Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

As regards purported manipulation by Bitfinex/Tether in 2017, there's this => Twitter

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In crypto that is overwhelmingly the main show right now

I'm not sure why you brought this up at this juncture in the conversation. I wouldn't use the same language but yes, it's quite a significant part of activity right now.
In the context of this latest discussion, I made the point that Bitcoin as it stands today isn't going to motivate the masses to transfer across to crypto and abandon FIAT. FIAT is the incumbent system we have. For that scale of transfer something significant would have to happen to FIAT (as in total mismanagement) for people to consider an alternative.

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes it does.

I disagree.

Bob24 wrote: »

You could have a similar chain of events whereby a small group of people decides to largely opt-out of national currencies (for reasons which are valid from their own perspective). Then because that small group has left, it would weaken national currencies for another wave of people, and so one as per the mechanism I had described.

A 'small group of people' won't weaken a FIAT currency. Mismanagement of an economy and a FIAT currency by a government and its central bank will! And it's likely to lead to people to look at alternatives in much greater numbers at that point.

Bob24 wrote: »

There could be others, but one reason I see which could trigger the initial wave is a refusal of the fact that in practice national currencies are used as a way to tax depositors to boost economic activity.

There are many means of applying taxation. We now have the technology to enable very precise pay per use. That may be the way forward in the future.

Bob24 wrote: »

From an individual depositor’s selfish perspective it is not good and one might want to opt-out, but if the depositor’s income also depends on economic activity it might be worth accepting that hidden tax as long as everybody also accepts it.

There's quite a focus on a perceived 'selfishness'. People have a duty of care to themselves to act with self interest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Bob24 wrote: »

In short, within reason John Doe accepts inflation and currency devaluation (causing him a loss of savings) because the counterpart is that it is boosting government spendings and economic activity and thus employment and salaries (increasing his income).

I think many are oblivious to the effects of inflation. I see it as a stealth tax. I don't want it and don't agree with it. In the nordic countries, they've found that 20% of peoples taxes are lost within the tax system itself. Who knows what it is in Ireland. Perhaps it would be more progressive to employ blockchain within that system and see exactly where that money is going?

Bob24 wrote: »

Since that system essentially transfers wealth from depositors to workers and public service users, the more he relies on savings vs labour income and government spendings, the more likely he is to feel the system is not working for him (the typical exemple in Europe of someone who feels it is not benefiting them is a German pensioner). But overall a majority of the population is currently OK with it.

Probably as a result of the shenanigans that came to a head in 2008, people worldwide are far less trusting of governments, public administrations, etc. The crypto movement forms part of that.
They have every right to question it. You've mentioned people feeling aggrieved but the reality is that we all have a right to feel aggrieved. There's no doubt but that public money is being misspent in every jurisdiction. It's just a question of how bad it gets - country by country. There's no doubt that we have better technology that could provide for more equitable taxation if the will was there to implement it.
You're putting this on individuals 'selfishness'. What of governments and people in public administration that are not acting in the best interests of citizens? That is where this starts from.

There's been talk of crypto and tax evasion and also the need to withdraw cash to counter evasion and illicit use. Ok. Will the same administrations that try and enforce this apply the same standards to themselves - and utilise blockchain right throughout public administration so that we can follow the money in its entirety? Turkeys don't vote for christmas!

Bob24 wrote: »

Problem is that individual acceptance relies on the fact that as a group everyone is forced to accept the drawbacks in order to enjoy the benefits (John only accepts this because he knows everyone also accepts it; if a minority of depositors start to refuse the system, its value will weaken for the majority which has chose to remain inside and it will cause another batch of people to start refusing it, similarly to my welfare state exemple). So once you offer a way for individuals to easily opt-out of the drawbacks (loss of currency value) while still enjoying some of the (weakening) benefits - gradually everyone opts our as layer by layer different parts of society see the system becoming non-beneficial to them after the departure of the previous layer.

Technology doesn't stop for anyone. You can build systems around it - and respond to it as it develops. That's what needs to happen in your example. It's not realistic to ask people to hold the line and not utilise it - that simply won't happen.
Consider also the fact that in the longer term - despite certain issues - we could still end up in a far greater position than the starting point.

Bob24 wrote: »

Now of course if what the majority wants is to to replace our money by very hard money it is fine from a democratic perspective (from a practical perspective, whether it is a good idea is open for debate - but the majority rules). But it should be a controlled and voluntary group choice, rather than a chain process triggered by a minority.

So - right now the majority either don't agree with crypto, don't understand it or don't see the value in it. More technically minded people are more familiar with the technology and see great value in it. You want to wait until the majority give it the seal of approval before its used? That's not how things work in real life.

What technology is not triggered by a minority?

On a side note, I'd sooner leave this taxation business aside - as we're veering off topic.

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Oh, so because a biased financial media outlets says so it must be true. I see.

They didn't, they aren't the source. I suggest reading the article before blindly dismissing it

JohnnyFlash

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Oh, so because a biased financial media outlets says so it must be true. I see.

Why is Bloomberg biased? Any examples of media outlets that aren’t biased against crypto?

q85dw7osi4lebg

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Everyone, it"s common knowledge

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-31/bitcoin-s-rally-masks-uncomfortable-fact-almost-nobody-uses-it

Oh, so because a biased financial media outlets says so it must be true. I see.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s not even speculation. It’s degenerate gambling masquerading as risky investing. The only use cases found for crypto in 10 years are money laundering, and paying for drugs and child porn on darknet markets.

Did you buy any yet?

JohnnyFlash

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Says who? Just Dohnjoe it appears.

It’s not even speculation. It’s degenerate gambling masquerading as risky investing. The only use cases found for crypto in 10 years are money laundering, and paying for drugs and child porn on darknet markets.

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Says who? Just Dohnjoe it appears.

It"s common knowledge

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-31/bitcoin-s-rally-masks-uncomfortable-fact-almost-nobody-uses-it

Hardly anyone is using the world’s largest cryptocurrency for anything beyond speculation. Data from New York-based blockchain researcher Chainalysis Inc. show that only 1.3% of economic transactions came from merchants in the first four months of 2019, little changed over the boom and bust cycles of the prior two years.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, but your welfare state analogy doesn't fit in this instance.

Yes it does.

You could have a similar chain of events whereby a small group of people decides to largely opt-out of national currencies (for reasons which are valid from their own perspective). Then because that small group has left, it would weaken national currencies for another wave of people, and so one as per the mechanism I had described.

There could be others, but one reason I see which could trigger the initial wave is a refusal of the fact that in practice national currencies are used as a way to tax depositors to boost economic activity. From an individual depositor’s selfish perspective it is not good and one might want to opt-out, but if the depositor’s income also depends on economic activity it might be worth accepting that hidden tax as long as everybody also accepts it. In short, within reason John Doe accepts inflation and currency devaluation (causing him a loss of savings) because the counterpart is that it is boosting government spendings and economic activity and thus employment and salaries (increasing his income). Since that system essentially transfers wealth from depositors to workers and public service users, the more he relies on savings vs labour income and government spendings, the more likely he is to feel the system is not working for him (the typical exemple in Europe of someone who feels it is not benefiting them is a German pensioner). But overall a majority of the population is currently OK with it.
Problem is that individual acceptance relies on the fact that as a group everyone is forced to accept the drawbacks in order to enjoy the benefits (John only accepts this because he knows everyone also accepts it; if a minority of depositors start to refuse the system, its value will weaken for the majority which has chose to remain inside and it will cause another batch of people to start refusing it, similarly to my welfare state exemple). So once you offer a way for individuals to easily opt-out of the drawbacks (loss of currency value) while still enjoying some of the (weakening) benefits - gradually everyone opts our as layer by layer different parts of society see the system becoming non-beneficial to them after the departure of the previous layer.

Now of course if what the majority wants is to to replace our money by very hard money it is fine from a democratic perspective (from a practical perspective, whether it is a good idea is open for debate - but the majority rules). But it should be a controlled and voluntary group choice, rather than a chain process triggered by a minority.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In crypto that is overwhelmingly the main show right now

Says who? Just Dohnjoe it appears.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Speculation is a side show.

In crypto that is overwhelmingly the main show right now

Bob24 wrote: »

Se my previous posts and the welfare state exemple I gave - pretty clear what kind of potentially undesired chain reaction I have in mind and that in that context by selfish interest I don’t mean speculation.

Ok, but your welfare state analogy doesn't fit in this instance.

Se my previous posts and the welfare state exemple I gave - pretty clear what kind of potentially undesired chain reaction I have in mind and that in that context by selfish interest I don’t mean speculation.

Bob24 wrote: »

As I have explained, failing to serve the selfish interest of a sizeable and well organised minority could be enough to trigger the successive waves.

Speculation is a side show. Are you suggesting that everyone is going to move over to crypto just to speculate? The extent of the 'selfishness' is contained within speculation. Unless you think its selfish to protect your life savings (in the event of a bank stealing it (where the bank fails and there is no state or industry protection) or a government stealing it (Cyprus) ...or a government mismanaging an economy and FIAT currency such that your wealth is about to vapourise.

Lets be clear. Those engaged in investment/speculation - are more likely to be 'selfish' - but there is nothing wrong either in principal with trying to turn a profit. Those people take savage risk - so they're entitled to such gains. That activity can get frothy and over exhuberent, yes. But for many its a regular activity that implicates self interest rather than selfishness.

The other examples above - couldn't be classified as 'selfishness' but they could be classified as self interest. I have no issue with that - and can't see how anyone could.

Bob24 wrote: »

If this is what you are calling fiat failing citizens, yes we agree.

It's definitely not. What I call FIAT failing is a government and its central bank mismanaging the economy and the FIAT currency that goes with it.

Bob24 wrote: »

And again, I am in no way saying fiat is perfect or well managed

Yeah, I wouldn't suggest for a second that you should because time and time again, we have seen that it's NOT perfect and oftentimes, it is NOT well managed - time after time, year after year.

Bob24 wrote: »

just that there is a real possibility of a minority being able to trigger a chain of event s which would eventually lead to its downfall

You have got this backwards. We have an existing system. People will need an extremely good reason to abandon that completely for crypto. That reason lies with FIAT - and not crypto.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, but again, I only see this happening where the motivation provided is that FIAT has failed citizens.

As I have explained, failing to serve the selfish interest of a sizeable and well organised minority could be enough to trigger the successive waves.

If this is what you are calling fiat failing citizens, yes we agree.

And again, I am in no way saying fiat is perfect or well managed - just that there is a real possibility of a minority being able to trigger a chain of event s which would eventually lead to its downfall (without a conscious choice from the majority saying “fiat has failed us, we want to replace it by decentralised digital very hard money”, nor necessarily a clear understanding or the long term implications).

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/large-bitcoin-player-manipulated-price-sharply-higher-study-says-11572863400?mod=hp_lead_pos4

A paper about to be published in the Journal of Finance suggesting that the bubble in late 2017 was largely caused by Tether and a mysterious trader on Bitfinex. Tether created out of thin air to buy bitcoin, canny crypto investors rush in with real money because of FOMO, bitcoin and alt coins bought with tether are sold to them for real money, real money is cashed out.

Nothing that people like myself and Pintman weren’t suggesting at the time. Most of the twitter accounts closely associated with Bitfinex are not happy with this report.

It was largely caused by irrational exuberance.

JohnnyFlash

https://www.wsj.com/articles/large-bitcoin-player-manipulated-price-sharply-higher-study-says-11572863400?mod=hp_lead_pos4

A paper about to be published in the Journal of Finance suggesting that the bubble in late 2017 was largely caused by Tether and a mysterious trader on Bitfinex. Tether created out of thin air to buy bitcoin, canny crypto investors rush in with real money because of FOMO, bitcoin and alt coins bought with tether are sold to them for real money, real money is cashed out.

Nothing that people like myself and Pintman weren’t suggesting at the time. Most of the twitter accounts closely associated with Bitfinex are not happy with this report.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Anything I've found on derivatives and crypto based is super vague and speculative. And at the end of the day it's basically the same concept, lending out more than you have.

As above. It's not something that was proposed with Bitcoin/crypto. However, regrettably we can't depend on everyone storing their own coins. As above ^^ - solutions are being considered.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Answer was provided above, Dohnjoe.

Anything I've found on derivatives and crypto based is super vague and speculative. And at the end of the day it's basically the same concept, lending out more than you have.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, what is it?

Answer was provided above, Dohnjoe.

Bob24 wrote: »

This is why I separated the concept of bank run and currency run. In what I describe as currency run, there is no fractional reserve involved - people are leaving the currency in general (including cash), not a specific bank, so the matter is completely unrelated to fraction reserves.

For sure, there's no misunderstanding. They're completely separate things.

Bob24 wrote: »

And actually as a side note, regardless of liking it or not, the idea of fractional reserves is nothing specific to FIAT currencies and am pretty sure the concept will become big in the crypto ecosystem eventually:

It has come from that world and can only happen in centralised systems or aspects of a system that are centralised.

Bob24 wrote: »

IMO you will have widely popular entities (called cryptobanks or something else) offering to take custody of cryptocurrency deposits and operating with fractional reserves, which will use the deposits to make money in various ways and offer interest to depositors while keeping some of the profits (and a large number of people will be very happy to deposit funds with them to get interests, without being concerned about or even understanding what a fractional reserve is. Whether it is good or bad I don’t know but I am convinced it will happen and attract a majority of individual crypto holders as everyone likes maximising their returns and many will be ok with or won’t understand the added risk - you will even most likely have people touting it as another proof that crypto is superior to physical assets like gold as it can offer a return instead of costing money to store).

It's already happening with the emergence of DeFi. There are a whole host of entities which have emerged over the past 18 months who are offering crypto loans and $ on crypto deposits.

Rehypothecation - the practice banks use to make use of client funds which may have been provided as collateral - is something that comes from the Wall Street world and could be used to manipulate crypto. For example, Bakkt could use this. They've been asked and said that they won't - but then there are a number of points at which it can be pursued - not just at Futures contract level.

It has very much become a live topic - as its a threat to Bitcoin/crypto. One of the core fundamentals of Bitcoin is designed in scarcity. If entities leverage Bitcoin, then we won't have just 21 million Bitcoin. In January a BIP proposal was floated to code in a Proof of Reserve aspect to Bitcoin. Something like this will be needed as its not realistic to think that everyone will buy in to self sovereignty when it comes to coin storage.

Bob24 wrote: »

And as I said I am not talking about a majority leaving en masse as a single move - I am talking about a gradual move whereby a sizeable minority would have the possibility to trigger successive waves of transitions, which at the end of the process would lead to a complete change.

Ok, but again, I only see this happening where the motivation provided is that FIAT has failed citizens.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well, there is no need for any bank 'run' if we don't have a banking system that employs fractional reserve banking. As regards moving the dial - again, it's highly unlikely that people will move en-masse (to the extent that Bitcoin takes the complete role of a FIAT) without that FIAT currency well and truly crapping its pants.

This is why I separated the concept of bank run and currency run. In what I describe as currency run, there is no fractional reserve involved - people are leaving the currency in general (including cash), not a specific bank, so the matter is completely unrelated to fraction reserves.

And actually as a side note, regardless of liking it or not, the idea of fractional reserves is nothing specific to FIAT currencies and am pretty sure the concept will become big in the crypto ecosystem eventually: IMO you will have widely popular entities (called cryptobanks or something else) offering to take custody of cryptocurrency deposits and operating with fractional reserves, which will use the deposits to make money in various ways and offer interest to depositors while keeping some of the profits (and a large number of people will be very happy to deposit funds with them to get interests, without being concerned about or even understanding what a fractional reserve is. Whether it is good or bad I don’t know but I am convinced it will happen and attract a majority of individual crypto holders as everyone likes maximising their returns and many will be ok with or won’t understand the added risk - you will even most likely have people touting it as another proof that crypto is superior to physical assets like gold as it can offer a return instead of costing money to store).

And as I said I am not talking about a majority leaving en masse as a single move - I am talking about a gradual move whereby a sizeable minority would have the possibility to trigger successive waves of transitions, which at the end of the process would lead to a complete change.

makeorbrake wrote: »

There most definitely is Dohnjoe.

Okay, what is it?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is there a crypto alternative to FRB?

There most definitely is Dohnjoe. Just don't freakin do it! Remember, I referred to fractional reserve banking (given that fractional reserve is a fully fledged feature of conventional banking) - I didn't refer to crypto in the context of fractional reserve. It's just that you jumped on it - on an assumption.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is there any alternative that isn't some some bastardization of full reserve banking? (which is widely viewed as too flawed to ever compete with fractional reserve banking)

It's a current live topic - that there are derivatives that could potentially lead to fractional reserve crypto. Vanilla crypto doesn't facilitate that - quite the opposite....but derivatives and other products could make it possible. If people hold coins on centralised exchanges, that could enable it. That's why there is also a discussion around Proof of Reserves (as there will always be people who store crypto centrally).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've noticed a lot of crypto bloggers and pundits tend to use an appeal to the future to skirt this type of question, whereby something will be "sorted out" by technology at some point in the future, without explaining how.

I didn't make ANY big fat claim. I just referred to fractional reserve banking from the point of view of the problems that it can cause when your precious conventional banking systems goes tits up.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It doesn't matter how technologically advanced a product or system is, it's still governed by elementary economic rules that we've been familiar with for centuries

You think that evolution and strides to improve should just be abandoned? I'm quite happy to accept that conventional systems have served society to a point. I'm not prepared to accept that we all shouldn't be fully engaged in trying to improve them or consider that we may just possibly have something that can improve on them.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well, there is no need for any bank 'run' if we don't have a banking system that employs fractional reserve banking.

Is there a crypto alternative to FRB? Is there any alternative that isn't some some bastardization of full reserve banking? (which is widely viewed as too flawed to ever compete with fractional reserve banking)

I've noticed a lot of crypto bloggers and pundits tend to use an appeal to the future to skirt this type of question, whereby something will be "sorted out" by technology at some point in the future, without explaining how. It doesn't matter how technologically advanced a product or system is, it's still governed by elementary economic rules that we've been familiar with for centuries

Bob24 wrote: »

Going back specifically to crypto, I think Max Keiser has an interesting phase to define Bitcoin: he calls it “hard money disguised as a get rich quick scheme”. In just a few words he explains that most people are not attracted to bitcoin because of ideals or an understanding of the underlying cypherpunk movement and Austrian economics theory - but rather by selfish personal interest thinking they will but at a certain price and sell at a much higher price. Now it is not a problem to want go make profit and some people will latter develop a better understanding - and his statement is not meant as criticism, but I think his wording explains quite well how greed and self interest is (smartly) built into the original concept of bitcoin as a way to get it to spread and grow.

There's no doubt but that at a later stage, people who believed in the concept and ideology were joined by those who have no other interest other than a speculative one. That's really a sideshow though. Due to the designed in scarcity, its going to happen initially. There will come a time when Bitcoin is considerably less interesting from that perspective. I see this as a once in a lifetime event. Ultimately, it will settle down (admittedly we are still very, very early in that respect).
I don't think that backs up your point though. It's a sideshow. Without basic fundamental / core advantages and upside to Bitcoin, there would be no speculative sideshow in any event. Furthermore, to shift the pin against a FIAT currency, two things would have to happen;
1. Bitcoin is going to have to filter through much more in terms of real tangible use case.
2. FIAT will have failed the citizens its purported to serve.

In that process, there is no selfishness implicated in the Bitcoin proposition in this context. If anything, the selfishness is on the part of those - having failed citizens probably due to lining their own pockets or pursuing their own interests - who would see to it that people have their savings wiped out rather than switch away from that failed or failing FIAT to an alternative.

Bob24 wrote: »

And specifically on your question about how it could play out against the majority in a crypto vs national currency context (not necessarily FIAT, government used national currency in general), there could be a similar scenario to the one I mentioned with social welfare whereby one after the other different groups of people are pushed to move out because the previous group has moved out (as a voluntarily simplistic example: in the same way a very determined sizeable minority of depositors could trigger a bank run even on a healthy by asking convert their digital money to cash if the central bank wasn't there to provide liquidity and prevent them from doing so, a determined sizeable minority of citizens could trigger what could be called a currency run asking to convert their currency to a crypto - and this would be much harder to control as it would be at a currency level rather than at a bank level).

Well, there is no need for any bank 'run' if we don't have a banking system that employs fractional reserve banking. As regards moving the dial - again, it's highly unlikely that people will move en-masse (to the extent that Bitcoin takes the complete role of a FIAT) without that FIAT currency well and truly crapping its pants.
That some - under those circumstances - would move earlier than others - all day long. However, other than that, I can't see past a scenario in which both co-exist well into the future. You'll see government money perform a lot better - into the bargain. There's nothing like a bit of competition.

Just think of the consequences of that alone (government money has to raise its game). Imagine if all of these developing countries didn't suffer from having their wealth vapourised every few years? The societal impact is huge.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Hmm...you've used this 'selfish' word quite a bit - and that doesn't sit well with decentralised crypto (in its original form - and discounting the speculative sideshow - which clearly involves greed, selfishness, etc.). Bitcoin emerged specifically as a reaction to the greed and selfishness of the movers and shakers in banking and government - players in the conventional 'democratic' (!!!???) system. Can you elaborate a little on where you see the selfishness in the context of crypto vs. FIAT?

Yep, and to be clear I don’t necessarily mean selfish as criticism - in most of my posts I simply used it to describe situations whereby people are strongly pushed to protect their own interest in the short term rather than looking at the long term common interest, and whereby in the end a succession of people understandably protecting themselves by making a selfish move can end up hurting everyone a majority of those people.

Going back specifically to crypto, I think Max Keiser has an interesting phase to define Bitcoin: he calls it “hard money disguised as a get rich quick scheme”. In just a few words he explains that most people are not attracted to bitcoin because of ideals or an understanding of the underlying cypherpunk movement and Austrian economics theory - but rather by selfish personal interest thinking they will but at a certain price and sell at a much higher price. Now it is not a problem to want go make profit and some people will latter develop a better understanding - and his statement is not meant as criticism, but I think his wording explains quite well how greed and self interest is (smartly) built into the original concept of bitcoin as a way to get it to spread and grow.

And specifically on your question about how it could play out against the majority in a crypto vs national currency context (not necessarily FIAT, government used national currency in general), there could be a similar scenario to the one I mentioned with social welfare whereby one after the other different groups of people are pushed to move out because the previous group has moved out (as a voluntarily simplistic example: in the same way a very determined sizeable minority of depositors could trigger a bank run even on a healthy by asking convert their digital money to cash if the central bank wasn't there to provide liquidity and prevent them from doing so, a determined sizeable minority of citizens could trigger what could be called a currency run asking to convert their currency to a crypto - and this would be much harder to control as it would be at a currency level rather than at a bank level).

stockshares

Bob24 wrote: »

Yep, the way politics work in China is that once the central government has given directions (and probably targets to provinces behind closed doors), all the local leaders will follow suit in order to look good on the nationwide dashboards and not to be at the bottom of the rankings. So there will likely be many new Chinese blockchain companies created.

One downside probably is that governments will likely rush to spend money on anything which has the word “blockchain” on it without having the Proper expertise to really understand what it is - and there is a whole industry in China of people who are just creating projects in order to attract government subsidies and keep their business going (the same small company could have been working on green energy PowerPoint slides yesterday and completely refocus on blockchain PowerPoint slides today, depending on what will work best to convince an official to sign a check for them, I know someone who used to work in such company and it is quite appalling as in the end they swallow subsidies and deliver very little - with the local government possibly turning a blind eye because usually the boss of the company is a former official and/or has some contacts). So most likely a lot of the money will go into projects which are not too solid or have very little to do with blockchain besides having the word in their name.

But still it is good news and some good stuff could come out of it. And it got me to remember how to say blockchain in Chinese!

Considering they are just going to choose 2 projects I would imagine they will take more care in choosing. I don't think they would want to have to answer to the Party Leaders if they chose duds.

Btw Dovey Wan is worth following on Twitter. She seems to have her finger on the pulse of what's happening in Crypto in China.