Blog – Page 9 – Ad Glib Enterprises

Should Bridges Be Suspended? (or Trussed?)

Apr 25, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedbridges, cryptocurrency

Headline: What is a “bridge?”

Body: Many, many years ago, there was no bridge across the Chesapeake. The only way to cross it was to take a ferry across the waters. This was inconvenient for anybody on the Western Shore, but, it did keep the Eastern Shore less built up and more bucolic for a few extra decades. Said another way, the Bay Bridge made the Eastern Shore more inter-operable with the rest of Maryland, at the price of increased urbanization, and a lower level of safety (both in terms of increased traffic and land value.) A bridge in cryptocurrency operates in much the same way, and causes much the same advantages and disadvantages. The bridge allows for more interoperability in currency types, but, as this is a human enterprise, each time you nudge a system, there are always unintended consequences. Online, these consequences manifest as exploits where a bad actor tries to make a lot of money with a minimum of effort.

What are these bridges?

OK, I am not a coder, so I will try to define it for you. Before I go to bed every night (This is a goal) I should always put my cell phone on the charger. But, I cannot plug my cell directly into the wall, so, there is an adapter that goes into the wall, with a USB connection. This cord connects to my phone through a USB-C connection. You can think of this adapter as a sort of bridge. The phone has not been permanently transformed (I hope) but for a limited period, it has been put into a condition where it can receive electricity from the wall. The bridge sends a currency (say Dogecoin) in a “wrapper” denoting it as an equivalent value of Ethereum.

Is this really a big deal?

Yes. There have been more than a few exploits to consider. There was an attack on the Wormhole Bridge in February 2022 that led to a loss of $326 Million. Qubit bridge was hacked for $80 Million. This is a sizable problem.

Are there different types of bridges?

Yes, there are several. One simple one is the single span, and one very complex one is the wire suspension bridge. (The assistant whispers in my ear.) Sorry, but just like civil engineers, their online brothers and sisters have indeed developed more than one type of bridge. The most important distinction is uni-directional or bi-directional. Before you get confused, think again of the Bay bridge. (Please consider only 1 of the 2 spans here.) The span is usually only going from west to east, or east to west. This is unidirectional, and would allow you to turn one kind of cryptocurrency into another, but, there are “no givebacks” and no way to change back. But, we have all been involved with the Bay Bridge on a Saturday in the summer. There is so much traffic flowing east, authorities will turn one or more lanes on the normally west-bound span temporarily into east-bound lanes. On Sunday evenings this pattern reverses. This is now a bi-directional bridge, and would allow you to turn cryptocurrency into another, and back again at will. As you can probably imagine, it’s a bit dangerous, during the changeover period, to temporarily change westbound lanes into eastbound lanes. So, it follows that the bi-directional bridge can be much more handy, but somewhat less safe.

Safety is always first on my mind, why do we want bridges to be developed?

Safety is an important thing to consider. But, bridges do have some considerable advantages too. For one thing, Ethereum’s blockchain is wonderful for many reasons, but the gas fees can become onerous. So, if there was a bridge, somebody could use cryptocurrency denominated in a different more usable currency, but retain the safety of the Ethereum ecosystem, this would be a good thing.

Are there different sizes and kinds of bridges?

Yes, there are different sized-bridges. In the real world, there are a lot of people who need to transit from one side of San Francisco Bay to the other, so, the Golden Gate is simply HUGE. But, it would probably be inappropriate and needlessly expensive to build a Golden Gate-sized bridge over the Severn River near Annapolis. In a similar way there are different sized virtual bridges too, but some get quite large. Three of the largest appear to be the Wrapped Bitcoin Bridge ($10.2 Billion) Multichain Bridge ($7 Billion) Avalanche Bridge ($6 Billion), There are others too, but the point I am trying to make is that there are serious amounts of money wrapped up in these bridges.

Beyond size, there is another consideration. There are “Trusted” bridges and “Trustless” bridges. The difference is whether or not a central authority is involved. In a Trusted Bridge environment, there is a central authority, and in a “trustles” system, there is no central authority. The advantages and disadvantages attach logically. The Trusted Bridge allows you to trust a central custodian (actually requires you to trust them) but the operation is quite simple from the investor’s point of view. In comparison, the “trustless” bridge environments do not have this central authority, and are essentially computer code and require some level of skill to operate.

Are there Risks to using bridges?

Yes, there are risks, and they sprout from the Trusted versus trustless consideration above. In the trustless bridge environment, there is “smart contract risk” and “technology risk.” The smart contract risk is the risk that the coding behind the bridge has an error of some type. The technology risk is the risk that somebody will devise a virus or piece of malware that will effectively attack the bridge. The Trusted bridge environment adds “censorship risk” and “custodial risk” because you are relying upon the reputation of a third party. The third party could arbitrarily say that you are not allowed to change your currency into some other kind of currency. Also, your custodian (the group who hosts your wallet) could just disappear one day, and they take your assets with them.

The Verdict

Cryptocurrency is still a rather new topic. In fact, the only sure thing, is that with rapidly evolving rules and best practices, there will be an equally accelerated discovery of poorly protected nodes within the network. Even though the cryptography is good, each attempt at an improvement will likely have unexpected problems. Perhaps some consultancy will develop a way to field test these bridges before they are offered to the public? Often, before the military will accept delivery of a product, they will test it in the context of a wargame. Perhaps there could be some equivalent within cryptocurrency. The question is, Who would certify the results? How would you decide to believe them or not? Certainly we will figure these things out, but for now, if we shake the Economics 8-Ball, we keep getting, “The future looks cloudy.”

REFERENCES

https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/three-popular-crypto-bridges-and-how-they-work

https://www.coindesk.com/learn/what-are-blockchain-bridges-and-how-do-they-work/

https://ethereum.org/en/bridges/

https://www.investopedia.com/what-are-cross-chain-bridges-6750848

Editor’s Note: Please note that the information contained herein is meant only for general education: This should not be construed as Tax Advice. Personal attributes could make a material difference in the advice given, so, before taking action, please consult your tax advisor or CPA.

This Might Blow Your Mine!

Apr 20, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedcryptocurrency, Minecraft

Headline: Does Minecraft have a cryptocurrency?

Body: Ok, confession time. I don’t know the first thing about Minecraft. I think you develop a character, ply a trade and probably join a guild and/or clan. (In truth, there are 2 modes, creative and survival. In creative mode, you can join vast guilds and design weapons and armor. In survival mode, you fight more often. This is where my knowledge ends, and I thought my interest too. But, apparently, there are a few types of cryptocurrency that are associated with Minecraft. Given how many people are involved with Minecraft this seems really important. (I was shocked to find that in 2021, there were 140,000,000 users worldwide spending $318,000,000.) So, let’s take a closer look at this.

Shhh… it’s not REALLY happening… Remember, there IS no spoon.

Minecraft players are not complete newbies when it comes to this type of gaming. Many of them have built avatars and characters in other metaverses, and they want to take this character and bring it into the Minecraft universe. Officially, they are not able to do this, but somebody is apparently working on a back door (officially sanctioned or not… who’s to know) so that these players can import the characters they worked so hard to develop. This entity Enjin(working with a Japanese cryptocurrency exchange, Coincheck) has developed a plugin which will interact with the programming of Minecraft to allow for this transfer of what is essentially an NFT saved on the Ethereum blockchain. (This tokenized item will allow one to immigrate an item into a different game on the same blockchain.) This is not the first time that third parties have attempted to integrate Minecraft and cryptocurrency. Players have created unofficial servers that support Bitcoin payments such as BitQuest, MinecraftCC, PlayMC, and SatoshiQuest. Those servers reward players based on their activity, or reward players for finding items. Third-party developers have also created Minecraft clones such as Cryptovoxels and Craft.cash, which record land ownership on the Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash blockchains, respectively. I keep reading repeatedly how Minecraft has no official cryptocurrency associated with it.

(Since there have been so many of these 3^rd party attempts at monetization, it sure sounds to me like it was one of the objectives of Minecraft creators to see what kind of currency-related systems would organically evolve. This may in fact be part of a strategy to get players to become excited and engage even more with the software. Just my surmise, but, it smells right.) For the record, designers of Minecraft publicly disagree with me. Mojang Studios, the developer of Minecraft, one the most popular video games, has just banned NFTs and Blockchain technology, because they are, claims the company, against its values of inclusivity. “To ensure that Minecraft players have a safe and inclusive experience, blockchain technologies are not permitted to be integrated inside our Minecraft client and server applications nor may they be utilized to create NFTs associated with any in-game content, including worlds, skins, persona items, or other mods,” Seeing that they deny it so vehemently, makes me even more cynical about their intentions. nterestingly, in 2014, Mojang was acquired by Microsoft. Would they really spend $2 Billion for the company if they were unhappy with the monetization prospects?

So, what IS Enjin?

Engin is a plugin for Minecraft. (Think of a plugin as a smallish piece of software that allows you extra functionalities within the main software.) In this realm, all players need an Enjin wallet, and then they can securely trade cryptocurrency and digital assets with one another, from wallet to wallet. It also allows you to port your creations from one area of the game to another. (Think of this as a form of arbitrage. Some materials are common in some areas and extremely limited in others. Thus, in the 2^nd area, you can probably sell your creation (made from these “scarce resources) at a price higher than you had to pay for the resources. In this manner, you can profit. The drawback is that this plugin must be installed on each individual server.

The Verdict

This one’s tricky, no other way about it. Whether or not a cryptocurrency catches on, seems to depend upon the number of people who adopt it, and then the number of developers sho put in the effort to develop apps that people like and use. Make no mistake, we are at the beginning here. The endgame (as it were) is rather inscrutable.

REFERENCES

Minecraft Will Get In-Game Cryptocurrency Items with Enjin

https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/minecraft-with-crypto-and-blockchain-the-perks-of-playing-enjincraft-2618612

https://dailycoin.com/minecraft-with-crypto-and-blockchain-the-perks-of-playing-enjincraft/

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cryptocurrency/the-world-of-nfts-shaken-by-a-surprising-news

G7 discusses cryptocurrency

Apr 10, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedcryptocurrency

Headline: What has the G7 agreed upon in cryptocurrency?

Body: OK, don’t yawn. Unless, of course, you’re taking in extra oxygen to support you in a frenzy of extreme interest; That would be OK. Cryptocurrency is an international thing (in a decentralized world, Banks and governments are not involved) so, it is natural that countries might try to regulate this product in concert with their international partners. So, recently, I had heard that the G7, a major partnership, was trying to agree upon a rubric that could be used by all members. So, what decisions were made, and why does it matter? Let’s take the 2^nd part first. The G7 matters because it is so big, pure and simple. So, let’s look at just what the G7 is.

What exactly IS the G7 and what is it supposed to do?

The G7 is an informal bloc of industrialized democracies—the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom—that meets annually to discuss issues such as global economic governance, international security, and energy policy. Proponents say the forum’s small and relatively homogenous membership promotes collective decision-making, but critics note that it often lacks follow-through and excludes important emerging powers. At first, this partnership was the Group of Eight, and included Russia, but Russia was suspended in 2014 after their annexation of Crimea in Ukraine. The E.U. is a “nonenumerated” member, but all members in aggregate, represent 45% of the world economy. So, what happens here , in no way, stays here. (For its own part, the U.S. has experienced some rough waters in this group when former President Trump very publicly challenged the organization on both trade and climate change.) Interestingly, China seems motivated to join the G7, but many members point out that the G7 umbrella is only for “stable democracies.”

So, the question that must be asked is, “who cares?” The G7 is a very informal group lacking the central structures of NATO or anything similar. I have read many different accounts of this, but at root, it seems that the big deal is that as part of the G7, your country can effectively help to promote a solution that would in turn, benefit your own country. For example, take trade treaties between the U.S. and the EU; two very good friends. By being a part of the G7, the Europeans would likely get to affect the language used in the treaty to be written. In effect, they get to be “in the room” as the U.S. first begins to consider what it most wants from this treaty. Hence, when the final treaty comes out, the EU has already effectively ghostwritten the draft. This is important to diplomacy. Despite this, many diplomats point to the importance of the G20 to be much more salient in this environment. Currently, there is no more vociferous debate than that around Ukraine.

What does this mean for cryptocurrency?

OK, first, understand that all countries involved, are deeply confused by the cryptocurrency debate; They do want to take advantage of cryptocurrency, but they don’t want to be stuck with egg on their collective faces, if the entire crypto space just shuts down. This is why it is so vital that the G7 hammer out a plan at their meeting in May, as collective action is the only realistic way to conquer these challenges. As of now, Japan has quite a significant regulatory framework on cryptocurrency, and the EU has a regulatory framework ready to “go live” in 2024. This is the pressure building behind the G7. In response, one of the financial arms of the UN, the FSB, has volunteered to help develop a cryptocurrency rulebook. The outfall of all this is that we might have a global policy as early as July 2023.

The Verdict

Einstein has a quote that I always think of in this regard: “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” I admit that they don’t yet have the specifics to share but, I am encouraged that this planning is happening within the G7. Since NATO is such a formal group, the G7 allows for experimentation and breaks down fears that stall NATO and similar institutions into inaction. To be clear, given the broad reach of decentralized finance, larger agreements within the UN or similar assemblies will be necessary to foster efficient transactions that are easy to execute. I will return to this topic later in the summer of 2023. i

REFERENCES

https://cointelegraph.com/news/g7-to-collaborate-on-tighter-crypto-regulation-report

G-7 Finance Ministers Call to Accelerate Global Crypto Regulations Following UST Collapse: Report (coindesk.com)

G7 nations set to push for stricter cryptocurrency regulations at Japan summit in May (yahoo.com)

G7 Countries Set a Date for Imposing Global Crypto Regulation After the Recent Banking Crisis (Report) (cryptopotato.com)

What the heck happened to Credit Suisse?

Apr 2, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedCreditSuisse, cryptocurrency

Body: So, if you can’t trust a Swiss banker, who CAN you trust? This question has become some type of joke, appearing in any variety of action/comedy films of the 1980s and 90s. The stereotype is of a very conservative business person, who keeps very quiet concerning the business of their clients. So, is this stereotype justified? I have never been to Switzerland, so I cannot say for sure. But, with what just happened to Credit Suisse? I’m not so sure the stereotype fits anymore. You make the call.

OK, so what DID happen?

For many years, things were going well at Credit Suisse. Credit Suisse (CS to the cool kids), was one of the few 800-lb gorillas on the Wall Street scene for many years. Then, in an attempt to capture out-size dividends, they made some ill-advised investments, and received about $50 Billion loan from the Swiss National Bank, to help them address liquidity concerns. They were scrambling for money, but as these withdrawals happened, the largest investors refused to pony up any more dough. So, this was the need for the $50 Billion loan from the Swiss Nationqal Bank. “This additional liquidity would support Credit Suisse’s core businesses and clients as Credit Suisse takes the necessary steps to create a simpler and more focused bank built around client needs,” the bank said in a statement. The bank also used some of this money to repurchase many of its own debts. At the same time, the Bank went on a severe “rightsizing” (read, “firing spree”) of the company, shedding over 9,000 jobs. At the same time, management went on a disasterous policy change campaign where they demanded that employees be on site 3 days per week. Some other employees chose to leave on their own.

In an effort to soften the blow to other Swiss financial firms, the Bank made a statement. In it, they said the following:

“There are no indications of a direct risk of contagion for Swiss institutions due to the current turmoil in the US banking market,” the statement continued. The cynic that I am, we can already see why the Bank had to make this announcement. Their shares dropped 24% overnight, and other large banks (e.g. Paribas, Societe Generale, Commerzbank et al.) dropped between 8-12%. So, the question that must be asked is, what role, if any, did the failure of American banks have upon Swiss banks? This remains unclear, and there is competent evidence on either side of this argument. However, one expert on Swiss Banks said, “It’s unfortunate that the problems with some of the smaller U.S. banks in the last two or three weeks happened at the same time as this issue with Credit Suisse but the two are completely different and very largely unrelated,” He went on to say that the financial body blows absorbed by Crediti Suisse started many years before the first of the American Banks began to fail.

The blows keep coming for Switzerland’s second biggest bank. On Tuesday, it acknowledged “material weakness” in its financial reporting and scrapped bonuses for top executives. I read this line within the report, and I had to set my chair back up. Let me explain. First, CS is a bank and the largest issue they have to face is to keep the faith of their customers, so, finding them deficient in financial reporting is a HUGE black eye. (Think of a Middle School Boxing Champ being accidentally scheduled to fight Tyson. THAT type of black eye.) Second is a type of term of art within the auditing field. When an audit firm finds a problem, it is a “reportable condition” and the company does something to mitigate it. But,, when they find a “material weakness” it would be highly improbable that the company could institute a solution fast enough, and the prudent investor might change his or her investment decision on the basis of this material weakness. Said another way, a reportable condition is an occasional migraine. A material weakness is brain cancer.

Credit Suisse broke up. Several of its components were legitimately profitable. These went on to provide wonderful service to their clients. The portions of CS that were bleeding red ink were purchased by UBS. In addition to making less risky bets, UBS realized how important a hybrid work arrangement was to keeping the best people employed with them.

“In that sense I also see a prosperous future for the financial centre because we have hundreds of very well capitalized banks and very successful wealth management and asset management banks.” Contrary to this expression of trust, it cannot be denied that number of banks has fallen from 356 in 2002 to 239 in 2021. Over a similar period of time the industry has fired over 20% of its workforce. Against this backdrop of decline, holding management accountable is nearly impossible in Switzerland (In the U.K. individual members of the Management Team can be held liable in these schemes, and might face criminal prosecution.)

So, what lessons can we learn?

Lesson	Comment
Acknowledge the changing landscape.	Work/Life balance has been a buzzword for decades. But, the shift has been accelerated in the aftermath of the pandemic. The work situation (relationship between employer and employee) has irrevocably changed.
Embrace change	Management should not exert themselves against changes (like the hybrid work paradigm) rather they should explore for evidence to see if they might help gain competitive advantage.
Prioritize employee well-being	Employee well-being (Mental and physical health) IS the company, and it is much more profitable when this is kept in mind.
Communicate & Engage	Transparent and consistent communication with the workforce is vital to productivity and profits.
Invest in Technology & Infrastructure.	Sometimes, a new work benefit will require an investment in technology, and companies should be willing to consider this investment to help minimize retraining costs.
Implement training and support.	Employees and managers both need resources and time to adapt to new benefits and work situations.
Regularly reassess and adapt.	The very definition of work is evolving constantly, and managers need to constantly assess whether or not their current interventions are having the effects they intended.

The Verdict

“If necessary, the SNB will provide CS with liquidity,” The Swiss government said this of the future of Credit Suisse. This statement struck me funny, given how proud the Swiss are of their banking industry. But, stepping back a bit, this makes sense. When Silvergate, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature went down in the U.S., the FDIC went out of their way to express that all depositors would be made whole for their deposits. This move was necessary to prevent others from running to other banks and withdrawing their deposits, and starting a bank run. Apparently, the good people in Switzerland are little different from the good people in the U.S. I would guess that it hit me so hard because it strikes me as a little unfair that the government would be so willing to renumerate without apparent limit. (They claim that taxpayers are not paying… How does THAT work?) I think that the government is hoping that they can exercise “moral suasion” or use of an inexpensive form of jawbone control. It seems to me risky that they are pinning so much hope to that technique. Perhaps better regulation will evolve over time. One can only hope.

REFERENCES

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/24/swiss-claim-the-us-banking-crisis-ultimately-toppled-credit-suisse.html

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/credit-suisse-collapse-threatens-switzerlands-wealth-management-crown-2023-03-22/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/15/investing/credit-suisse-shares-saudi-national-bank/index.html

https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/collapse-of-credit-suisse-a-cautionary-tale-of-resistance/448183

Privacy Should Retain Primacy?

Mar 29, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedcryptocurrency, privacy

Headline: What are the privacy concerns when considering cryptocurrency?

Body: Privacy concerns are paramount in the minds of many when you ask about cryptocurrency. It is true: There is always a tradeoff between security and access. I work for the government, and our major database is DOS-based. When I asked my buddy in the deskside group, he sighed and noted that the government was cheap. Then he shrugged and said that the DOS it is based upon is very secure. (I think there is a very good reason: Most hackers are under the age of 30, and most of them haven’t even HEARD of DOS.) But all jokes aside, my deskside guy is pretty good, so perhaps it might be useful to delve into the privacy concerns regarding cryptocurrency.

Is this really a big deal?

Yes. In 2022 alone, the crypto markets were worth more than $2 Trillion. Ever thrown a crust of bread up in the air at a beach? Just how long was it before several dozen seagulls materialized? If it’s more than 30 seconds, I’d be very surprised. Online hackers and fraudsters are just like these aerial rats (sorry to the membership of SOS, Save Our Seagulls), and will materialize in even great numbers even faster when there are Trillions of dollars involved. That’s a lot of bread.

Why are there privacy concerns?

We already spoke of the tradeoff of security and access. More to the point, there are slowly, being added regulations with which these cryptocurrency firms have to comply. One such set of requirements is the Know Your Client (KYC) requirements where they collect a fairly broad array of data about the participants. Well, in a bid to speed up the transaction time, sometimes there are compromises made to the securing of the customer data. This is the crux of the concern.

What is de-anonymization of data?

This means that bad actors are trying to re-assemble different bits of publicly available data, and ting this to a single individual or group. Let’s say, for fun, that you go to to look at Tik Tok on a regular basis. Even if signed on as an anonymous person, the algorithm will quickly lean that I like dog videos a lot, especially the dog grooming videos (the best ones are the ones with the Huskies who are howling the whole time and blowing a coat.) The algorithm might look at this and other data and conclude (wrongly) that I own a dog and would likely react positively to ads for dog-related products. While I am a dog fan, owning one is fairly out of the question. But the point remains that they pretty accurately described my behavior

How De-Anonymization Works and how is it used?

Data miners can retrieve some information from each available data set they have access to, and some publicly available data (e.g. Census data) to put together a person’s identity or transaction. For example, a data miner could retrieve a data set shared by a telecommunications company, a social media site, an e-commerce platform, and a publicly available census result to determine the name and frequent activities of a user. We might all expect this activity to be entirely illegal, but, there are cases where it is not. For instance, the FBI used de-anonmization tools and techniques to figure out who was behind Silk Road, and law enforcement agencies regularly track down child predators using similar tools. Remember, no matter how good you think your privacy is, de-anonymization is always possible, given budget and equipment.

So, what are they doing to improve privacy?

In short, these cryptocurrency firms are innovating. Two of the biggest improvements were the Lightning Network and Taproot. The Lightning Network is a much faster Layer 2 payment protocol (I think this is related to the sidechains post I had put together previously. ) Taproot is a program that associates several signatures together to make substantiation of transactions faster.

I’ll See You in Court!!

This is the sign off for one of my favorite podcasts, Legal Eagle. But, it is appropriate here too, because a group of 6 plaintiffs are taking the Treasury Department to court over their application of regulation. In short, there was a service called Tornado Cash that allowed users to deposit cryptocurrency to one address and then withdraw the same funds from a different address. The Treasury Department asserts that agents from North Korea and other places were using this functionality to launder money, and thus shut down this service. The plaintiffs responded that there are legitimate reasons for doing this, One person anonymously donated to support Ukraine, and another was using the anonymity to secure his private assets as he ran his Ethereum staking business. Further, plaintiffs are saying that the Department exceeded its authority, granted by Congress. The outcome should be interesting.

The Verdict

Anytime that there is a vast pool of data (and a good amount of money) floating around in the same place, you can rest assured that there are hackers nearby, preparing to try and exploit any security weaknesses that they can find. But, the law enforcement angle makes this puzzle even more complicated. Not too long ago, there was a mass shooting in California, and the FBI requested that Apple “crack” the phone so that e-mails can be read, and pre-meditation of this horrific act can be asserted. Further, they asked Apple to program in a “back door” to their phones, such that law enforcement agencies could do this activity more easily in the future. Apple said, no and the FBI countered with something like, “but we need it to keep the American people safe from terrorists.” I am not making light of the seriousness of this debate. I just think that we need to have the conversation as a country.

REFERENCES

https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-privacy-is-in-greater-jeopardy-than-ever-before-heres-why

https://www.coinbase.com/blog/defending-privacy-in-crypto

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deanonymization.asp

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/12/19/the-pandemic-turbocharged-online-privacy-concerns/

I Thought Only Serial Killers left Signatures Behind??

Mar 25, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedcryptocurrency

Headline: What happened to Signature Bank in NY?

Body: OK, so if you have your scorecard handy, Silicon Valley Bank and Silvergate Bank both were forced to close due to bank runs pursuant to a softening in the tech startup environment. It would appear that we have a #3 on the podium now. Signature Bank, situated in New York, is now shut down, due to many of the same issues. Now, the most attentive amongst you (likely the left-handers in the group) might notice that Signature Bank rings a bell from a previous entry. They are the traditional bank that agreed to partner with Binance to help them gain access to the international SWIFT network. Now, they too have been shut down by state banking authorities.

What happened?

Scott Shay, Joseph DePaolo and John Tamberlane founded Signature in 1999 with backing from Israel’s biggest lender, Bank Hapoalim. On a personal bio page, Mr. Shay described himself as a “thought leader, and author of several widely read books on profound issues facing the Jewish community.” One of Signature’s specialties was financing the purchase of taxi medallions, which authorize holders to operate cabs. It was known in New York for providing banking services to law firms and real estate companies, and for catering to wealthy families in the area. The bank went public in 2004.

Things seemed to be going so well. In September, almost 25% of its deposits came from cryptocurrency firms. But, as the small-business market softened, the bank tried to decrease this amount by more than a third. The bank also said its digital asset-related client deposits stood at $16.52 billion. Signature was one of the few financial institutions that had opened its doors to taking deposits of crypto assets, a business it entered into in 2018. Then came February 2023, and the Bank announced that the CEO would become a senior adviser, and the COO would be promoted to the CEO role. (This progression of events makes me have to ask if the outgoing CEO felt a disturbance in the Force.)

State regulators closed the bank down, and transferred control of $90 Billion of customer deposits to the FDIC. Just like in the SVB default, US authorities claim that all customers will recover 100% of their deposits, and the taxpayers will not be charged. Per the articles, this is possible, only because Signature Bank has been found to be under the systemic risk exception.” Once again, I think this was done to encourage belief in the US banking system. Without this announcement, a much larger panic might have occurred. In the meantime, the FDIC has established a “bridge” successor bank, with the objective of making their customers whole. The designated bridge bank is led by the former CEO of Fifth Third Bancorp. Sadly, shareholders appear to be out of luck, as the FDIC approximates the cost of receivership at $2.5 Billion. Customers can call a hotline or find information on the corporate website.

The transfer of all the deposits was completed under the systemic risk exception approved earlier today. All depositors of the institution will be made whole. No losses will be borne by the taxpayers. Shareholders and certain unsecured debt holders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

“This story has more to do with crypto, huge error in judgment by veteran bankers,” said Christopher Whalen of Whalen Global Advisors, which specializes in analyzing and consulting on financial institutions. “Result was the same in a deposit run.”

The Verdict

“Many depositors at these banks are small businesses, including those driving the innovation economy, and their success is key to New York’s robust economy,” said the governor of New York. This is interesting because it summarizes the conundrum facing so many municipalities and banking entities. On one hand, they desperately want to help support and profit from the firms using cryptocurrencies, but, they are quite fearful of it, as the price variability is so great. The outcome is something truly unprecedented. Even though we have gone through transitions from coinage to checks to EFTs, there has always been a central authority of a bank, a government, or both. Cryptocurrency ( and decentralized finance more broadly) will force us to all become experimenters and be a little patient for results. New York certainly seems to be trying to foster a home for cryptocurrencies and digital assets, and London has invested billions into a similar exercise. As unaccepting of delays as we are, we must develop within ourselves the patience and maturity to wait and see on this one. Rest assured, if one is patient and logical, there will be a fabulous opportunity to make a few bucks. But, as my father often told me, “If it’s a good investment now, it will be a good investment down the road, too.” Perhaps the best use of the intervening time might be to become more educated about cryptocurrencies, and how we might approach the opportunity, while mitigating the risks. Kind of like any other investment, huh? Interesting.

REFERENCES

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/new-york-state-regulators-close-signature-bank-2023-03-12/

https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23021.html

https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23018.html

Goodness, Gracious, Great Banks a-FIRE!!

Mar 21, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedbanks, cryptocurrency

Headline: So, what DID happen to Silicon Valley Bank?

Body: OK, so I promise not to be too click-baity here. But, in the most recent issue we went over what happened to Silvergate Bank. At nearly the same time, Silicon Valley Bank also went under, and the natural question is, did they both succumb to the same malady. Well, sorry to hit you with this one, but, the answer is “sort of.” Think of their relationship as a popular song, and then the parody song as written by Weird Al Yankovic. The rhythms are the same, most of the notes are the same, the orchestration is often the same… just the story told through the song is sometimes completely different. (I never thought I’d mention Weird Al in one of my columns, but here we are.) Let’s dig in.

Who’s on First?

To get the basics of the case, I think we need to look at an authoritative source. Relax, I will summarize the words of the FDIC and others, so as not to make many fall asleep. To my mind, the first significant quotation is as follows. “Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.” So, with coverage by the FDIC, individual accounts are usually insured up to $250,000 each. But, the Federal Government seems to be suggesting that they will backstop the defunct entity so that it can return 100% of the losses. So, the question that must be asked is why is the government doing this? This is my opinion only, but I think the federal government is trying to send a signal to tech companies that they are safe to continue expanding and adding jobs to the economy. If they didn’t do something similar to this, these new companies might take a look at what happened to the bank, and decide to put off expansion of their labor force, or execution of projects. The announcement also said the following. “ Finally, the Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors. “ With these 2 statements, I think the federal government is trying to tell both new and existing small businesses that they will continue to be financially protected, even if their bank goes under. If the Public began to have doubts about this protection, the entire economic system could be in some danger.

So, what DID happen?

Silicon Valley Bank executives took their eyes off the ball. (This is a very human thing. Akin to some of the Shakespearean tragedies.) Deposits began rolling in, and then executives wanted to loan out that money with the goal of achieving the highest rate of interest possible. To do this, they tended to back the projects with higher levels of risk, and these were usually newly minted tech startups. Now, this is an acceptable business model if they also use a largish amount of available resources to also invest in safer, more short-term projects. (Think of this as a version of hedging… the good type of hedging.) Point is, with this mix of investments, the Bank would always have a significant amount of cash available to pay off customer demands. Simply put: They didn’t do this. (Like a fisherman, instead of being happy with the 600 pound tuna, they had to chase the 50-foot shark.) Everybody knows that ti is theoretically possible to exist, but nobody has seen it. SVB was shut down by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation on March 10, with no specific reason offered behind the bank’s forced closure. Interestingly, SVB was identified as “systemically important” to the US economy, and this designation did a number of things, including giving the FDIC a larger set of tools to settle these accounts.

Wait, didn’t we see this movie before?

Yeah, we did. In the wake of the 2008 financial market meltdown, the lawmakers tried to enact onerous new paperwork requirements upon banks having more than $50 Billion in deposits. Then, there was an Army film inspired barrage of lobbyists air-dropped on Congress, and the threshold was reset at $250 Billion of deposits. SVB studiously stayed below that threshold, reaching $220 Billion in deposits at its apogee. This situation was made even more dire when, in 2019, the liquidity requirements for banks under this $250 Billlion threshold were significantly softened. Many suggest that this combination of policy changes set the table for these current issues

So, who’s to blame?

In short, everybody. We could blame regulators for being too soft on these entities. We could blame the executives for taking on too much risk. We could blame venture capitalists for actually starting this run on SVB. There is a lot of people who could be credibly blamed. We could also blame Twitter for helping to spread news of the liquidity crisis that SVB was having In the past, rumors and other information had to travel from individual to individual. But, in the world of social media, thousands of people could see the article and then decide to withdraw their funds also, “just to be safe.”

In this light, the SVB saga is just the latest episode of the American tech industry struggling through three overlapping transitions. First is the macro transition from an era of low interest rates that supported cash-burning consumer-tech companies to an era of high interest rates that require discipline and unit economics. Second is the existential transition from tech’s dominance of attention economics and cloud computing to its expensive struggle to figure out the next mountain to climb, whether it’s crypto, the metaverse, artificial intelligence, climate, or something else. Third is the cultural transition from “tech” as a metonym for high-growth start-ups to “Big Tech” as a description of the largest companies in the world. All three transitions are contributing to a scarcity mentality in Silicon Valley, where, as Thompson observed, “tech has been shifting away from greenfield opportunities and expanding the pie to taking share in zero sum contests for end users, from their attention to their pocketbooks.” This is the cultural climate that explains a crippling run on SVB followed by a call for national bailouts.

The verdict

On Monday, the tech writer Ben Thompson wrote that the collapse of SVB pointed to a broader rot in Silicon Valley itself. “I assumed that the venture capitalist set knew about Silicon Valley Bank’s situation [and] I assumed that Silicon Valley broadly was in the business of taking care of their own,” he wrote. “Last week showed that both [theories] were totally wrong.” Far from the familiar metaphor of Silicon Valley as a symbiotic ecosystem, where investors, mentors, and collaborators benefit from a culture of trust and faith in progress, the SVB collapse makes the tech world seem more like an actual jungle, where everything looks lovely and peaceful until a jaguar comes along and lays waste to some capybara.

This evocative quote was pulled from one of the commentary articles, and I think it is very important. It indicates to me that even an expert in the industry thinks that the industry is “growing up” and developing. Consider the media industry. At first, there were newspapers, and they would often work together to ensure that they all had information to write about: ?They started as colleagues. Then there were radio stations and TV stations and they competed to get the best interviews first. Now there are competing interests so serious, there ase photographers who drive around urban centers at 3AM on the off chance that their police scanner might reveal a crime in progress, and they might get a picture or video that nets them millions of dollars. Admittedly, the media example is rather extreme, but it does seem that most industries mature in a similar manner. Now banks are over-extending themselves to help support the tech companies. This is one reason that I think the tech sector is maturing, and I think this is a good thing. But, every child needs an adult to guide them on their way. One who is strict, but not too strict. The government has this role and, like parents, they will likely take a while to find their balance.

REFERENCES

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-silicon-valley-bank-avoided-oversight-fdic-systemic-risk-midsize-greg-becker-dodd-frank-reporting-lobbying-5b3ff837

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/silicon-valley-bank-collapse-banking-crisis-wokeness-venture-capital/673394/

https://cointelegraph.com/news/fdic-to-attempt-another-auction-of-silicon-valley-bank-report

Silvergate, Meet the Pearly Gates.

Mar 16, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedblockchain, cryptocurrency

Headline: So, what DID happen with Silvergate Capital?

Body: OK, I am going to ask you to step in the Wayback Machine with me here, and set the destination for the later 1930s. Ok, see that long, long line of people, all queued up before that substantial looking building? This is likely NOT an architectural appreciation society. This is a bank run. In short, there were some challenging economic conditions… and then contagion took over. One neighbor went to talk to another, “You know, Shirley down the street, she barely got out all of her money.” Then neighbors #1 and #2 spread the word further, as they both sprint to the Bank to get their savings out. Multiply by a few thousand people, and this is the crux of a bank run. Yes, nowadays, the FDIC will serve to manage this, somewhat, but please note the word “manage.” Largely, this means that the contagion will not spread to many other banks. For the ones directly affected, FDIC can only do so much.

So, why am I telling you about bank runs that were happening about 100 years ago? Well, they provide a decent intuitive model for what happened to Silvergate Bank. Only, this time, Silvergate was not just a bank. And then again, cryptocurrency was involved. (I will tackle Silicon Valley Bank in a future article. That one’s kind of interesting too.) So, let’s get started.

OK, who’s on first?

As happens so often, the media has generally gotten some things wrong or, at least incomplete and somewhat confusing. The entity that went into “voluntary liquidation” was Silvergate Bank. In turn, Silvergate Bank is owned by a holding company, Silvergate Capital Corporation.

What happened?

Things were good, at first. In 2013, Silvergate Bank began to help the first companies within the cryptocurrency industry. In November 2018, it filed to go through an IPO, and they revealed that they had just under 500 cryptocurrency clients. By the time the IPO was accepted, they had over 750 cryptocurrency clients.

Just a cursory view of the news would suggest that there are multiple headwinds buffeting the cryptocurrency industry. In response to these confitions, Silvergate Bank took a $4.3 Billion loan from The Federal Home Loan Bank in San Francisco. These loans themselves, did not seem to unduly concern the FDIC.

Just a few weeks ago Silvergate Corporation announced that its annual financials would be delayed due to questions from its independent auditors. (Score one for the good guys?) Just after this, Silvergate announced that they would be hiring a law firm and a different accounting firm to help guide them through its transition. According to Silvergate management, all depositors would receive full and complete refunds of their deposits. (I have to wonder how they’re going to do this, given the FDIC limit of $250,000 per customer account.) ,

Within this announcement, Silvergate admitted to concerns that Silvergate Bank might have “going concern” issues. No, this is not something that should llead to a conversation with a friendly urologist. “Going concern” is a term of art within accounting, and when you see that phrase on an Audit Report, it means that there are things going on that concern them so much, that they believe that the company being audited will not be surviving the next 12-month period of time. Silvergate said that they would be “voluntarily liquidating’ its assets in response to “recent industry and regulatory developments.” One of the major industry developments is the bankruptcy of FTX and its conjoined corporate twin, Alameda Research. Silvergate (SI) sold securities and derivatives at a loss of $718 million as customers withdrew about $8.1 billion of digital deposits during the fourth quarter. This amount is far in excess of the bank’s profits since 2013, the Journal reported.

Shares of Silvergate Capital Corp., a crypto-focused California bank, lost almost half their value after the Wall Street Journal reported it spent the equivalent of a decade’s profit and fired 40% of its workers after investors scrambled to redeem $8.1 billion in the wake of crypto exchange FTX’s collapse. Now, the FDIC has forced them to stop operations and help make good on as many of the customer demands as they can.

Is this different from what happened at other cryptocurrency-adjacent companies?

This is a very good question. At the beginning (of the end) FTX tried to say that the problem was a “bank run” when actually, the crux of the issue was fraud being perpetrated upon unsuspecting clients. Silvergate appears to be more of a bank run, one caused by and made worse by external factors.

Why was Silvergate at such enhanced risk?

Mainly because they held a substantial amount of their assets in cryptocurrency. But, have faith; things can get MUCH worse, even at a traditional bank. One main issue is how banks report bonds that they hold. Most bonds are traded actively and are considered to be “trading investments. The value of these must be tested, regularly to see if their value had declined in value within the market. If so , they have to be “written down” to reflect market values. But, if a bank reports them as “Held to Maturity” investments, this “mark to market” protocol does not have to be used. The outfall of this is that the bonds held by the bank can be massively over-valued, and the bank itself can now be described as “under-capitalized.” Silvergate was involved in a lot of this investment activity, so when the bank run began, they had very little liquidity cushion to use to satisfy customer demanded withdrawals.

What’s the outfall likely to be?

I think the predicament of the marijuana growers and retailers is comparable. Even though these products are legal under state law, no traditional banks will touch them. I think that a similar situation faces crypto firms. What they do is legal, but getting financing from “TradFi” (traditional Finance, I had to look it up too) is becoming more and more complicated. This will likely lead to a very few cryptocurrency financing companies with a lot of power. (Think OCP for cryptocurrency.)

The Verdict

According to industry expert a Mr. Bianco, “I still think crypto is going to win the day at the end of all of this.” I have opined on this before, and in short, I agree with him. Within the marketplace, there are many evolving metaverses which each have their own native currencies. But, the “on-ramp” to playing in these metaverses appears to be purchasing cryptocurrencies to trade for the native currency. Because of the draw of these metaverses (which are getting more and more immersive each day,) I believe that cryptocurrency in some form is here to stay. So, if cryptocurrencies are here to stay, what happened to Silvergate? I think it comes down to a human failing. Greed.

Time after time (especially FTX), hedge funds have worked to get people into cryptocurrency, and other firms provide marketplaces where these cryptocurrencies can be traded. The kiss of death appears, once again, when the hedge fund works through the same corporate structure as the cryptocurrency exchange. In the case of FTX, they began making loans to Alameda, and trading their requests on a prioritized schedule. Silvergate started providing services to the industry in 2013, with no apparent problems. Then they instituted their own “internal settlement tool” the Silvergate Exchange Network, and now, they are defunct. Same rhythm, same chord structure. Not a melody I like to hear.

REFERENCES

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/03/09/silvergate-bank-had-to-be-perfect-but-now-pays-a-heavy-price-strategist/

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/08/crypto-bank-silvergate-announces-voluntary-liquidation/

https://www.investopedia.com/silvergate-plunges-45-7091740

https://www.forbes.com/sites/genegrant/2023/01/25/silvergate-shows-what-may-happen-if-community-banking-crisis-arrives/?sh=213ed9b63744

Keep Mama Safe. Data, too.

Mar 12, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedblockchain, cryptocurrency

Headline: Is data theft a real problem in cryptocurrency?

Body: For as long as there have been human beings on this Earth, there has been theft. As time went on, and our systems of scrip and other physical tokens turned to 1s and 0s on a screen, theft did continue to be a problem. Only, now, instead of an unobservant watchman making a pile of silver or gold vulnerable, it is physically easier to break into a computer and steal the data that underlies that account. In this case, there was the Federal Government backstopping the banks, in the guise of the FDIC. Now, there is cryptocurrency, and people are worrying that the blockchain and the organizations that control it might inadvertently open up people to additional scams. Only, this time, there is no Federal Government to insure (at least part of) your account balance. So, this leads us to a question.

Does investing in cryptocurrency place my personal data at risk?

To be frank, yes, you are more at risk. Just a few illustrative examples:

Just recently, a French cryptocurrency firm fell victim to a hacking exploit, and as a result, e-mail addresses for many of their customers were compromised. Reportedly, 9,500 of these customers also had their physical addresses, phone numbers and names exposed as well.

Intuit is accused of “failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that its data systems were protected.” In a subsidiary of Intuit, one employee clicked on a link they didn’t know the source of, and POOF thousands of accounts were potentially exposed. (It appears that several hundred were exposed, but only a subset of these have been maliciously used.

In 2022, a very organized extortion gang (Lapsus$) started to become very active by stealing source code and other data from world-renowned companies. At its height (depth?) they leaked a significant amount of Bing source code and compromised a contractor important to their authentication standard. After the 7 arrests, the group has gone underground.

Also in 2022, Conti, a Russian cybercrime gang launched ransomware attacks against the government of Costa Rica, and as a result, the president declared “national emergency” as a result of the attack. Some say that these attacks were merely a diversion, allowing the gang time to loudly down=play their association with the Russian government.

Decentralized Finance Platform Hacks

As the cryptocurrency ecosystem has evolved, tools and utilities for storing, converting, and otherwise managing it have developed at breakneck speed. Such rapid expansion has come with its share of oversights and missteps, though. And cybercriminals have been eager to capitalize on these mistakes, frequently stealing vast troves of cryptocurrency worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. At the end of March, for example, North Korea’s Lazarus Group memorably stole what at the time was $540 million worth of Ethereum and USDC stablecoin from the popular Ronin blockchain “bridge.” Meanwhile, in February, attackers exploited a flaw in the Wormhole bridge to grab what was then about $321 million worth of Wormhole’s Ethereum variant. And in April, attackers targeted the stablecoin protocol Beanstalk, granting themselves a “flash loan” to steal about $182 million worth of cryptocurrency at the time.

Why are these cryptocurrency firms having such difficulty with security?

There are a lot of ideas about what makes these cryptocurrency firms so vulnerable to these attacks. But, they all seem to boil down to inexperience. Most of the firms that are selling cryptocurrencies are directed by people who are very young. Given their youth, they have energy but lack the longstanding experience that confers upon older companies some ability to display wisdom. For instance, many cryptocurrency concerns were started in 2021 and 2022, at a time when the economy was doing pretty badly. Because of this, they have learned how to behave in these market conditions. But, as the business cycle goes, there are bound to be other times when fortunes change. Given the realities of this new market condition, they might not have sufficient resources to adapt to the new reality. Furthermore, security seems to be less of a priority, because of an organizational culture emphasizing FOMO, or “Fear of Missing out.”

The Verdict

Data theft is a large problem as it relates to cryptocurrency But, it seems like we should be more able to wrap our arms around it. Each cryptocurrency seems to have an excellent “why” as spelled out in their whitepaper. But, it seems that the questions of “how” are rarely answered. How are you going to protect the cryptocurrency not yet sold? How are you going to handle your ICO? How are you going to keep fraudsters from hawking counterfeit versions of your currency? These are all valid questions and if not answered to your satisfaction, perhaps you would reconsider your investment.

REFERENCES

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/07/29/crypto-wallet-maker-ledger-loses-1m-email-addresses-in-data-theft/

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cryptocurrency/intuit-sued-after-hackers-stole-crypto-from-customers

https://www.wired.com/story/worst-hacks-breaches-2022/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/07/11/how-to-protect-your-cryptocurrency-from-cybercriminals/?sh=9e6b90849c3d

Is the SEC up to Monkey Business?

Mar 8, 2023Andrew KolodyUncategorizedblockchain, cryptocurrency, NFT

Headline: Why is there a class action suit against Yuga Labs?

Date:

Body: Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, lawyers everywhere are about to go, well…er…um… APESPIT!!! Here’s why.

In a nutshell…

In a nutshell, there are a whole lot of people who are, as a class, suing Yuga Labs for having “inappropriately induced” this group into buying their Bored Ape NFTs and the associated ApeCoin token. Their claim is that Yuga Labs used famous promoters to artificially inflate the value of both the NFTs and the APE coin. A further claim is made that Yuga Labs waved the prospect of huge returns in front of “unsuspecting investors” claiming a loss of more than 87% since the end of April 2022. In an interesting twist, one community member brought p the point that Yuga didn’t create APE coin. Rather, APE coin was started by a DAO, which was then adopted by Yuga Labs. It will certainly be interesting to see the outcome of this fight. When in court, the class will have to prove that Yuga Labs engaged in a “pump and dump” scheme where they artificially inflated prices. This is often quite difficult to do.

Making their case even trickier, the class might have to convince the jury that both product lines were sold as investment contracts which constitute unregistered securities. These have to be registered with the SEC, in most cases. For now, though, Scott & Scott face the arduous task of finding the entire list of potential plaintiffs.

Well, at least they all seem to agree…

Nope, not really. The class is small when compared to the number of people who have purchased Bored Apes. Many within the broader community feel that the class suing Yuga are essentially whining because they made their own bad financial decision. One of these is Kevin Wu. “Extremely ridiculous! Take responsibility for your own actions, people.”

Is this really a big deal, worthy of interest by the SEC?

It conceivably might be. Even on the individual level, this might be worth considering. Just one year ago, a Bored Ape sold for $3.4 Million USD. Even now, the average price of a Bored Ape is over $115,000. “I see very, very, very little likelihood that the SEC is going to want to step in there and… characterize that [Bored Ape NFT collection] as a security,” said professor of law at the University of Kentucky Brian Fyre.

The Verdict

Once the case is filed, the court’s determination on whether NFTs are securities and their similarities to a company share would be a key factor to winning. We have hit upon this topic in a previous blog post, but really, this is a very important question. On one hand, because the different agencies of the Federal Government vie for larger portfolios (and budgetary allocations), I could see why the SEC would take the stance that these are investment contracts. As such, they need to be registered, and there are dozens of required disclosures that they have to tender to potential investors. On the other hand, Law Professor Brian Frye opined differently. “I see very, very, very little likelihood that the SEC is going to want to step in there and… characterize that [Bored Ape NFT collection] as a security,” said the professor. He felt that if the NFTs were considered securities, then the SEC would be forced to regulate a lot of things that they don’t want to regulate. I think this makes sense.

REFERENCES

https://cointelegraph.com/news/yuga-labs-inappropriately-induced-bayc-investors-class-action

Yuga Labs faces massive class action lawsuit from aggrieved investors

https://cryptonews.com/news/law-firm-trying-organize-class-action-lawsuit-against-yuga-labs.htm

Yuga Labs Faces Potential Class Action Lawsuit