and better internet, Web3 empowered users in terms of ownership.
Web3 or the decentralized internet has a lot more to offer as compared to Web1 and Web2. Here are the five key characteristics of Web3 that make it unique and more reliable.
Web3 is the next big progressive leap forward of the internet, driven by NFT, blockchain, and cryptocurrency. One of the biggest features of Web3 is decentralization which makes it one of the most precious concepts in the modern world. As a challenge to the centralized internet, Web3 ensured that centralization is not the only option forward. The platform is powered by token-based economies and blockchain-based infrastructure, allowing users to interact and transact without third-party intervention.
The platform has the power to kick off a major power shift, taking away the controls from the authorities and intermediaries and placing the power in the hands of users. Web3 made it easy for users to freely use the internet.
The next feature to focus on is the connectivity of Web3 to the development of the Metaverse. The technology made it easy for the users to interact and transact with others in the virtual space. Trading of digital assets in the metaverse next represents the significance of Web3.
Apart from the virtual space, the technology also secured a strong position in real-world uses. The unpredictable price swings and headlines in the NFT space better explain the use of Web3 in the real world.
Another powerful feature of Web3 is the transformation of business operations with the help of Blockchain. Blockchain is going to become one of the most transformative Web3 technologies for businesses.
Web3 is the next big progressive leap forward of the internet that puts power in the hands of users. Features like decentralization, power shift to users, development of the metaverse, business operation transformation, and real-world use made Web3 a giant player in the era of technology.
Read more from the original source:
Web3: Five Key Characteristics of the Decentralized Internet - The Coin Republic
Pros and Cons of XRP Design Compared to Bitcoin and Ethereum – BTC Peers
Cryptocurrencies have exploded in popularity over the past decade, with new digital assets emerging constantly. Three of the most well-known are Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP. While they share some similarities in being decentralized digital currencies, their designs and goals differ significantly. Examining the pros and cons of XRP's design compared to Bitcoin and Ethereum can provide valuable insights into its strengths and weaknesses.
XRP, created by Ripple Labs, aims to provide fast, inexpensive cross-border payments. It uses a unique consensus mechanism and architecture to achieve high transaction speeds and scalability. Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency created to facilitate peer-to-peer digital cash transactions outside the traditional financial system. Ethereum expanded on Bitcoin's design by allowing decentralized apps and smart contracts to run on its blockchain.
Comparing XRP to Bitcoin and Ethereum highlights key differences in transaction validation, mining incentives, and decentralization. While XRP offers some advantages, such as speed, it also has drawbacks regarding centralization. Understanding these tradeoffs helps determine if XRP succeeds as a global payments network and where challenges may arise.
A key difference between XRP and Bitcoin/Ethereum is how transactions get validated. Bitcoin and Ethereum use energy-intensive proof-of-work mining, where miners compete to solve complex math problems to create new blocks. This makes transactions slow, often taking 10+ minutes for enough confirmations.
XRP uses a novel consensus protocol where a subset of trusted nodes validates transactions. This allows settlements in 3-5 seconds without mining. However, critics argue this makes XRP more centralized than Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Overall, XRP's consensus method has clear advantages for transaction speed. But it raises questions around decentralization and security compared to proof-of-work models.
Related to validation, transaction fees and speed vary greatly between the cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin averages 5 transactions per second, with high volatility in fees during peak demand. Ethereum does 15 transactions per second, also with fluctuating fees.
In contrast, XRP handles 1,500 transactions per second with consistently low fees of .0001 XRP. This makes XRP better suited for high-volume cross-border payments between financial institutions.
However, XRP's transaction capacity is still dwarfed by payment processors like Visa, which handles 24,000 transactions per second. So XRP has room for improvement on scalability.
Bitcoin and Ethereum rely on mining incentives to secure their blockchains. The massive computing power dedicated to mining makes their ledgers highly tamper-resistant.
XRP, on the other hand, has no mining. While this increases efficiency, it raises concerns that there are fewer financial incentives to keep XRP secure long-term. The validation nodes may be prone to collusion over time.
That said, Ripple argues the validating nodes are geographically distributed and have strong financial incentives to maintain XRP's value. So the consensus mechanism could remain secure without mining, but it's still an open question.
A common criticism of XRP is that it is more centralized than Bitcoin or Ethereum. Ripple Labs and its founders hold significant amounts of XRP. They also maintain control over the network and which nodes participate in consensus.
The company argues this allows orderly governance and efficiency. But it also means Ripple has an outsized role in XRP's future direction.
Bitcoin and Ethereum, in contrast, have no central authority. Anyone can participate in mining or running nodes. This aligns with the philosophical roots of cryptocurrency in decentralized peer-to-peer transactions.
In practice, though, few Bitcoin and Ethereum miners and developers control the bulk of those networks. So true decentralization remains elusive. Still, XRP faces genuine concerns over its long-term control and governance model.
While researching this article, I realized there are good-faith arguments on both sides of this debate. As an investor and user of cryptocurrency myself, I can see value in XRP's fast, low-cost transactions. However, I share concerns from others around centralization and security vulnerabilities over the long-term.
My view is that striking the right balance between decentralization and efficiency is key to the scalability and security needed for a global payments network. Perhaps XRP could adopt some mining or staking incentives to further distribute control while retaining its speed advantage. I'm optimistic innovations in blockchain governance will continue maturing this technology.
As cryptocurrencies continue evolving, some questions remain around XRP's design tradeoffs:
XRP will likely face ongoing critiques until it can decentralize further while maintaining or improving transaction speeds. Tools like smart contracts could potentially expand participation in consensus and governance.
It's unclear if XRP can fulfill Ripple's ambitions of becoming a global reserve and settlement currency. Much depends on overcoming objections around centralization. But XRP's fast, low-cost model remains compelling for some cross-border use cases.
Analyzing XRP's unique approach highlights the difficult tradeoffs in blockchain design. Decentralization, transaction capacity, security, and governance don't always align. But XRP's advantages around speed and cost savings could give it niches in global finance. And continued evolution may mitigate concerns around centralization over time.
The next generation of digital assets will likely incorporate XRP's strengths while minimizing downsides. Understanding these nuanced pros and cons helps develop well-rounded perspectives on the future of cryptocurrency as it matures.
Go here to see the original:
Pros and Cons of XRP Design Compared to Bitcoin and Ethereum - BTC Peers
Shiba Inu and Bone Crypto Prediction vs Signuptoken.com: Top … – Tekedia
The Shiba Inu (SHIB) ecosystem has drawn interest in the rapidly changing cryptocurrency world, and its future ecosystem coin, BONE, is anticipated to experience a considerable increase in value. Decentralization, a crucial factor for investors looking for profitable chances, is being advanced by this trend.
In this post, we will compare and contrast Shiba Inu and Bone, two well-known projects, and introduce Signuptoken.com (SIGN), a community-focused project aiming to be yet another excellent investment option.
Shiba Inu emerged as a community-driven experiment inspired by the popular Dogecoin. Its decentralized nature and the captivating Shiba-themed branding helped it attract a large following early on. Shiba Inus primary goal was to create a cryptocurrency that would provide its holders with a sense of community and ownership, all while embracing the principles of decentralization.
With its rapidly expanding fan base, the Shiba Inu ecosystem found a way to harness the power of a loyal community to support various charitable causes.This unique aspect of the project garnered immense support from crypto enthusiasts and philanthropists alike, making Shiba Inu a compelling choice for investors seeking more than just financial gains.
When Shiba Inu was initially introduced in August 2020, its original quantity of tokens was one quadrillion. The first big event for Shiba Inu happened in May 2021 when its developer sent the co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin half of the available supply. It was commonly believed that this was a marketing ploy to profit from the popularity of a different coin that was more well-known. The cryptic defense offered by Ryoshi was that there is no greatness without a vulnerable point.
The ShibaSwap decentralized exchanges (DEX) governance token with voting capabilities is called Bone ShibaSwap (BONE). The Shiba Inu community, popularly known as the Shib Army, is given access to BONE so that they can vote on upcoming proposals, submit proposals, and access upcoming NFTs. Users votes have more weight the more BONE tokens they possess.
The Shiba ecosystem, which also includes the Shiba Inu (SHIB) and Doge Killer (LEASH) tokens, uses the Ethereum-based BONE token. Shiba Inus website claims that SHIB is the Dogecoin (DOGE) killer. The project is the second-largest dog-themed Memecoin in the cryptocurrency world as a result of its appeal. The price of the cryptocurrency BONE has impressively increased by over 42% over the past week, rising to $1.74. Traders and investors are paying notice to this positive trend and speculating on whether BONE can repeat this performance and reach a bullish price of $2.22 in the upcoming week.
While Shiba Inu and Bone have undoubtedly garnered widespread attention, Signuptoken.com presents a unique value proposition to investors. Unlike its competitors, Signuptoken.coms core philosophy revolves around community empowerment and inclusivity. Its vision is to create an ecosystem where every user has a voice and a say in the projects future.
A ready ERC-20-based token is called Signuptoken.com. The catch is that they want 1,000,000 email signups, giving subscribers access to the premium cryptocurrency. Due to the fact that it is only available to subscribers, it differs from conventional presale promotions. Signuptoken.com will notify subscribers through email when its objective has been met. You may consider the email to be an invitation to the Millionaires Club! It truly is fantastic! By signing up for the email subscription, you could become a member of the Millionaires Club. We receive tons of junk or spam emails daily, but thanks to Signuptoken.com, one of them could completely change your life.
As the cryptocurrency market continues to mature, the importance of decentralization cannot be overstated. Shiba Inu and its upcoming Bone token stand as prominent examples of community-driven projects that have redefined the landscape. Their commitment to empowering users and embracing decentralization positions them as top investment choices for those seeking both financial returns and a sense of belonging.
In the midst of this excitement, SIGN emerges as a formidable contender with its unique community-centered approach. Signuptoken.com has created an ecosystem that fosters trust and loyalty among its community members by allowing users to actively participate in decision-making processes.
For more on Signuptoken.com, check out the link below:
Website: https://www.Signuptoken.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/_SignUpToken_
Telegram: https://t.me/SignUpToken
Like Loading...
Excerpt from:
Shiba Inu and Bone Crypto Prediction vs Signuptoken.com: Top ... - Tekedia
Comparing Tether on Ethereum vs Tron Blockchains – BTC Peers
Tether (USDT) has become one of the most widely used stablecoins in crypto. As a staple trading pair and hedge against volatility, USDT provides utility for millions of users across various blockchains. But not all Tether implementations are created equal. In this article, we'll compare USDT on the two most popular networks - Ethereum and Tron.
Ethereum is where Tether originated in 2014 (as Realcoin). Ethereum's adoption, developer community, and decentralized architecture made it an ideal blockchain for Tether in the early days.
For many, Ethereum is still synonymous with USDT. Tether took advantage of ERC-20 token standards to launch on Ethereum in 2017. Since then, Ethereum has facilitated the majority of USDT transactions and use cases. From trading on centralized and decentralized exchanges to lending protocols and yield generation, Ethereum powers critical Tether functions.
However, high fees and network congestion on Ethereum have pushed Tether to explore alternatives. The average Ethereum gas fee reached nearly $60 in 2021. These volatile fees create significant friction and uncertainty when moving USDT around.
In response to Ethereum's limitations, Tether launched on the Tron blockchain under the USDT-TRON ticker in early 2019. TRON offered much lower and consistent transaction fees compared to Ethereum.
By Q1 2022, over $55 billion worth of USDT had been issued on Tron. This growth demonstrates the demand for a more efficient USDT environment. Tether also benefits from TRON's high throughput for scalability.
Here are some key advantages USDT on Tron provides:
However, Tron is still considered more centralized than Ethereum. The lower decentralization introduces trust issues around Tether reserves and token minting.
While both chains have advantages, Ethereum remains the most trusted and decentralized Tether environment overall. But Tron provides faster and cheaper transactions for large USDT transfers and active trading.
This diversification brings more flexibility in how users can leverage Tether based on their priorities. And interoperability between the two networks grants broader access to USDT liquidity across the crypto ecosystem.
For smaller payments and transfers, Tron offers faster and almost free transactions. But for larger holdings and long-term storage, Ethereum may provide more decentralized security.
Ethereum is the most trusted and time-tested network for Tether. But the high gas fees create usability issues at times. Tron provides a compelling alternative for active trading and transactions under $10,000.
However, for long-term savings or holdings over $10,000, we recommend the extra security of Ethereum. The decentralization makes it much harder for reserves to be manipulated or compromised. And large institutional investors tend to prefer the battle-tested status of ETH.
So consider using Tron for active usage and transfers below $10k. But for significant savings or inactive holdings, the Ethereum blockchain remains the recommended home for your Tether.
While Tron has seen impressive growth, Ethereum 2.0 upgrades will likely ensure Ethereum remains the dominant Tether environment long-term.
It's tempting to assume Tron will eclipse Ethereum as the top Tether platform. After all, its growth has been astronomical since launching USDT in 2019. Tron already accounts for over one-third of all Tether activity. And the cost savings over Ethereum are undeniable.
However, Ethereum has major upgrades coming that should shore up its advantages over Tron:
These changes should allow Ethereum to match Tron's speed, fees, and scalability, while exceeding its decentralization and security. Ethereum will likely retain most DeFi protocols, developers, and institutional adoption.
Of course, Tron will remain an appealing alternative. But it's unlikely to seriously challenge Ethereum's dominance in the long run. Expect the majority of new innovation and infrastructure to continue materializing on Ethereum.
In summary, Tron makes USDT more accessible for smaller use cases today. But upcoming Ethereum upgrades should secure its status as the pre-eminent Tether environment for the foreseeable future.
See more here:
Comparing Tether on Ethereum vs Tron Blockchains - BTC Peers
Governance system for local governments – Part 1 – Profit by Pakistan Today
Why local government? The World Bank in its 1997 report asserts that governments are more effective when they listen to businesses and citizens, and work in partnership with them in deciding and implementing policy. Where governments lack mechanisms to listen, they are not responsive to peoples interests.
The devolution of authority to local tiers of government and decentralization can bring in representation of local business and citizens interests. The visibility of the results achieved by the resources deployed in a specific geographic area maintains pressure on government functionaries. Publicprivate partnerships. including NGOpublic partnerships have proved to be effective tools in fostering good governance.
The World Development Report (WDR 2004) has argued that the accountability of governments to local communities and marginalized social groups will increase by assigning service delivery functions to politicians who are closer to the people and make them electorally accountable.
The 1973 constitution did specify only two tiers of government federal and provincial. It is only after the 18th Amendment in 2010 that a new clause Article 140A was introduced which states that Each province shall, by law, establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local governments.
The Supreme court has asserted and directed the holding of elections of local governments on several occasions. Unfortunately, unlike the detailed distribution of powers between the federal and the provincial governments clearly defined in the constitution, there is no such provision for local governments. This vagueness and ambiguity has been used by the provincial governments which have been struggling to come to some reasonable piece of legislation since 2010 on the functions and powers of this tier.
Logically, once the provincial governments were devolved, adequate powers accompanied by sufficient financial allocations out of the divisible tax pool and grants from the federal government there should have been similar decentralization and delegation to the local governments. How is it possible for Punjab, with a population of 110 million people and 36 districts covering an area of 205000 sq km, to respond to the disparate needs of citizens in the delivery of essential services? DG Khan and Faisalabad, for example, have very different requirements and a uniform one-shoe-fits-all approach that is the characteristic of an overcentralized system wont simply work.
The present culture of concentrating authority in power centres at Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta has not only alienated the population living in the peripheries, but reduced its productive potential also and to no small extent. It is little surprise then that our research found 80 districts whose ordinary citizens are living in miserable conditions, according to the Deprivation Index, and remain almost criminally starved of their most basic needs.
The political parties that introduced this article in the constitution do not realize that meaningful empowerment of communities through decentralization and delegation of authority, in which the local government system plays a crucial role would in the long run promote greater trust, cohesion and harmony in our society and ensure access to basic public services in an efficient and equitable manner. These outcomes will not only help mobilize additional resources at the local level but also improve the efficiency of resource utilization.
The present state of disaffection and discontentment with the government would also be mitigated if public goods and services of everyday use to the citizens become available to them at the grassroots level. Local communities know their problems and their solutions much better than anybody else. It has also been found that for direct delivery by the government, the transfer of responsibility for these services to lower tiers of governance improves access by the poor.
Local government management of schools and hospitals involving communities and demand-side subsidies to the poor, monitored and under the oversight of government result in a favourable outcome in education and health. As these political parties will also contest elections, they will be represented at that tier of government too. Thus, the credit for citizen satisfaction, efficient allocation of resources and better access to essential services would go to the political parties themselves.
However, the myopic and self-centred approach adopted by all major political parties and resistance to empowerment and strengthening local governments is highly incomprehensible as in actual fact it simply entails the transfer of power from the provincial and national legislators and the ministers to the locally elected nazims or mayors of the districts. Those seeking to preserve their status, clout and influence should opt for local nazim positions rather than becoming MPAs or MNAs.
The 2001-2009 period: It would be useful to make an objective assessment of the local government system that existed in Pakistan between 2001 and 2009. There were many flaws in the 2001 system, including the fact that the functions of law and order, revenue records, and land administration and disaster management should have remained with neutral civil servants and not transferred to the nazims. In that event, the offices of the deputy/assistant commissioner should not have been abolished, thereby diluting the writ of the state.
The executive authority of the newly created post of district coordination officer DCO was diluted as magisterial powers were taken away from him or her although s/he was expected to perform duties relating to maintenance of law and order, removal of encroachments, price controls, and the like. As the powers of recruitment, transfers, postings, and disciplinary actions continued to remain vested in the provincial departments, the diarchy proved to be fatal for the effective functioning of the devolved departments.
The gap between law and actual practice remained wide to the detriment of the public at large. Corruption at the district government level could not be contained given the inadequate supervisory arrangements evolved by the provincial governments. The provincial secretaries retained considerable administrative authority over the district bureaucrats and used these powers to undercut the efficacy of the elective nazims. A tripartite confrontational mode in which the provincial ministers and secretaries aligned themselves against the district nazims was responsible for most of the practical difficulties faced by the citizens in access to services.
The degree of fiscal decentralization remained limited because the districts continued to depend upon the province for resources, didnt have the powers to collect new taxes, and didnt have the capacity to levy service or user charges. On the expenditure side, the fixed and growing expense of salaries, wages, and allowances paid to the staff devolved to the district governments (although they continue to be provincial servants) did not leave much surplus for either maintenance, operational, and development expenditure.
Over 90 per cent of expenditure of local governments was financed by transfers from the provincial governments. Lack of enhancement in local fiscal powers was a major weakness in the process of fiscal decentralization.
The share of local governments in the provincial allocable pool was about 40 per cent but their share in total public expenditure was only 13 per cent. Resource mobilization at the provincial and local levels remained substantially under-exploited. Land revenue accounted for less than one per cent of the agricultural income while the effective rate of property taxation of rental incomes was about five per cent as opposed to the statutory rate of 20 per cent or more.
The fragmentation of development projects into small schemes catered to the narrow interests of the local communities without any sense of priority, linkages, or widespread coverage.
Ideally, the transfer of resources from urban to rural areas should be a welcome move but such a transfer in the absence of a district-wide plan without specifying the goals to be achieved and assessing the cost-benefit of the approved schemes can be counterproductive. Urban-rural integration did not recognize or cater to the needs of growing urbanization.
Hasnain concludes on the basis of his study that in order to keep his voters happy, the district nazim would have very little choice but to acquiesce to the pressures exerted by the union and tehsil Nazims to allocate resources equally. The difference between equal and equitable distribution of resources should be understood as it is at the crux of the problem.
Under an equal distribution scheme there is no clear relationship between the needs of the community and the intended interventions. Rich and poor communities will receive the same amount irrespective of the intensity of their need. Equitable distribution takes into account the differences in the initial endowments and conditions of the intended beneficiaries. Those who are poor, marginalized, live in remote or geographically disadvantaged areas and cannot earn decent incomes on their own should receive higher allocations than those who are better off. Public resources thus supplement the private incomes of the poor to help out of poverty.
Two innovative features of the 2001 system are worth mentioning. The reservation of one-third seats for women and others for peasants, workers, minorities, the marginalized classes of our society, was an extremely commendable step. Similarly, the integration of the rural and urban administrative units at the tehsil level would have allowed the rural areas to benefit equally from the larger envelope of pooled resources available to the Tehsil Council. Even if the underlying patron-client relationship persists, the scope for inclusion of clients who were traditionally denied access under a MNA/MPA centred system, will be much wider under a decentralized and devolved system.
However, despite these flaws, empirical studies and surveys point to the net positive achievements of the local government system. The Social Audit Survey 2009-10 of 12,000 households drawn from 21 districts in all four provinces found that 56 per cent favoured the continuation of the local government system with high proportions in Punjab and Sindh. The level of satisfaction with the union councils was 33.8 per cent but the situation regarding support and social acceptability of womens participation seemed to have improved. Sixty per cent of female union councilors were of the view that people in their constituencies were happy with them.
The satisfaction levels of households with various public services varied but by 2009-10 satisfaction with roads, sewerage and sanitation, garbage disposal, water supply, health and education had improved although in percentage terms only less than half of the households expressed satisfaction with the services. Public education, at 58 per cent, showed the highest level of satisfaction.
The Social Policy Development Centre (SPDC) carried out a survey of 12 districts in the four provinces and found that the rate of enhancement in literacy of the population and access to water supply and sanitation had perceptibly increased during the post-devolution period. However, there were no indications of any impact of devolution on health indicators. The process of devolution was beginning to contribute to a quicker improvement in enrolment at the primary level and literacy in Pakistan.
At a micro level, Cheema and Mohmand analyzed a dataset of 364 households in the rural tehsil of Jaranwala in Faisalabad District to gain some insights regarding the types of households which gain and lose through electoral decentralization and whether the change in the post-reform provision between different household types is equitable. The empirical results of their study showed that increased access to development funds and heightened mandates for union nazims have resulted in a significant increase in union level provisions within a short span of time. They further found that the increase in the post-reform provision in nazim villages is less elite-based as it encompasses small peasants, minority peasant biradaris, and non-agricultural castes.
Hasnain reports on the basis of a survey carried out in 2005 that over 60 per cent of the households stated that they would approach a union councilor or Nazim to resolve their problems in comparison to only 10 per cent who said they would approach members of the provincial or national assembly. This reflects the increase in accessibility of policymakers after devolution. A system in which bureaucrats control the development departments provides neither access nor accountability. Having a system of elected nazims and councilors who remain responsive to the needs of their citizens is better because these officials are liable to lose their offices if they do not fulfil their responsibilities and duties. The best one can do with a recalcitrant bureaucrat is to transfer him out of a particular district but that does not resolve the inherent problem of access to the poor.
Cheema, Khawaja and Qadir in their study found that three types of changes were brought about by the 2001 devolution. One, changes in the decision-making level of the service from provincial bureaucrats to district level bureaucracy. Two, changes in the decision-makers accountability from bureaucrats to elected representatives at the district level; and three, changes in the fiscal resources available to the service.
The education department, primary healthcare and the management of district and tehsil hospitals experienced a change of the first type, where the decisions previously made by the provincial secretariat and the provincial cabinet were transferred to the district nazim and executive district officers.
The municipal services provided by the local government, the rural development department, and the public health engineering departments of the provincial government became the sole functional responsibility of the tehsil municipal administration. This was a fundamental change because the power to allocate resources, prioritize projects, and deliver results moved away from 48 provincial departments to 6000 units of local government whereas prior to devolution, the deconcentrated provincial bureaucracy at the district level was accountable to their non-elected provincial secretariat. The 2001 devolution made them accountable to the elected heads of districts and tehsil governments. Under the previous system, the de-facto head of the district administration was the district commissioner who would report to the non-elected commissioner while after devolution he reported to the elected district nazim (mayor).
Their study also found that a rule-based fiscal transfer system between the provinces and the local governments was established under the 2001 Devolution Plan. Approximately 40 per cent of the provincial consolidated fund was distributed among local governments with due weightage given to backwardness in order to ensure some form of equity across districts in the allocation of development funds. The other innovation was that these budgetary transfers did not lapse at the end of the year but continued to be retained by the relevant local governments, providing for flexibility and presumably some improvement in the efficiency of resource allocation
Proposed governance system for local governments: In light of the experience of the 2001 LGO, let us now examine what needs to be done to avoid the weaknesses of the previous system and implement the spirit of Article 140A using political, administrative and financial dimensions of devolution.
The remainder of this piece will be published in next weeks issue.
Continued here:
Governance system for local governments - Part 1 - Profit by Pakistan Today