Earlier, the most influential Hong Kong Digital Asset Exchange HKD.com launched its platform token HKD.com DAO (HDAO), sold out in 5 seconds. 🔥
HDAO/USDT trading pair will be available at 15:00pm HKT on HKD.com spot trading platform, the opening price was 0.02 USDT. The price of HDAO once soared to the highest point of 0.3139 USDT at the time of writing this article, over 1469% increase. There has been increasing buying interest, leading the price of HDAO.
HDAO is an ERC 20 token, with a max supply of 10,000,000,000. The HDAO ecosystem will be empowered by HKD.com, as it is HKD.com platform and governance token. HDAO will allow holders to exercise borrowing/lending, LP staking, spot trading pairs, and more. HDAO is the native cryptocurrency on the HKD.com platform, it aims to connect holders and HKD.com, formulate a wholesome ecosystem.
HDAO will be listed on other reputable exchanges in the future.
The number of validators on the Ethereum network continues gaining steam after hitting the 300,000 mark.
Moreover, staked Ether crossed the 9.5 million level to reach 9,599,919 ETH.
Ethereum 2.0, recently renamed to the consensus layer, intends to transition the network to a proof of stake (PoS) consensus mechanism from the current proof of work (PoW) framework.
Therefore, validators will take up the role of miners when it comes to the confirmation of blocks based on the amount of ETH staked, given that it acts as collateral against dishonest behaviour.
The transition is slated for Q2 2022, and the PoS consensus mechanism is expected to make the Ethereum network more environmentally friendly and cost-effective.
Furthermore, this shift is expected to trigger a 1% annual deflation rate, accordingto research by crypto service provider LuckyHash.
Non-Zero ETH addresses continue to skyrocket
More participants continue joining the ETH ecosystem, given that the number of non-zero addresses is going through the roof. Market insight provider Glassnode explained:
“The number of non-zero addresses just reached an ATH of 75,960,332.”
Meanwhile, burnt Ether edges closer to the 2 million mark. 1,922,687 ETH has already been burned, according to crypto insight provider DuneAnalytics.
Launched in August 2021, the London Hardfork or EIP 1559 introduced a feature where Ether would be burnt every time it is used in transactions. This has been causing a supply deficit, which prompts a price increase whenever demand rises.
This upgrade also eliminated the usage of other digital tokens for fee payment in the Ethereum Network. Only Ether would be used, thus restoring the unique relevance of the ETH cryptocurrency. Inflationary tendencies were also eradicated.
Since blockchains came into the limelight, critics have sprung up to downplay the importance of a blockchain-powered society. In these situations, blockchain evangelists resort to the ultimate argument that blockchain is decentralised and is, therefore, beneficial.
According to the broader blockchain community, decentralisation is the greatest feature of the technology. Sure, Bitcoin may be a store of value, but its real value lies in its decentralised nature.
Running on a decentralised system means Bitcoin is resistant to government censorship. Moreover, there are more participants in the network and multiple points of failure, making service failure and malicious attacks improbable.
These aren’t all the benefits decentralisation provides, but you get the idea. Without decentralisation, many of blockchain’s touted benefits won’t materialise.
Decentralisation is inextricably linked to the identity of the blockchain community. It’s the Holy Grail—an ideal every two and a half blockchains claim to uphold.
However, whether blockchain today is truly decentralised nowadays is up for debate. Much has changed since Satoshi vanished, and blockchain technology has gone from being a fringe technology to one of the hottest industries in the world. And, as anyone knows, the nature of technology often evolves as adoption grows.
This piece will attempt to explore the level of decentralisation of popular blockchain networks through specific criteria. In other words, just how decentralised are “decentralised blockchain networks” today?
What is Decentralisation?
Before we start comparing blockchains, it is important to understand the meaning of decentralisation. With how decentralisation gets thrown around so much in the wider blockchain community, you’d think a commonly accepted definition of the concept exists.
It turns out decentralisation means different things to different people. Someone might call Bitcoin “decentralised” because “no controls the development” of Bitcoin. However, with mining power—crucial to the decentralised blockchain networks—concentrated in a few hands, some would argue Bitcoin isn’t decentralised.
Conversely, Ethereum, with a very visible Vitalik Buterin having a huge say in the network’s development, may claim to be decentralised, given its planned switch to a Proof-of-Stake system which allegedly distributes validating power more evenly than Bitcoin.
What we can deduce from these arguments is decentralisation isn’t a state. Instead, it’s a spectrum. A blockchain network’s position on the spectrum is a culmination of different factors, some of which include:
1. Governance (development and control)
2. Token supply
3. Hashing rate or validator power
4. Network access
5. Network size
Present-day blockchain networks vary in the aforementioned qualities, which invariably leads to variations in decentralisation. In most cases, the difference is because decentralisation is traded off for other benefits (like speed).
“Governments are good at cutting off the heads of centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.” — Satoshi Nakamoto (circa 2008).
Why is Decentralisation Important?
Already, we have Satoshi telling us why decentralisation is central to blockchain’s usefulness: it preserves blockchain’s protection from external control, corporate players, and government. Think of it as the mythical Hydra: cut off one head, and three more grow in its place.
For now, blockchain technology hasn’t received that much attention from world governments (although that’s changing). But if governments decided to crack down on cryptocurrencies, DeFi platforms, and other innovations running on the blockchain, the system would be able to stave off such attacks. At least, that’s the theory.
Still, there are more benefits to decentralisation, including the following:
1. Protection Against Attacks
Centralised services have a single entity controlling access, leaving such platforms with a single point of failure. With just one access point to breach, malicious attacks on the system would be easier.
Blockchain technology utilises the peer-to-peer system, which Satoshi praises in his paper. A P2P network distributes computing power over different computers, with nobody controlling access to the network. To take over the network, attackers need to control a significant majority of computers (nodes in a blockchain), which is theoretically impossible.
2. Failure-Resistant Operation
When Facebook’s servers crashed, billions of people were cut off from accessing the platform. Conversely, a decentralised platform would rarely fail like that since the system relies on many components to work. Decentralised blockchain technology is designed to be robust, such that the system can continue to operate even if a part fails.
3. Democratised Access and Control
Satoshi Nakamato envisioned the Bitcoin blockchain as a democratic platform with free access to everyone. According to the original whitepaper, control of the blockchain was split across the board, with no group holding wielding dominant power.
This prevents certain actors from colluding to operate the system for their benefit. With Bitcoin and other public blockchains, any change to the system would require approval from other participants in the network.
As John Lennon said, “yeah, power to the people.”
How Decentralised are Blockchain Networks?
Decentralisation often brings up fierce debate because it’s difficult to evaluate. Each blockchain, even copycat versions, has a unique architecture, so finding a basis of comparison.
However, blockchains have several markers to indicate their level of decentralisation. This includes, as mentioned earlier: governance, hashrate or validator power, network size, and accessibility. Using these criteria, we can attempt an honest appraisal of the most popular blockchain networks:
Governance is how rules guiding the system are made and enforced. Moreover, governance is the process through which major decisions concerning the design and development of the blockchain are made and implemented.
In a decentralised system, governance is distributed evenly across the network—or, at least, a majority. That means one entity shouldn’t determine the future of a blockchain, lest it becomes a centralised system—an imposter among us.
To a larger extent, Bitcoin has a highly decentralised governance structure. With no figurehead, major decisions are left in the hands of the community of Bitcoin Core developers. That explains why supporters of SegWitX were left with no choice, but to fork the Bitcoin blockchain after their proposal to implement newer features (such as an increased block size) failed to garner support.
Ethereum is a different beast, with founder Vitalik Buterin, considered to be heavily involved in the network’s development. However, most signs suggest control of the network’s protocol is decentralised.
According to the Ethereum Foundation, several groups participate in governance, including holders of the blockchain’s native token ($ETH), users of applications (dApps) built on the Ethereum blockchain, application developers, node operators, miners/validators, and many more.
Other blockchains are less decentralised in this aspect. For example, the development of the Cardano and Polkadot blockchains is mostly managed by founder-led organisations: WEB3 Foundation for Polkadot and IOHK for Cardano. Solana, a blockchain noted for its fast speeds, is pretty much controlled by a small pool of developers.
So, Bitcoin and Ethereum pass the governance test. The rest? Not so much.
2. Network Size
The size of a network is another excellent measure of decentralisation. The more participants you have in a network, the more decentralised you can expect it to be. However, it’s necessary to ensure that a few participants don’t control the majority of the network.
In Proof-of-Work blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0, hashrate is the best way to measure network size. The uninitiated Hashrate is total computational power used to mine and verify transactions on PoW networks.
A network’s hashrate shouldn’t be concentrated in a few hands,or a group of miners could easily take over control of the blockchain. Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0 use PoW consensus mechanisms, so let’s evaluate the stats.
Bitcoin has 14,000+ nodes spread over 90 countries, while Ethereum has 2,000+ nodes running on the network. According to estimates, the top four mining pools on Ethereum control 72.81% of the network’s hashrate, while Bitcoin’s top four mining pools control nearly 70% of the hashrate.
At first glance, a few entities controlling large chunks of network power may look alarming. But, it’s important to know mining pools are often collectives with thousands of members, not over-centralised entities. While much of Bitcoin mining is concentrated in China, the system survived the Chinese government’s crypto mining crackdown—evidence of Bitcoin’s truly decentralised nature.
Validating nodes on Ethereum are set to increase with the network’s switch to a Proof-of-Stake consensum mechanism. The “beacon chain” already counts nearly 290,000 validators in its ecosystem.
Now, let’s consider how altcoins stack up to Bitcoin and Ethereum. Most altcoins run on newer consensus mechanisms, especially Proof-of-Stake, so mining hashrate won’t apply here.
Instead, measuring decentralisation through network size in PoS blockchains is done by considering the following factors:
a. Number of stake pools and validators
b. Total supply of currency staked
c. Number of validators and stake pools controlled by founders as opposed to individuals or other entities
Polkadot currently has 297 validators and plans to cap it at 1,000 validators. Cardano has 3,140 validators (aka stake pools) responsible for finding and validating transactions.
From these numbers, we can see the trend of centralisation inherent in these blockchain networks. Besides, given the high costs of becoming a validator, there are suspicions concerning the number run by the founding organisation.
3. Token Distribution
When looking at a network’s decentralisation, the initial token supply is a big factor to consider. If a project distributed coins unequally, with some entities large portions of total coins in supply, you can bet it’s running a centralised system. An egalitarian distribution of tokens ensures no one can hold enough to control the system—especially in a PoS blockchain, where coins staked determine validator power.
Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin and allowed people to mine from the get-go. However, newer projects have increasingly pre-mined tokens for themselves before opening up the system to the public.
According to the chart below, many new blockchains, including Solana, Avalanche, Flow, Celo, Blockstack, Near, and Binance, allocated around 40% of the ICO to insiders, i.e., company executives, VCs, and founders. That’s an awful lot of coins to put in a few hands, which shows how much decentralisation new kids on the block (pun intended) lack.
3. Network Access
A true decentralised network relies on a P2P architecture with multiple nodes collectively processing transactions and securing the system against attacks. The more participants you have in a network, the greater the decentralisation.
However, a blockchain network must have low barriers to entry if it wants more participants. Thus, the accessibility of a network can show how decentralised it is.
Validating transactions on the Bitcoin network is easy if you have a server-grade PC and an Internet connection. However, mining blocks requires complex and often expensive devices, such as Application-specific Information Computers Systems (ASICs). However, individuals can join mining pools to contribute to the network.
Just like Bitcoin, validating transactions on the Ethereum network is possible with a home PC. Mining new blocks does cost more computing power, which may be out of the reach for average individuals.
Proof-of-Stake blockchains like Ethereum 2.0, Solana, and Cardano play by a different set of rules. Participants must stake an amount of the network’s cryptocurrency for the right to confirm new transactions.
Ethereum 2.0 requires validators to lock at least 32 ETH, which is about $88,640 per current market rate. This may seem high, but consider that some services allow participants to combine funds to create stake pools.
Besides, Ethereum’s threshold for entry is lower than many PoS blockchains.
Validators on the Polkadot network need at least 5,000 DOT staked (around $95,000). The system uses just 297 validators, so you can take a wild guess and estimate how many validating nodes are controlled by the Web3 foundation (founder of Polkadot).
Solana doesn’t set a limit to become a validator, but validators must pay up to 1 SOL in voting fees every day. Plus, figures for the required validator stake vary from 5,000 SOL to 50,000 SOL. With the already expensive hardware requirements, attaining validator status on Solana doesn’t look feasible for most people.
Binance Smart Chain has even stricter requirements: validators must stake a minimum of 10,000 BNB (around $3.7 million at current prices) and pass an application process. Not so decentralised, eh?
With so many variables involved, decentralisation may be one of the hardest metrics to measure in the blockchain. However, the analysis provided paints with a pretty accurate picture of the decentralisation level available in most popular blockchain networks today.
Bitcoin is, by a long mile, the most decentralised blockchain network. While Ethereum often gets criticised for being centralised, it is better decentralised than most blockchain platforms.
Except for a few, the large majority of newer blockchain networks are far from being decentralised. Some may argue that these platforms sacrifice decentralisation for higher scalability and added functionality. However, the million-dollar question is:
What use is a blockchain if it’s not decentralised and secure?
A U.S. grand jury indicted Satish Kumbhani, the founder of BitConnect, orchestrating a fraud scheme that siphoned approximately $2.4 billion from investors, according to the Department of Justice.
The 36-year-old from Hemal, India, with his co-conspirators, deceived investors’ money to gain substantial profits by taking advantage of the volatility of crypto exchange markets through BitConnect’s “Lending Program.”
Hemal convinced investors that the program was powered by a cutting-edge technology called the “BitConnect Trading Bot” and “Volatility Software.”
In reality, according to the indictment, it was a well-orchestrated textbook Ponzi scheme where earlier BitConnect investors were paid using money from later investors.
Before going underground in 2018, the cryptocurrency scam had hit a peak market capitalization of $3.4 billion, and this was attained through the manipulation of its digital currency called BitConnect Coin (BCC).
Despite being large, Kumbhani was charged with various counts, such as operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and international money laundering. If convicted, he could be incarcerated for a maximum of 70 years.
Eric Smith, a special agent in charge of the FBI’s Cleveland Field Office, noted:
“Today’s indictment reiterates the FBI’s commitment to identifying and addressing bad actors defrauding investors and sullying the ability of legitimate entrepreneurs to innovate within the emergent cryptocurrency space.”
Ryan Korner, a special agent in charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation’s office in Los Angeles, added:
“As cryptocurrency gains popularity and attracts investors worldwide, alleged fraudsters like Kumbhani are utilizing increasingly complex schemes to defraud investors, oftentimes stealing millions of dollars.”
Kumbhani’s indictment comes months after crypto worth $57 million was seized from Glenn Arcaro, a top American-based BitConnect promoter. Victims were to benefit from the liquidation of the crypto assets after a court gave the go-ahead.
At least $5 million in Bitcoin (BTC) has been donated to boost the Ukrainian Army since Russia attacked the nation on February 24, according to blockchain analytics firm Elliptic.
A cryptocurrency wallet belonging to Come Back Alive, a Kyiv-based volunteer group, had received 130 BTC from at least 2,200 donations. The funds are being channelled towards supporting Ukraine with military gear, medical supplies, and drones.
Tom Robinson, the chief scientist at Elliptic, noted:
“Cryptocurrency is increasingly being used to crowdfund war, with the tacit approval of governments.”
Russia went on the offensive and invaded Ukraine on February 24 using naval, air, and land forces. Airstrikes have hit various cities and military bases, and the effects have been catastrophic; at least 198 Ukrainians have lost their lives.
Over the past decade, volunteer groups have been at the forefront of aiding Ukraine’s conflicts, as witnessed in the ouster of pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. These groups receive millions of dollars from private donors through payment apps and bank wires. Nevertheless, Bitcoin is emerging as a crucial alternative funding method.
On February 17, the Ukrainian parliament legalized Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies by unanimously passing the Virtual Assets Law as tension with Russia reached a fever pitch.
Mykhailo Fedorov, the Ukrainian deputy prime minister, viewed the law as a stepping stone towards more crypto investments and stated:
“The new law is an additional opportunity for business development in our country. Foreign and Ukrainian crypto companies will be able to operate legally, and Ukrainians will have convenient and secure access to the global market for virtual assets.”
Therefore, the Bitcoin donations received by the Come Back Alive group are backed by the law.
The price of Tether (USDT) has also been soaring on Ukraine’s Kuna exchange based on the ongoing Russian invasion.
BitMEX co-founders Arthur Hayes and Benjamin Delo have both pleaded guilty to violating the United States Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).
As announced in a press release by the Department of Justice, the plea detailed the duo’s failure to establish, implement and maintain Anti Money Laundering (AML) safeguards on the BitMEX trading platform and per the plea deal, both can be sentenced to a maximum jail term of 5 years.
“The opportunities and advantages of operating in the United States are legion, but they carry with them the obligation for those businesses to do their part to help in driving out crime and corruption,” said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, “ Arthur Hayes and Benjamin Delo built a company designed to flout those obligations; they willfully failed to implement and maintain even basic anti-money laundering policies. They allowed BitMEX to operate as a platform in the shadows of the financial markets.
BitMEX was one of the flagship derivatives trading platforms that ventured into the digital currency ecosystem, however, its early days were marked with controversies and crackdowns from market regulators, particularly those in the United States. While the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) charged the exchange for illegal trading back in October 2020, BitMEX has never left the crosshairs of the SEC for its securities trading.
Per the current charges levied on the founders, Arthur Hayes agreed to surrender to the authorities back in March last year, a bold move that was soon followed by Delo and Samuel Reed who initially was seemingly on the run from authorities.
Following the current plea deal, Arthur Hayes and Benjamin Delo have each agreed to separately pay a $10 million criminal fine representing pecuniary gain derived from the offense. Their final sentencing is subject to the prerogative of the presiding U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl.
The crypto industry saw an increase in professional investors at record rates, the Wall Street Journal reported.
According to the report, Coinbase Global Inc saw an overall trade worth $1.4 trillion by institutional clients in 2021 – a jump from just $120 billion the year before and more than twice the $535 billion for retail.
The report also added that hedge funds had joined retail traders who comprised Bitcoin’s market in the earlier year, registered investment advisers and some companies, said Gil Luria, a strategist at D.A. Davidson. The latter has been studying bitcoin since its early days. A prime example would be El Salvador, which has become a buyer.
These retail traders earlier traded on exchanges that offered a single bet: buy or sell Bitcoin 24 hours a day, all year round – which formed a market that modest trades could quickly move.
According to Leah Wald, the chief executive of Valkyrie Funds, trades of that sort has changed and “it’s a completely different game now.” The growth has influenced the rapid acceptance of cryptocurrencies by the public in professional investors, the report added. In 2021 alone, venture funds invested billions in cryptocurrencies and crypto exchanges have also made advancements in their marketing strategies to become household names.
In October, a survey of 300 institutional investors conducted by State Street found that more than 80% were now allowed to have exposure to cryptocurrencies, the Wall Street Journal said. The most bullish were large funds with assets of $500 billion or more under management.
State Street survey found that the only major institutional group that was not in the market were sovereign-wealth funds, though it predicted they would be within two years.
The report stated that the growth of institutional investment has also affected the behaviour of cryptocurrency markets in a way that they have started to copy traditional markets.
According to Luria, professional traders now see it as one asset inside a diversified portfolio. They hold on to it as it promises a high probability of outsized returnscomparedn to other assets and trade like any other risk asset.
The past week has been a very challenging one for the global digital currency ecosystem as a number of bearish moves were experienced in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. As expected, the geopolitical tension stirred a very massive selloff in the broader financial ecosystem with cryptocurrencies, led by Bitcoin (BTC) responding in tandem.
While the global crypto market capitalization plunged to a low of $1.57 trillion, a number of altcoins maintained an impressive growth outlook over the trailing 7-days period. This article is a review of the top highest earners for the week.
Terra is one of the most elite of altcoins that has soared by more than 51% in the past week. The network’s native token, LUNA, was changing hands at $74.83, rising from a low of $48.59 in the week, following the unprecedented Russia-induced market meltdown.
With Terra’s prowess hinged on its unique capabilities as a blockchain protocol that uses fiat-pegged stablecoins to power price-stable global payments systems, its innovative products and services are bound to see additional growth in the coming week. Much observation has to be placed on Terra to see how well investors will push the coin’s price in the advent of a broad market resurgence.
Anchor Protocol (ANC)
Anchor Protocol is a lending and borrowing protocol on the Terra blockchain and the 29th project on Binance Launchpool. The protocol is the biggest decentralized finance protocol on the Terra Blockchain. It has risen to prominence amongst its competitors as it gives a low volatility interest rate of up to 19%.
Anchor Protocol is arguably the biggest gainer amongst the top 100 digital currencies, with a gain of 72.10% in the past 24 hours at the time of writing. While the token was trading at $3.77, Anchor Protocol has a lot of potentials to grow some more in the coming weeks as investors consider savings in the network one of the best options available amidst the uncertainties rocking global financial markets.
Unlike other profiled altcoins, WAVES resisted the plunge in the digital currency ecosystem in the past week and has been printing a bullish uptrend since February 24, undeterred by the sentimental selloffs the Russian invasion spiked.
Changing hands at $11.93, WAVES has recorded a 22.79% growth in the past week as it has pared off some of its gains. However, WAVES remains one of the altcoins to watch despite the coin begging for immediate correction.
Perhaps, one might say the attack on Ukraine by Russian forces is not well coordinated as leaders worldwide continue to announce sanctions on key individuals and institutions in Russia.
One of the latest sanctions seeks to ban by selecting Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a move announced in a joint statement from the leaders of the European Commission, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.
SWIFT is an inter-continent payment network that helps facilitate payment settlements made across the border. It remains a well-regulated and trusted means of moving money used in international trades and for key remittance purposes. Following the Russian aggression on Ukraine, the leaders mentioned above have chosen to cut Russia off these networks to impose economic strain that will force Vladimir Putin’s forces to call off the hostility.
“We stand with the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people in their heroic efforts to resist Russia’s invasion. Russia’s war represents an assault on fundamental international rules and norms that have prevailed since the Second World War, which we are committed to defending. We will hold Russia to account and collectively ensure that this war is a strategic failure for Putin,” the announcement reads.
Besides severing away from SWIFT, the world leaders promised to “commit to imposing restrictive measures that will prevent the Russian Central Bank from deploying its international reserves in ways that undermine the impact of our sanctions.”
Finding Solace in Digital Currencies
With the broader global community seemingly against Russia, the question remains whether the country will take solace in embracing digital currencies as a way to boycott these sanctions.
Recalling the Russian Central Bank that has been pulling its weight to ban digital currencies, a move similar to the push by the People’s Bank of China last year. While the agitation to ban Bitcoin came earlier this year, the ongoing economic severance might serve as an avenue for the apex bank to rescind its position very soon. These nascent asset classes may be one of the most accessible options for Russians to transact with the global economy.
This weekend, the Ukrainian government solicited funds from the public in the wake of the invasion of its territory by Russia as diplomatic ties between both countries went soar.
The entire public, particularly the crypto-savvy population, has shown solidarity with Ukraine and raised more than $10 million since the call.
The official Twitter account of the government of Ukraine published an Ethereum (ETH) and a Bitcoin (BTC) address to which the donations are meant to be sent. A review of the transactions on each address has shown that the Bitcoin address has received a total of 105.90889317 BTC, worth exactly $4,121,654.28 at the time of writing. The address also showed that a total of 51.38803002 BTC worth about $2 million have also been sent out from the received funds.
The Ethereum address has also received as much as 1,877.942342838664117164 Ethereums, with a valuation currently pegged at $5,198,426.10. Beyond these two addresses, independent well-wishers have also listed some Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) on OpenSea with the sole aim of donating the funds to the Ukrainian government. The amount raised from these NFTs has topped $1 million as of the time of writing.
While not featured in the original tweet from the government’s account, a Tron address tweeted by Ukrainian vice prime minister Mikhail Fedorov has also accrued some $700,000 worth of TRX and USDT at the time of writing.
Despite there being no clear-cut avenue that defines how these funds will be allocated, more people have identified the humanitarian crises the Russia-Ukrainian unrest will cause in the lives of people and these funds will go a long way in providing the right cushion.
The ease at which the Ukrainian government requested the funds follows from the legalization of Bitcoin and other digital currencies. With Ukraine receiving digital currencies with open arms, the country is also bound to reap the dividends thereof.