Get the most recent info and news about Prodrone on HackerNoon, where 10k+ technologists publish stories for 4M+ monthly readers.

Prodrone

prodrone

In 2021, Prodrone plans to fly a drone to Gamagori, Aichi Prefecture, about 70 kilometers away. And by fiscal 2022, it wants to deliver products to Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, about 175 km from ...

Drone delivers cake from oven in 16-minute run over Lake Biwa

A Comprehensive Guide to UAV Digital Forensics With DJI Drones

In 2021, hosted the first-ever awards!! HackerNoon Startup of the Year The goal of this campaign was to give recognition to the hardworking startups who pulled through the pandemic -- growing and thriving (despite all of the challenges). More than 44,000 startups were nominated all across the globe! They were selected from over 4,553 cities, with a total number of * cough * “4 billion” votes. Insane, right? To see who is a winner in each respective city, visit and pick a city. The name at the top of the list is the winner. (Compromised awards are under review. Cities with tie votes will be updated to have two winners!) startups.hackernoon.com The will announce the winners per region in their respective cities. Startups Winners Announcement series Here are the winners in the : Asia region Top Startup Cities in East Asia Seoul The Startup of the Year in is with 377 votes! Seoul dable Central is the Startup of the Year! It came out ahead with 121 votes. UpNow Central Sheung Wan came out as the Startup of the Year in with 154 votes. Votee Sheung Wan Tokyo The Startup of the Year in is with 41 votes! Tokyo ACES Wan Chai The Startup of the Year in is with 54 votes! Wan Chai Zetl Osaka, Japan In , is the winner! Osaka Nanophoton Taiwan came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Tico Taiwan Dongcheng, China In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Dongcheng Waiju Taipei came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Tico Taipei Akasaka In , is the winner! Akasaka WAKUWAKU Chuo In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Chuo GO-NET Ginza came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Netyear Ginza Kanazawa In , is the winner! Kanazawa Granzella Minami-aoyama In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Minami-aoyama Tokyo6 Entertainment Shibuya came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Hupro Japan Shibuya Toranomon In , is the winner! Toranomon Small Worlds Toshima In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Toshima Altplus Guangzhou, China came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Leyaoyao Guangzhou Hong Kong, Hong Kong In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Hong Kong Episode Six Kunming In , is the winner! Kunming Green A Sapporo In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Sapporo Polar Star Space Shirokanedai came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Nupp1 Shirokanedai Wuhan In , is the winner! Wuhan CSICEE Baoan, China In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Baoan Jumper Baoshan, China In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Baoshan Renren Games Chengdu, China came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Ju You Xi Chengdu Fujisawa, Japan In , is the winner! Fujisawa Scohia Pharma Fukuoka, Japan In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Fukuoka Kyulux Haidian, China came out as the Startup of the Year in ! 51vv Haidian Hongkou, China In , is the winner! Hongkou Kidstone Jiading, China In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Jiading IMRobotic Kawasaki, Japan came out as the Startup of the Year in ! QD Laser, Inc. Kawasaki Kyoto, Japan In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Kyoto Hacarus Minato, Japan In , is the winner! Minato Visionary Fun Nagoya, Japan came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Prodrone Nagoya Ningbo, China The winner in is . Ningbo OlymTech Corporation Aomori In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Aomori Forte Japan Bandai-cho In , is the winner. Bandai-cho Delta-Fly Pharm Changchun In , the Startup of the Year is . Changchun Kaidi Animation Fuchu In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Fuchu TMS Fukuoka-shi The winner in is . Fukuoka-shi SkyDisc Fukushima In , the Startup of the Year is . Fukushima Matsuri Technologies Gotanda In , is the winner. Gotanda Basset Hachioji In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Hachioji Adriakaim Harbin The winner in is J . Harbin oining Technology Iwaki In , is the winner. Iwaki Tao Engineering Izumo In , the Startup of the Year is . Izumo PuREC Kagoshima In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Kagoshima Farmers Support Kamakura In , the Startup of the Year is . Kamakura KAYAC Kami-meguro The winner in is . Kami-meguro Buzzreach Kanagawa In , is the winner. Kanagawa LoiLo Kashiwa In , the Startup of the Year is . Kashiwa Intelligent Surfaces Kita In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Kita Ax Robotix Kobe The winner in is . Kobe Coconomi Koriyama In , the Startup of the Year is . Koriyama Tocoton Kumamoto In , is the winner. Kumamoto Bloom Technology Kunitachi In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Kunitachi Trys Liaocheng The winner in is . Liaocheng Jinzheng Animation Minami In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Minami ATLAB Miyazaki In , is the winner. Miyazaki Caster Nagano In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Nagano Precision Forestry Nagaoka The winner in is . Nagaoka Plant Form Nihombashi-hamacho In , the Startup of the Year is . Nihombashi-hamacho Shizen Energy Niigata In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Niigata UniBio Japan Nishi-shinagawa In , is the winner. Nishi-shinagawa Play Heart Okayama In , is the winner! Okayama Arch Farm Okinawa In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Okinawa BlogNinja Otemachi In , the Startup of the Year is . Otemachi beBit, Inc Qingdao Shi In , is the winner! Qingdao Shi Manyoubang Quanzhou In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Quanzhou KungFu Animation Group Roppongi The winner in is . Roppongi Holo-X Saitama In , the Startup of the Year is . Saitama GameTector Sendai In , is the winner! Sendai Sendai Smart Machines Setagaya In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Setagaya Skyestate Shenzhen In , the Startup of the Year is . Shenzhen Aiator Shinjuku In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Shinjuku Scalar Shizuoka In , is the winner! Shizuoka PiPhotonics Sumida The winner in is . Sumida Holotch Tachikawa In , the Startup of the Year is . Tachikawa PlusOne Takamatsu In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Takamatsu Ken Robotec Tokushima In , is the winner! Tokushima DennoKotsu Toyonaka In , the Startup of the Year is . Toyonaka FISH BIOTECH Tsukuba In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Tsukuba WARPSPACE Wakayama In , the Startup of the Year is . Wakayama 4D Sensor Xiangzhou In , is the winner! Xiangzhou ALLiN Edutech Group Xianyang The winner in is . Xianyang TONLY Xiaoshan In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Xiaoshan GONGHUI Yamaguchi In , the Startup of the Year is . Yamaguchi Archis Yangpu The winner in is . Yangpu Tmxmall Yau Tsim Mong In , is the winner! Yau Tsim Mong Airnugget Yeoksamdong In , the Startup of the Year is . Yeoksamdong WizSchool Yichang In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Yichang Hubei Kento Electronic Yokohama In , is the winner! Yokohama Next Innovation Yubei In , the Startup of the Year is . Yubei Ophiux Network Yueqing The winner in is . Yueqing Yueqing Easythink Media Zhuhai In , is the winner! Zhuhai Aijuba Hongo In , the Startup of the Year is . Hongo Smile Robotics, Inc Admiralty In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Admiralty BUNCH Southern In , the Startup of the Year is . Southern Retykle Yongdungpo In , is the winner! Yongdungpo Push News Taichung In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Taichung Wondercise Cyberport, Hong Kong In , the Startup of the Year is . Cyberport Animoca Brands Hefei, China In , is the winner! Hefei Tsinglink New Territories, Hong Kong The winner in is . New Territories, Hong Kong Zeek Dezhou In , the Startup of the Year is . Dezhou Dezhou Baji Kitakyushu In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Kitakyushu Reif Seongnam In , is the winner! Seongnam EOFlow Yanshi In , the Startup of the Year is . Yanshi CASI Vision Top Startup Cities in South Asia Hyderabad, India The Startup of the Year in is with 962 votes Hyderabad Quixy Lahore, Pakistan is the Startup of the Year! It came out ahead with 186 votes. SmartWindows Lahore Bangalore, India When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year with 210 votes! Bangalore vBridge Hub Pune, India couldn’t be beaten for Startup of the Year in , it won with 129 votes! InfraCloud Pune Jaipur, India The Startup of the Year in is with 166 votes Jaipur Emizen Tech Lucknow, India is the Startup of the Year! It came out ahead with 279 votes. Keeros Superfoods Lucknow Noida, India came out as the Startup of the Year in with 156 votes! Bagisto Noida Mumbai, India When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year with 96 votes! Mumbai Sequretek Sylhet couldn’t be beaten for Startup of the Year in , it won with 122 votes! DataXpie Sylhet Mylapore, India In , is the winner! Mylapore Yalimart Goa, India In , the Startup of the Year is Goa Filter Coffee Delhi, India In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Delhi EkAnek Networks Karachi, Pakistan The winner in is Karachi Bykea Ahmedabad, India In , is the winner Ahmedabad MageComp Dhaka, Bangladesh The winner in is Dhaka SOLshare Islamabad, Pakistan In Islamabad, is declared the Startup of the Year! TAG Gurgaon, India In , the Startup of the Year is Gurgaon ixigo Bengaluru, India In , is the winner! Bengaluru Prakshep Private Limited Haryana, India couldn’t be beaten for Startup of the Year in ! Footprints Childcare Haryana Kolkata, India In , is the winner! Kolkata Wow! Momo New Delhi, India In , is declared the Startup of the Year! New Delhi Rusk Media Indore, India The winner in is Indore Chattar Patar Kormangala In , is the winner Kormangala Sanctum Technologies Ghaziabad came out as the Startup of the Year in Craftfurnish.com Ghaziabad! Mohali In , the Startup of the Year is Mohali DataKund Mysore The Startup of the Year in is Mysore Excelsoft Karnal came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Dunar Karnal Kolhapur In , is the winner! Kolhapur Zanvar Group Patiya In , the Startup of the Year is Patiya Kloud Project Kathmandu In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Kathmandu Vairav Technology Bangalore City, India In is the winner! Bangalore City, PagarBook Ernakulam The winner in is Ernakulam Epixel Solutions Colombo, Sri Lanka couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in MAs Foods Colombo Andheri, India When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year! Andheri DoorMint Kanpur, India came out as the Startup of the Year in ! ServiceWalaa Kanpur Faisalabad In , is the winner! Faisalabad DigiKhata Nasik The Startup of the Year in is Nasik Sahyadri Farms Patna came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Asvin Tech Patna Chennai, India In , is the winner! Chennai Agnikul Cosmos Faridabad, India In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Faridabad UClean Panjim, India The winner in is Panjim TempoGO Ranchi, India In , is the winner Ranchi Osam Dairy Surat, India In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Surat Wishbook Thane, India In , is the winner! Thane Delight Foods Trivandrum, India came out as the Startup of the Year in ! GenRobotic Trivandrum Vijayawada, India In , the Startup of the Year is Vijayawada Eruvaka Technologies Visakhapatnam, India In , Ltd is declared the Startup of the Year! Visakhapatnam Greenline Labs Pvt Ahmadabad In , is the winner! Ahmadabad KiwiQA Services Bandra came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Car Club Bandra Bombay In , is the winner! Bombay Locobuddy Mobile Technology (Sportobuddy) Cochin In , the Startup of the Year is Cochin Tuttifrutti Interactive Gandhinagar In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Gandhinagar Kroop AI Guwahati In , the Startup of the Year is Guwahati GNRC Hospitals Jamshedpur In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Jamshedpur Intelliber Kabul The winner in is Kabul Miracle Shop (Vocinno Technology) Karur In , is the winner Karur Karur Vysya Bank Kochi The winner in is Kochi BestDoc Kozhikode In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Kozhikode OfficeKit HR Ludhiana In , the Startup of the Year is Ludhiana Trendy Beat Network Madhapur In , is the winner! Madhapur Head Digital Works Mangalore When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year Mangalore Hangyo Nagpur came out as the Startup of the Year in ! UPrudence Agro Nagpur Rawalpindi The Startup of the Year in is Rawalpindi Pro Options Marketing Rishikesh came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Descatuk Rishikesh Secunderabad couldn’t be beaten for Startup of the Year in Prakriti Biosystems Engineering Secunderabad Tirupur In , is the winner! Tirupur Tubeknit Fashions Udupi The winner in is Udupi Krishitantra Top Startup Cities in Southeast Asia Singapore, Singapore The Startup of the Year in is with 6556 votes! Singapore Cake DeFi Hanoi, Vietnam is the Startup of the Year! It came out ahead with 683 votes. DeFi For You Hanoi Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia came out as the Startup of the Year in with 109 votes! Trambellir Kuala Lumpur Pasig, Philippines When it comes to , . is the Startup of the Year with 110 votes! Pasig Quickreach Inc Bangkok, Thailand couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in , it won with 60 votes! Perception Codes Bangkok Johor Bahru In , the Startup of the Year is . Johor Bahru AGR1 Bandung, Indonesia In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Bandung Prosa Portugal The winner in is . Portugal SCEMAI Tangerang, Indonesia In , is the winner Tangerang Yummy Corp Jakarta, Indonesia In , is the winner! Jakarta Tokocrypto Dki Jakarta, Indonesia In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Dki Jakarta Limakilo Bangkok Metropolis In , is the winner! Bangkok Meticuly Medan The winner in is ! Medan DIKA Manila, Philippines In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Manila PawnHero Phnom Penh, Cambodia In , the Startup of the Year is Phnom Penh vKirirom Bali In , is the winner! Bali Radius App Penang When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year Penang EasyParcel Surabaya came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Super Surabaya Setiabudi, Indonesia The Startup of the Year in is Setiabudi Chilibeli Cebu City came out as the Startup of the Year in MiCab Cebu City! Jawa couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in DAUR Jawa Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam In , is the winner! Ho Chi Minh City Pharmacity Selangor, Malaysia is the Startup of the Year! BabyDash Selangor Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia In , is the winner! Jakarta Pusat StickEarn Semarang When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year! Semarang Food Bear Petaling Jaya, Malaysia The winner in is . Petaling Jaya Deemples Kebayoran Baru, Indonesia couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in ! Yogrt Kebayoran Baru Kuningan The winner in is . Kuningan Prinzio Bukit Merah came out as the Startup of the Year in ! DC Alliance Bukit Merah Huai Khwang In , the Startup of the Year is . Huai Khwang AppMan Co.,Ltd Kuta In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Kuta Gringgo Mandaluyong came out ahead as the Startup of the Year! Work Inspire Mandaluyong Midview City In , is the winner! Midview City BioMers Phuket The Startup of the Year in is ! Phuket Sapahn Yangon, Myanmar The winner in is . Yangon Wave Money Denpasar When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year! Denpasar Revasi Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand The winner in is . Nakhon Ratchasima Siam Lottery co., Ltd Taguig, Philippines In , is the winner! Taguig PayMongo Bogor came out as the Startup of the Year in ! TIRANYX Bogor Senai, Malaysia won as the Startup of the Year. Nutrition Technologies Senai Bekasi Kota couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in ! 8villages Bekasi Kota Top Startup Cities in Middle East Tel Aviv, Israel The Startup of the Year in is with 1,065 votes! Tel Aviv hyro Beirut, Lebanon is the Startup of the Year! It came out ahead with 1,276 votes. Hovi Digital Lab Beirut Riyadh, Saudi Arabia With 350 votes, came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Flicron Riyadh Tel Aviv-yafo, Israel When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year with 167 votes! Tel Aviv-yafo Cymbio Haifa, Israel couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in , it won with 183 votes! Pico Haifa Amman, Jordan In , with 141 votes, is the winner! Amman Edexy Dubai, United Arab Emirates In , the Startup of the Year is with 74 votes. Dubai Ziina Doha, Qatar In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Doha SkipCash Tehran, Iran The winner in is . BeyondBoard AR Tehran Jerusalem, Israel In , is the winner! Jerusalem SolidBlock Rishon Le Zion The Startup of the Year in is ! Rishon Le Zion Passparto Ness Ziona, Israel is the Startup of the Year! Soapy Ness Ziona Kuwait, Kuwait came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Brapper Shop Kuwait Manama, Bahrain couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in ! Doctori Manama Lod, Israel is the winner in ! Phinergy Lod Agudat Israel, Israel When it comes to is the Startup of the Year with [vote ] votes! Agudat Israel, Aqaurius Engines Beersheba, Israel In , the Startup of the Year is . Beersheba Visual Estate Ltd Giv'atayim, Israel In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Giv'atayim WSC Sports Modi'in, Israel The winner in is . Modi'in Loginno Nazareth, Israel In , is the winner! Nazareth AR Guide In Medical Ramat Gan, Israel The Startup of the Year in is . Ramat Gan Datos Health Baghdad When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year! Baghdad Mishwar Khobar In , the Startup of the Year is . Khobar Garage Misgav couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in ! Eden Shield Misgav Sharjah came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Bookends Sharjah Affula In , the Startup of the Year is . Affula eMotion Technologies Bene Beraq, Israel In , is the winner Bene Beraq Reflectiz Caesarea, Israel In , the Startup of the Year is . Caesarea CardiacSense Dubayy In , is declared the Startup of the Year! Dubayy North Ladder Muscat couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in ! iLab Marine Muscat Tirat Carmel In , the Startup of the Year is . Tirat Carmel PassCall Advanced Technologies Hod Hasharon, Israel The winner in is . Hod Hasharon Idomoo Holon, Israel came out ahead as the Startup of the Year! OptimalPlus Holon Jeddah, Saudi Arabia When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year! Jeddah Arabian Combustion Technologies Ramat Hasharon, Israel is the Startup of the Year! Lumen Ramat Hasharon Al Khobar came out as the Startup of the Year in ! Swyft Al Khobar Bet Shemesh In , is the winner! Bet Shemesh Degania Medical Binyamina When it comes to , is the Startup of the Year! Binyamina OncoHost Makkah In , the Startup of the Year is Makkah Scimagine Or Akiva Last but not least, couldn’t be beaten for Startup in the Year in the city of ! WMT Or Akiva More Information: If you’re a winner, please answer ! If you’re a reader, participant, just a curious individual, consider answering one of our interviews . this interview here Read the FAQs about or . Startups here here To see all of the winners you may visit , pick any city and view the name that appears at the top. this site If you’re interested in partnering with us, we invite you to look through some of these or reach out to our business department. unique sponsorship options Perhaps creating your very own tickles your fancy or maybe you have a whole new idea for how we can partner! writing contest Thank you to all of our sponsors! We truly appreciate your contribution to the tech world and thus the future! The Startups Awards are sponsored by: , , , , , , , , , , Blockster Brex FreeCodeCamp LaunchDarkly Coil Udacity Udemy Vercel Asia Pacific Transgender Network Bybit Everscale Network The post was written by Kushal Tamrakar and Valerie Ejegi, edited by Hang Ngo. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to report a discrepancy please email ellen@hackernoon.com.

Meet the Winners of Startups in Asia

Hi all , I’ve started playing with some time back , and i wanted to write a series of articles about it , maybe starting with the basics and syntax and finishing with the internals ( if i get time to learn it myself) kubernetes First of all , we gonna use for these series , when we get to parts where isn’t enough then we’ll plan something else. minikube minikube You can get minikube @ , but as you might expect is in brew, apt etc. https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube will create a vm ( in my case) and install in there , create a , set up so on and so forth. minikube virtualbox kubernetes cluster etcd : Overview So this is roughly how it would look like: : It is a console line tool that connects to the api to perform actions(such as create deployments , services etc) Kubectl : is the scheduler , not only holds the api but also takes care of write changes to etcd , manage replication , listen for dead containers that need re-spawning Master : is key/value store that is used to store configuration items and labels from kubernetes , is distributed and fault tolerant . Foreign applications can also take advantage and use this component too. Etcd : A “physical” box or a VM Node : Pod is a higher level “ ” , it can contain one or many “containers” , in simple terms a runs one or many containers (for example) , pods run in shared contexts so certain thins will be shared amongst containers running in a . Pod container Pod Docker pod In Action: Before finishing i wanted to show a little of how this looks, we will create a pod with 3 replicas of nginx (replicas are the numbers of containers that have to be running at any given time , it could be anything) So I’m gonna create a deployment: apiVersion: apps/v1beta1kind: Deploymentmetadata:name: nginx-deploymentspec:replicas: 3template:metadata:labels:app: nginxenv: prodrole: webspec:containers:- name: nginximage: nginx:1.7.9ports:- containerPort: 80resources:requests:cpu: 250mlimits:cpu: 500m And there it is , as simple as that. These containers are literally unaccessible , we will need to run some sort of proxy or “ ” which thankfully provides. service kubernetes So next time we shall talk about : Services , Addresses and Scaling. Thank you!

Kubernetes 101 Basics #1

First Employee: My Journey From Solopreneur to Entrepreneur

Bitcoin Blues: Price Slump and Investor Jitters This week in crypto was a rollercoaster ride that would make even the most seasoned gambler queasy. It’s not like we’re surprised. Last week, the bets are on $62k on BTC but let's dissect this, shall we? First up, Bitcoin. Remember that shiny new car you almost bought last month? Yeah, Bitcoin took a bigger tumble than that. Price plummeted below $62,000, and why? Because investors suddenly turned into scaredy-cats. Spot Bitcoin ETFs? Not so hot anymore. Demand went kaput, and everyone ran for the hills (or at least their stablecoins). But here's the twist: the bigwigs, the Bitcoin whales – they held on tight. Didn't flinch. Maybe they see something we don't, or maybe they're just stubborn gamblers themself. Who knows? But it's an interesting wrinkle. Ethereum's Woes: A Perfect Storm of Geopolitics and Whales Meanwhile, Ethereum (ETH) took a nasty spill too. Dropped like a bad habit, down to $2,990. Talk about a buzzkill. Why the sudden plunge? Well, it wasn't just one thing, but a perfect storm of factors brewing in the cryptosphere. Geopolitical Jitters: Remember that whole mess in the Middle East? Yeah, that kind of global tension tends to make investors skittish. Suddenly, risky assets like crypto become less appealing, and everyone starts scrambling for safe havens like the US dollar. Ethereum, along with other digital assets, felt the chill. Dollar Dominance: Speaking of the US dollar, it decided to flex its muscles this week. When the dollar strengthens, it makes other currencies and assets, including crypto, look relatively weaker. This can lead to investors selling off their ETH holdings to convert to dollars, putting downward pressure on the price. Whale Woes: Here's another interesting wrinkle. Unlike Bitcoin whales who held on tight this week, some big-time Ethereum investors decided to cash out. This could be due to a combination of factors – maybe they saw the writing on the wall with geopolitical tensions, or perhaps they were simply taking profits after a strong run-up in ETH prices earlier. Whatever the reason, their exit added to the selling pressure on Ethereum. Long Liquidations:  Let's add another layer to this complexity. Some investors use leverage – borrowing money to amplify their bets – in the crypto market. These are called "long" positions, essentially a bet that the price will go up. But when the price starts dropping rapidly, as happened with ETH this week, lenders can force the sale of those leveraged positions to recoup their losses. This cascade of "long liquidations" can further accelerate the price decline, creating a negative feedback loop. So, Ethereum's recent woes were a confluence of global events, investor sentiment, and the complex mechanics of the crypto market. It's a reminder that while the potential rewards in crypto can be high, the risks are just as significant. Beyond Bitcoin: Tokenization and Real-World Applications But here's the real kicker: there's a whole new crypto game brewing in the background. We're talking tokenized houses, folks! Imagine taking out a loan on your house, but instead of stuffy old banks, you use fancy crypto magic. A new protocol just snagged $10 million to make this a reality. Wild, right? And speaking of reality, Bitcoin ATMs seem unfazed by the whole price rollercoaster. Business as usual, they say. Maybe it's because people are using them for more than just moon-shot bets. Maybe there's real utility there. Gold vs. Crypto: Peter Schiff Throws Shade (and Sparks a Debate) Peter Schiff, the firebrand economist and gold enthusiast, couldn't resist casting doubt on the recent Bitcoin ETF buzz and lofty price predictions. He highlighted the recent bearish performance of crypto-linked stocks like Coinbase and MicroStrategy, suggesting a lack of institutional investor confidence in the long-term viability of crypto. Schiff represents a common viewpoint – gold bugs who see cryptocurrency as a risky, volatile asset lacking the established track record of gold. However, crypto proponents counter that the market's youth and potential for disruption outweigh short-term fluctuations. They point to real-world use cases like tokenization and growing adoption for transactions. Is Schiff right, or is crypto a new asset class finding its footing? The gold vs. crypto debate rages on. So, You Want to Invest in Crypto? What's the takeaway The crypto market is a daily confusing mess, filled with conflicting signals and enough hype to make your head spin. Do your homework, folks. Don't just follow the herd mentality. And remember, in the land of crypto, even the experts are just making educated guesses. Stay frosty out there. Bitcoin Blues: Price Slump and Investor Jitters Bitcoin Blues: Price Slump and Investor Jitters This week in crypto was a rollercoaster ride that would make even the most seasoned gambler queasy. It’s not like we’re surprised. Last week, the bets are on $62k on BTC but let's dissect this, shall we? First up, Bitcoin. Remember that shiny new car you almost bought last month? Yeah, Bitcoin took a bigger tumble than that. Price plummeted below $62,000, and why? Because investors suddenly turned into scaredy-cats. Spot Bitcoin ETFs? Not so hot anymore. Demand went kaput, and everyone ran for the hills (or at least their stablecoins). But here's the twist: the bigwigs, the Bitcoin whales – they held on tight. Didn't flinch. Maybe they see something we don't, or maybe they're just stubborn gamblers themself. Who knows? But it's an interesting wrinkle. Ethereum's Woes: A Perfect Storm of Geopolitics and Whales Ethereum's Woes: A Perfect Storm of Geopolitics and Whales Meanwhile, Ethereum (ETH) took a nasty spill too. Dropped like a bad habit, down to $2,990. Talk about a buzzkill. Why the sudden plunge? Well, it wasn't just one thing, but a perfect storm of factors brewing in the cryptosphere. Geopolitical Jitters: Remember that whole mess in the Middle East? Yeah, that kind of global tension tends to make investors skittish. Suddenly, risky assets like crypto become less appealing, and everyone starts scrambling for safe havens like the US dollar. Ethereum, along with other digital assets, felt the chill. Geopolitical Jitters: Dollar Dominance: Speaking of the US dollar, it decided to flex its muscles this week. When the dollar strengthens, it makes other currencies and assets, including crypto, look relatively weaker. This can lead to investors selling off their ETH holdings to convert to dollars, putting downward pressure on the price. Dollar Dominance: Whale Woes: Here's another interesting wrinkle. Unlike Bitcoin whales who held on tight this week, some big-time Ethereum investors decided to cash out. This could be due to a combination of factors – maybe they saw the writing on the wall with geopolitical tensions, or perhaps they were simply taking profits after a strong run-up in ETH prices earlier. Whatever the reason, their exit added to the selling pressure on Ethereum. Whale Woes: Long Liquidations: Let's add another layer to this complexity. Some investors use leverage – borrowing money to amplify their bets – in the crypto market. These are called "long" positions, essentially a bet that the price will go up. But when the price starts dropping rapidly, as happened with ETH this week, lenders can force the sale of those leveraged positions to recoup their losses. This cascade of "long liquidations" can further accelerate the price decline, creating a negative feedback loop. Long Liquidations: So, Ethereum's recent woes were a confluence of global events, investor sentiment, and the complex mechanics of the crypto market. It's a reminder that while the potential rewards in crypto can be high, the risks are just as significant. Beyond Bitcoin: Tokenization and Real-World Applications Beyond Bitcoin: Tokenization and Real-World Applications But here's the real kicker: there's a whole new crypto game brewing in the background. We're talking tokenized houses, folks! Imagine taking out a loan on your house, but instead of stuffy old banks, you use fancy crypto magic. A new protocol just snagged $10 million to make this a reality. Wild, right? And speaking of reality, Bitcoin ATMs seem unfazed by the whole price rollercoaster. Business as usual, they say. Maybe it's because people are using them for more than just moon-shot bets. Maybe there's real utility there. Gold vs. Crypto: Peter Schiff Throws Shade (and Sparks a Debate) Peter Schiff, the firebrand economist and gold enthusiast, couldn't resist casting doubt on the recent Bitcoin ETF buzz and lofty price predictions. He highlighted the recent bearish performance of crypto-linked stocks like Coinbase and MicroStrategy, suggesting a lack of institutional investor confidence in the long-term viability of crypto. Schiff represents a common viewpoint – gold bugs who see cryptocurrency as a risky, volatile asset lacking the established track record of gold. However, crypto proponents counter that the market's youth and potential for disruption outweigh short-term fluctuations. They point to real-world use cases like tokenization and growing adoption for transactions. Is Schiff right, or is crypto a new asset class finding its footing? The gold vs. crypto debate rages on. So, You Want to Invest in Crypto? What's the takeaway So, You Want to Invest in Crypto? What's the takeaway The crypto market is a daily confusing mess, filled with conflicting signals and enough hype to make your head spin. Do your homework, folks. Don't just follow the herd mentality. And remember, in the land of crypto, even the experts are just making educated guesses. Stay frosty out there.

Crypto Market Update: All Bets Are Off on Bitcoin- Will the Whales Save the Day?

Kuma Meshes Head-On - Everything You Need to Know

কুমা মেশেস হেড-অন - আপনার যা জানা দরকার

Kuma Meshes Frontal – Alles, was Sie wissen müssen

Kuma se enfrenta de frente: todo lo que necesitas saber

Kuma Meshes de front – Tout ce que vous devez savoir

कुमा मेशेस हेड-ऑन - वह सब कुछ जो आपको जानना चाहिए

クマが正面からメッシュ化 - 知っておくべきことすべて

Kuma Meshes 정면 대결 - 알아야 할 모든 것

Kuma Meshes Head-On - Tudo o que você precisa saber

Kuma Meses в лоб – все, что вам нужно знать

Kuma Kafa Başına Meshes - Bilmeniz Gereken Her Şey

Kuma Meshes Head-On - Mọi thứ bạn cần biết

Kuma Meshes 迎面而来——您需要了解的一切

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.
Authors:
(1) Hatem A. Alharbi, CSchool of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom;
(2) Taisir E.H. Elgorashi, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom;
(3) Jaafar M.H. Elmirghani, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Related Works Repealing Net Neutrality Profit-Driven Model Results Conclusions & References Biographies Abstract Network neutrality (net neutrality) is the principle of treating equally all Internet traffic regardless of its source, destination, content, application or other related distinguishing metrics. Under net neutrality, ISPs are compelled to charge all content providers (CPs) the same per Gbps rate despite the growing profit achieved by CPs. In this paper, we study the impact of the repeal of net neutrality on communication networks by developing a techno-economic Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model to maximize the potential profit ISPs can achieve by offering their services to CPs. We focus on video delivery as video traffic accounts for 78% of the cloud traffic. We consider an ISP that offers CPs different classes of service representing typical video content qualities including standard definition (SD), high definition (HD) and ultra-high definition (UHD) video. The MILP model maximizes the ISP profit by optimizing the prices of the different classes according to the users demand sensitivity to the change in price, referred to as Price Elasticity of Demand (PED). We analyze how PED impacts the profit in different CP delivery scenarios in cloud-fog architectures. The results show that the repeal of net neutrality can potentially increase ISPs profit by a factor of 8 with a pricing scheme that discriminates against data intensive content. Also, the repeal of net neutrality positively impacts the network energy efficiency by reducing the core network power consumption by 55% as a result of suppressing data intensive content compared to the net neutrality scenario. Index Terms— Net neutrality, AT&T, IP over WDM networks, profit, power consumption. I. INTRODUCTION Network (net) neutrality regulations prohibit ISPs from applying different treatment to IP packets based on their content e.g. prioritizing, blocking or throttling certain Internet content or allowing quality differentiation. Net neutrality, which was scrapped by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in December 2017, has been the subject of remarkable debate in recent years between ISPs and CPs with each side trying to exploit their assets and expand their profit and influence. The debate is fueled by the rapidly escalating demand for CPs services as a result of the interconnection between Internet and broadcasting markets. Cisco forecasts [1] that by 2021, annual global Internet traffic will hit 2.2 Zettabytes per month and CPs datacenters will be the source of 71% of this traffic. Online video services are the primary cause of this accelerated growth in Internet traffic. Video streaming is poised to consume 78% of the total CPs bandwidth with 75% of Internet video traffic originating from higher video services quality (HD and UHD). Proponents of preferential treatment of Internet traffic complain that the increasing demand for data-intensive content creates a significant burden on the communication network. They argue that removing net neutrality will give ISPs further control of their infrastructure, which is crucial in order to improve QoS and reduce security threats. Another argument is that a significant fraction of the profit of this tremendously growing market is seized by CPs whereas ISPs act as a transit or transport medium into CPs customers. In the US, the quarterly profit margin of AT&T (an ISP) has been almost stable over the last six years whereas Netflix (a CP) profit margin has risen up in rapid pace from 0.7% to 9.8% within the same period [2], [3]. In contrast, advocates warn that removing net neutrality will slow down the innovation in the Internet and its content and will limit the content competition by disadvantaging small businesses, and subsequently, diminish online services. Deploying traffic discrimination in video delivery services has many challenges, e.g. detecting video packets and enforcing a policy on a certain video quality. Traffic discrimination in IP communication networks has been surveyed intensively in the literature. Several traffic management practices have been surveyed in [4]. The authors highlighted that traffic discrimination taxonomy has four features: (i) characteristics or condition of the traffic (e.g. based on content, protocol or source/destination); (ii) traffic classification (e.g. based on flow rate, header information or routing); (iii) mechanism of discrimination (e.g. modify, delay, drop or block); and (iv) perceived discrimination by end-users. Video traffic can be analyzed using two mechanisms; deep packet inspection (DPI) [5], [6] or traffic profiling [7], [8]. DPI examines the data packets that are sent over the network and traffic profiling detects abnormal network traffic by comparing new traffic against previous traffic profile. For example, an alarm can be triggered if the data rate transmitted over the network (measured in bps) spikes above the desired data rate, which could indicate an increase in data rate. QoS for video services delivery can be applied either by reserving network bandwidth for video packets (e.g. using IntServ) or labelling video content as high priority e.g. by applying Differentiated Services (e.g. using DiffServ) [9]. The Internet ecosystem is complex with many stakeholders. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the main stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem are; ISPs, CPs, content delivery networks (CDNs) and end-users. Users pay ISPs a subscription fee to get Internet access and subscribe to CPs (if required) to access their content. CPs subscribe to a CDN to access storage and processing capacity and to deliver their content to customers. CDNs are responsible for sending CPs content at large scale over ISPs network infrastructure, e.g. the CP Netflix collaborates with the CDN Amazon Web Services (AWS) to reach their customers [10]. ISPs play as the key intermediary in the delivery process as they provide the required connectivity between users and content. Most ISPs such as AT&T [11] and Comcast [12] are now providing CDN services in additional to networking services. To simplify our analysis, we consider a direct relationship between ISP and CPs. Due to net neutrality regulations, current pricing policy of ISP networking services applies a fixed charge which is not linked with bitrate usage. For example, in the US, AT&T uses a fixed pricing model by charging CPs $3,282 per 10 Gbps per month [13] regardless of the content type transferred to users (either UHD video content or a simple text message). The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II briefly summarizes related work. We describe the pricing scheme we used in this paper and the profit-driven model we adopted in Section III. Our results are presented in Section IV. In Section V, we provide concluding remarks. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Hatem A. Alharbi, CSchool of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom; (2) Taisir E.H. Elgorashi, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom; (3) Jaafar M.H. Elmirghani, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv Authors: Authors: (1) Hatem A. Alharbi, CSchool of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom; (2) Taisir E.H. Elgorashi, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom; (3) Jaafar M.H. Elmirghani, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Abstract & Introduction Related Works Related Works Repealing Net Neutrality Repealing Net Neutrality Profit-Driven Model Results Profit-Driven Model Results Conclusions & References Conclusions & References Biographies Biographies Abstract Network neutrality (net neutrality) is the principle of treating equally all Internet traffic regardless of its source, destination, content, application or other related distinguishing metrics. Under net neutrality, ISPs are compelled to charge all content providers (CPs) the same per Gbps rate despite the growing profit achieved by CPs. In this paper, we study the impact of the repeal of net neutrality on communication networks by developing a techno-economic Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model to maximize the potential profit ISPs can achieve by offering their services to CPs. We focus on video delivery as video traffic accounts for 78% of the cloud traffic. We consider an ISP that offers CPs different classes of service representing typical video content qualities including standard definition (SD), high definition (HD) and ultra-high definition (UHD) video. The MILP model maximizes the ISP profit by optimizing the prices of the different classes according to the users demand sensitivity to the change in price, referred to as Price Elasticity of Demand (PED). We analyze how PED impacts the profit in different CP delivery scenarios in cloud-fog architectures. The results show that the repeal of net neutrality can potentially increase ISPs profit by a factor of 8 with a pricing scheme that discriminates against data intensive content. Also, the repeal of net neutrality positively impacts the network energy efficiency by reducing the core network power consumption by 55% as a result of suppressing data intensive content compared to the net neutrality scenario. Index Terms — Net neutrality, AT&T, IP over WDM networks, profit, power consumption. Index Terms I. INTRODUCTION Network (net) neutrality regulations prohibit ISPs from applying different treatment to IP packets based on their content e.g. prioritizing, blocking or throttling certain Internet content or allowing quality differentiation. Net neutrality, which was scrapped by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in December 2017, has been the subject of remarkable debate in recent years between ISPs and CPs with each side trying to exploit their assets and expand their profit and influence. The debate is fueled by the rapidly escalating demand for CPs services as a result of the interconnection between Internet and broadcasting markets. Cisco forecasts [1] that by 2021, annual global Internet traffic will hit 2.2 Zettabytes per month and CPs datacenters will be the source of 71% of this traffic. Online video services are the primary cause of this accelerated growth in Internet traffic. Video streaming is poised to consume 78% of the total CPs bandwidth with 75% of Internet video traffic originating from higher video services quality (HD and UHD). Proponents of preferential treatment of Internet traffic complain that the increasing demand for data-intensive content creates a significant burden on the communication network. They argue that removing net neutrality will give ISPs further control of their infrastructure, which is crucial in order to improve QoS and reduce security threats. Another argument is that a significant fraction of the profit of this tremendously growing market is seized by CPs whereas ISPs act as a transit or transport medium into CPs customers. In the US, the quarterly profit margin of AT&T (an ISP) has been almost stable over the last six years whereas Netflix (a CP) profit margin has risen up in rapid pace from 0.7% to 9.8% within the same period [2], [3]. In contrast, advocates warn that removing net neutrality will slow down the innovation in the Internet and its content and will limit the content competition by disadvantaging small businesses, and subsequently, diminish online services. Deploying traffic discrimination in video delivery services has many challenges, e.g. detecting video packets and enforcing a policy on a certain video quality. Traffic discrimination in IP communication networks has been surveyed intensively in the literature. Several traffic management practices have been surveyed in [4]. The authors highlighted that traffic discrimination taxonomy has four features: (i) characteristics or condition of the traffic (e.g. based on content, protocol or source/destination); (ii) traffic classification (e.g. based on flow rate, header information or routing); (iii) mechanism of discrimination (e.g. modify, delay, drop or block); and (iv) perceived discrimination by end-users. Video traffic can be analyzed using two mechanisms; deep packet inspection (DPI) [5], [6] or traffic profiling [7], [8]. DPI examines the data packets that are sent over the network and traffic profiling detects abnormal network traffic by comparing new traffic against previous traffic profile. For example, an alarm can be triggered if the data rate transmitted over the network (measured in bps) spikes above the desired data rate, which could indicate an increase in data rate. QoS for video services delivery can be applied either by reserving network bandwidth for video packets (e.g. using IntServ) or labelling video content as high priority e.g. by applying Differentiated Services (e.g. using DiffServ) [9]. The Internet ecosystem is complex with many stakeholders. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the main stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem are; ISPs, CPs, content delivery networks (CDNs) and end-users. Users pay ISPs a subscription fee to get Internet access and subscribe to CPs (if required) to access their content. CPs subscribe to a CDN to access storage and processing capacity and to deliver their content to customers. CDNs are responsible for sending CPs content at large scale over ISPs network infrastructure, e.g. the CP Netflix collaborates with the CDN Amazon Web Services (AWS) to reach their customers [10]. ISPs play as the key intermediary in the delivery process as they provide the required connectivity between users and content. Most ISPs such as AT&T [11] and Comcast [12] are now providing CDN services in additional to networking services. To simplify our analysis, we consider a direct relationship between ISP and CPs. Due to net neutrality regulations, current pricing policy of ISP networking services applies a fixed charge which is not linked with bitrate usage. For example, in the US, AT&T uses a fixed pricing model by charging CPs $3,282 per 10 Gbps per month [13] regardless of the content type transferred to users (either UHD video content or a simple text message). The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II briefly summarizes related work. We describe the pricing scheme we used in this paper and the profit-driven model we adopted in Section III. Our results are presented in Section IV. In Section V, we provide concluding remarks.

Impact of the Net Neutrality Repeal on Communication Networks: Abstract & Introduction

Authors: (1) William P. Wagner IV, Claremont Graduate University. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Definition of Key Terms Fundamentals of Internet Operation Encapsulation Usage-Based Economic Models Net Neutrality Legal History Researcher Conclusions Areas for Further Exploration & References 6. Net Neutrality The debate in the U.S. has moved to the courts and is grounded in a few basic concepts. The basics of the debate are not usually contested, it’s the results of any changes and the legal foundations for either preventing or allowing those changes that is cause for debate. Net Neutrality enters the equation when the network providers want to charge based on content. 6.1. Content Based Subscription Packages The National ISPs want to be allowed to charge certain Content Providers more than others at one end, and charge consumers at the other end for access to that same content. In both cases this might be in addition to any usage fees. Those opposed to net neutrality regulation argue that ISPs need to be able to charge both consumers and providers based on content because certain content providers use more network resources than others, putting un-acceptable demands on the ISP to provide network resources [12]. They claim that regulation will stifle competition amongst ISPs, slowing the spread of broadband and increasing costs to consumers. Those in favor of net neutrality legislation argue that the network resources should be allocated and paid for based solely on usage rather than content. Further, they argue that the networks need to remain content neutral in order to ensure true competition, innovation and investment along the “edge” of the internet. Proponents argue that this edge activity is what spurs network growth and user need, not the other way around. 6.2. “Fast lanes” The National ISPs want to be able to throttle the speed or charge extra based on content or content provider to provide “fast lanes.” Opponents of net neutrality legislation argue that the content does not always originate on their network, so they are forced to absorb increased network traffic and allocate resources without seeing any direct benefit. Proponents of net neutrality argue that the ISPs bill their customers based on a usage plan that measures both speed and total data. The consumer is paying for a certain size pipe. The ISP does not refund money when the pipe is un-used, and the consumer cannot exceed the size of the pipe, so why should the ISP charge the consumer more when they maximize their purchased allocation? 6.3. ISP Content Providers Some of the National ISPs are also Content Providers. Opponents of net neutrality argue this has no bearing on the previous two changes. They argue that this will not lead to ISPs increasing prices to their competitors, but instead will offer consumers discounted prices for in-house entertainment. Proponents of net neutrality argue that most of the country is only served by one or two high-speed solutions per location, so allowing an ISP to throttle or surcharge their consumers based on content or creator is monopolistic. Most consumers simply do not have any option to change to. They argue this would lead to less competition and innovation, and higher prices to the consumer for less bandwidth. 6.4. International ISPs The National ISPs want regulation to prevent similar billing structures from the International ISPs down to the National level. The National ISPs argue that National ISPs provide the necessary link to needed customers while International ISPs are basically just networking between National ISPs. The National ISPs argue they provide the crucial link to the consumers of both networking and application services and in many cases they are the sole provider, so the International ISPs need them to reach the consumers. The International ISPs argue they need to absorb network traffic from all National ISPs and that some National ISPs use far more resources than others. Further, they argue that very little of the traffic they carry originates on their network – affording them little opportunity to charge at the source. Proponents of network neutrality in the US would argue that the National ISPs represent themselves as competition to themselves when discussing U.S. Net Neutrality, however they present themselves as the sole provider in many cases when negotiating with the International ISPs. This paper is under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

The Net Neutrality Debate: Content Charges, Fast Lanes, and ISP Content Providers

Authors: (1) William P. Wagner IV, Claremont Graduate University. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Definition of Key Terms Fundamentals of Internet Operation Encapsulation Usage-Based Economic Models Net Neutrality Legal History Researcher Conclusions Areas for Further Exploration & References Abstract This paper serves as a brief technical examination of Net Neutrality and the Internet fundamentals relevant to the discussion. This document seeks to provide sufficient technical perspective that it may inform the political and economic debate surrounding the issue in the United States. Further, this research demonstrates that existing Internet economics are based strictly on usage, and that this model can account for all uses. Finally, I will argue that there should be some legislation and regulation of ISPs with regard to Net Neutrality in the U.S. Keywords - Net Neutrality, Internet, ISP, Provider, Government Regulation 1. Introduction Net Neutrality has been in the news over the last decade as a topic of political, economic, and civil rights consideration in the United States [1][2][3]. As documented in the rest of this paper, The U.S. Government as well as those of other nations [4], state and local governments, the national private networks that make up the Internet backbone, and major technology and content providers are all engaged in an active push-pull to define internet standards that protect innovation, corporate interests, and consumer needs. The Internet is fundamental to success in the modern world [5]. Communities, law enforcement, hospitals, militaries, corporations, and individuals with a certain level of access to the internet are all demonstrably better equipped for success in the current United States and globally. In 1996, in section 230(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Congress describes its national Internet policy. Specifically, Congress states that it is the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet” [6] and “to promote the continued development of the Internet [7].” Because of this need, it has become desirable for infrastructure planning and budgeting to define minimum standards. What those minimum standards are and what mechanism should regulate them is the first piece of the Net Neutrality debate. Proponents of Net Neutrality want legislation that prevents ISPs from restricting or prioritizing traffic – known as “fast lanes” – claiming this will stifle freemarket innovation, investment, expansion, and user choice along the “Edge” of the Internet. Opponents of Net Neutrality claim the legislation will stifle freemarket innovation and expansion by ISPs. As illustrated in fig.1, the consumer’s interests are protected through a combination of free enterprise and legislation, so this paper explores any relevant technical considerations and existing protocols, before moving to the economic models, then finally the legal fight in the courts. This research paper demonstrates how all Internet traffic uses a process known as Encapsulation to achieve complete separation between the content/application developers, and the hardware/networking engineers. Finally, this paper explains how the current economic model, based strictly on usage, accounts for all internet traffic down to the smallest possible unit of measure – a single bit. It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully explore the socio-political and economic ramifications of any changes to the current system such as supply-side assistance that would encourage network expansion vs. demand-side stimulus to reduce consumer cost, however this researcher will provide some legal history and make some observations on the current state of the political and legal debate. This paper is under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

A Technical Perspective on Net Neutrality

নেট নিরপেক্ষতার উপর একটি প্রযুক্তিগত দৃষ্টিকোণ

Eine technische Perspektive zur Netzneutralität

Una perspectiva técnica sobre la neutralidad de la red

Une perspective technique sur la neutralité du Net

नेट न्यूट्रैलिटी पर एक तकनीकी परिप्रेक्ष्य

ネットの中立性に関する技術的観点

망 중립성에 대한 기술적 관점

Uma perspectiva técnica sobre a neutralidade da rede

Технический взгляд на сетевой нейтралитет

Ağ Tarafsızlığına Teknik Bir Bakış

Quan điểm kỹ thuật về tính trung lập ròng

网络中立性的技术视角

More than is already on traditional social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. That’s despite the fact that often, users on these platforms face inequitable revenue distribution, unfair censorship policies, opaque algorithms, lack of content ownership, and minimal user privacy. half the world Blockchain-based SocialFi (Social Finance) protocols have attempted to solve these challenges since smart contracts first became a thing. Most attempts, however, have failed upfront or faded away as early adopter incentives dried up. The last bear cycle finally saw some potential platforms that tend to solve the problems through sovereign content ownership, decentralized moderation guidelines, and native tokenization. Before delving deeper into how Web3 SocialFi does that, let’s understand the problems that legacy social media suffers from. What Are The Problems of Traditional Social Media Platforms? "Fair" is clearly not a word one can use for today's social media platforms. Yes, half the world uses these platforms, but is it because we lack better options? Very likely. Depending on whose perspective you take, the list of challenges or shortcomings can be long. But let me consolidate that into a few umbrella points. Unfair Revenue Sharing It’s no secret on traditional social platforms that, despite the hard work, content creators get only a small share of the revenue. There are two reasons why creator earnings are never commensurate with the time, effort, and labor they put into making the content. Most centralized social media companies pay creators based on their social capital, which includes total subscribers, views, likes, and impressions. However, with limited attention spans, creators compete against each other to engage with followers and monetize their social capital. Besides, Web2 platforms function as primary intermediaries among creators, brands, and fans to redistribute revenue. Thus, companies individually decide the profit distribution model for their benefit while ignoring the primary stakeholders — creators and followers. Absence of Content Ownership Content creators don’t own the content they post on traditional social media platforms. The content’s true ownership lies with the conglomerates who own the platforms. As creators lack control over their work, it leads to a power imbalance and propagates an unfair financialization model. Most web2 platforms lack a creator-friendly environment as they unfairly use an influencer’s creative output to make profits without giving due credit. Unilateral Censorship Decisions Since social media companies own and store creators’ works on centralized servers, they can make unilateral decisions about content censorship. The platforms set ever-changing guidelines and frameworks that creators have to abide by. These restrictions adversely affect an influencer’s work and monetization strategies as the companies don’t consult them before setting the rules. Moreover, creators don’t have any proper grievance redressal system to address censorship queries. Besides companies, even governments have had a large say in what platforms users can use. One of the most recent examples is the by the US House of Representatives to ban TikTok in the country. This will put the content and earnings of hundreds of thousands of TikTok creators in the States at risk. bill passed No Content Tracking Mechanism Once creators post their content on social media, it becomes difficult to keep track of their usage. Fans and followers can repurpose the content on their own websites or blog posts, which may lead to content theft. The growth of AI has further accelerated challenges, such as the ability for anyone to create duplicate content and monetize it. In the absence of content tracking, creators lose their revenue share, which comes from monetizing repurposed content. Inaccessible Algorithms Legacy social media platforms use opaque algorithms that arbitrarily determine how creators’ content features on user feeds. Since creators don’t clearly understand these algorithms, they find it difficult to maintain a stable income stream. Sometimes, creators suddenly notice a dip in their content reach and eventually de-board the platform. At other times, they keep working in an unpredictable setting that is detrimental to the creator economy’s long-term sustainability. No Privacy Web2 social media heavily relies on advertising campaigns to generate revenue. These companies harvest creator and user data without explicit permission for targeted advertisements. The existing financial model has little regard for user safety and protection of sensitive personal information. Since creators and followers don’t control the content or their online activities, data breaches and misuse are very common. Web3 SocialFi Platforms: Solving Legacy Social Media’s Problems Web3 developers and blockchain proponents have noticed the drawbacks of traditional social media and came up with a solution — SocialFi. SocialFi platforms combine the aspects of blockchain and decentralized finance (DeFi) to build better, more creator-centric social media platforms. For example, , launched in 2016, was one of the first-generation SocialFi platforms. However, it ran into some and eventually in popularity due to complex user interface and censorship issues. Steemit problems declined More recently, during the long bear market, developers continued to build innovative web3 SocialFi platforms. , launched in August 2023, over 100K users and generated over $25 million in revenue within ten days. Friend.tech registered Although Friend.tech’s initial excitement soon died down, it gave a much-needed impetus to SocialFi apps in a slow market. Several other SocialFi platforms with strong fundamentals rose to prominence as they demonstrated their ability to reach the masses. For instance, , another web3 SocialFi platform, launched in early 2023, soon started gaining traction. Tomo creates transparent and fair monetization opportunities for content creators. Its user-friendly app interface directly connects creators and followers and makes SocialFi accessible to everyone. Tomo The following section will elaborate on how SocialFi protocols address the shortcomings of legacy social media. Transparent Monetization Policies And Privacy Protection Content creators on SocialFi platforms have sovereign ownership over their creative output, thereby giving them more freedom to monetize their work. While web3 social media provides space for advertisements, it cannot mine user data without their consent. Instead, users have the choice to share their data in exchange for rewards from advertising campaigns. Further, content tracking becomes easier on the blockchain and enables creators to retain primary ownership while allowing repurposing. Since creators and followers can verifiably prove their asset provenance on the publicly accessible ledger, monetization becomes easier. SocialFi platforms use programmable smart contracts to reap the benefits of network effects as each user adds value through derivative adaptations. Unlike web2 protocols, creators can directly benefit from secondary sales and content remixing. Direct Creator-Follower Engagements Web3 SocialFi platforms leverage multiple incentive methods for content creators. For example, Steemit enables users to earn Steem tokens with real-world value for each digital activity, such as posting and sharing content. Another platform, , allows users to earn tokens to watch creator videos on the platform. uses NFT ticketing and tokenized membership passes for content monetization. leverages the ‘Key’ system, a blockchain-based Proof-of-Support mechanism for creator-centric revenue generation. Users purchase Tomo Keys to gain exclusive access to a creator’s private feed and chatroom. If someone wants to unfollow a creator, they can sell the Keys as well. Cheelee Chat3 Tomo Keys empower creators to get direct support from their followers and make content without navigating opaque algorithms or censorship guidelines. This removes any power imbalance as creators no longer depend on companies to pay for their work. The Key system gives creators more freedom as they don’t have to compete in the attention economy. Each creator can focus on their style, build social capital, and get direct support from their fans. Some of these apps also use a points system to reward loyal users with airdrops and other in-app incentives with real-world value. For instance, Tomo users can earn Tomo points by purchasing Keys and successful referrals. Democratizing Financial Accessibility Most people tend to shy away from SocialFi protocols due to a difficult user interface like setting up a crypto wallet. The entry barriers are also high as they have to purchase crypto or NFTs to interact within these platforms. The new wave of SocialFi platforms makes it easier for users by automatically setting up an ERC-4337 wallet at the backend. For example, Tomo users don’t require any technical knowledge as it creates a web3 wallet when users open an account. Despite rapid digitization, a 2023 survey only 29% of adults are literate in digital finance. Web3 SocialFi platforms leverage features like ERC-4337 wallets and ERC-404 tokens to make financial services accessible to the unbanked population. reports These features strengthen community bonds as people can pool their resources, collectively own digital assets, and make joint financial decisions. The Future Of SocialFi Protocols SocialFi protocols have the potential to drive mass adoption of crypto and blockchain-based apps. However, they have to push technical complexities to the backend and offer a good user experience along with transparent monetization channels. To appeal to the masses, SocialFi platforms have to be fun, interactive, entertaining, and immersive. They must find a fine balance between financialization and an engaging interface to drive user adoption. Social media will keep growing in the future. A fair incentive structure and user-first experience will push people to start using SocialFi protocols en masse.

Can New-Age Web3 SocialFi Protocols Disrupt Traditional Social Media?

Last updated: March 11, 2024 It’s no stranger to the internet that (and probably only bitcoin, of all cryptocurrencies). The reasons are rather simple: I like its simplicity, (did you know the was only 2736 words, 9 pages long, with the 9th page being a citation page with 8 citations and only half-filled?), (not everyone knows what crypto/web3/decentralization is, but almost everyone asked will have heard of bitcoin), and most of all, for its scarcity. I’m a proponent of Bitcoin Bitcoin white paper amazing branding That is, there will only ever be 21 Million Bitcoin tokens. All Bitcoin will exhaust around 2140. HackerNoon is , and I first learned about Bitcoin via reading . We didn’t obtain our first bitcoin until mid 2018 (that’s a long story for another day). To say the industry has undergone A LOT since would be a huge understatement. For example, . By Jan 2023 some of our predictions already happened, and by , most of the things talked about already are taken as facts of life, not some big giant revelation. Remember, hard truths go through 3 phases: 1. being ridiculed 2. being rejected, and then 3. being taken as fact of life. THAT’s how fast the industry is changing. Through thick & thin though, we follow a few principles as a company: a small team this HackerNoon story back in 2017 we made a documentary about web 3 called web 2.5 back in Dec 2022 Nov 2023 when we released it We , , cover the industry extensively from all sides We , and integrate with multiple blockchain technologies We are NOT an investment company, so our crypto portfolio is small. As we approach the 4th “ ” of Bitcoin in April 2024, I thought it would be a fun exercise to look back at: halving event how much each bitcoin was worth right before the event; how rich (in USD) the solver of each block would be, had they converted their BTC to USD at that time, vs had they they waited (or, HODLed); and how much each $100 dollar investment in Bitcoin would be worth, today. Obviously, I get that most bitcoin miners don’t just solve things alone, and this typical person who reaps the benefits of all the bitcoin reward is rare. But for the sake of simplicity, I thought it would suffice. First thing first, a quick recap on halving Bitcoin halvings are basically Satoshi (Bitcoin creator)’s clever protocol of ensuring Bitcoin is a true scarce resource, and hence, desirable. To all students of basic economics, this makes sense. As long as there is demand, the lower the supply, the higher the price. Of course, one can argue that bitcoin will only achieve true scarcity once it reaches 21 Million tokens in the 22nd century, and no more new Bitcoin is to be created then. But to use another economic analogy, the perception of scarcity might as well lead to scarcity (replace scarcity with inflation, and many other self-fulfilling economic phenomena.) Every 4 years (approximately how long it takes for 210,000 blocks to be added), the remaining supply of bitcoin gets slashed in half. That is, the reward for mining bitcoin (solving complicated math problems, adding a “block” to the source code of the entire bitcoin network, or “chain”, hence, “blockchain”) gets slashed in half. These halvings will continue to happen until all 21 Million bitcoin tokens are successfully mined! This will happen circa 2140, long after you and I are dead. lol. The Birth of Bitcoin: 2009 When Bitcoin was created back in 2009, each block was worth 50 BTC! However, nobody knew what bitcoin was back then, so the USD value obtained by these initial miners (prob just Satoshi himself, plus a few in his network) are basically, zero USD. A successful miner (solver of 1 block) in 2009 would: Get as a reward 50 BTC Earn if they converted them into USD in 2009 zero dollars Sit on today (March 11, 2024), if they had HODLed ~ $3.6M USD First halving Event: Nov 28, 2012 From 21 Million BTC, on this day in 2012, the total supply got slashed in half for the first time! Total Bitcoin supply on Nov 28, 2012: 10,500,000 Total Bitcoin left to mine after Nov 28, 2012: 10,500,000 Price of BTC at closing on Nov 28, 2012: $12.20 USD A successful miner (solver of 1 block) on Nov 28, 2012 would: Get as a reward 25 BTC Earn if they converted all 25 BTC into USD in 2012 $305 USD Sit on today (March 11, 2024), if they had HODLed ~ $1.6M USD An investment of $100 dollars in bitcoin on Nov 28, 2012 would gain you $5.9M USD today, March 11, 2024! Second Halving Event: July 9, 2016 Total Bitcoin supply on July 9, 2016: 15,750,000 Total Bitcoin left to mine after July 9, 2016: 5,430,000 Price of BTC at closing on July 9, 2016: $640.56 USD A successful miner (solver of 1 block) on July 9, 2016 would: Get as a reward 12.5 BTC Earn if they converted all 12.5 BTC into USD in 2016 $8007 USD Sit on today (March 11, 2024), if they had HODLed ~ $1.6M USD An investment of $100 dollars in bitcoin on July 9, 2016 would gain you $11,240 USD today, March 11, 2024! Third Halving Event: May 11, 2020 Total Bitcoin supply on May 11, 2020: 18,375,000 Total Bitcoin left to mine after May 11, 2020: 2,625,000 Price of BTC at closing on July 9, 2016: $8,605.03 USD A successful miner (solver of 1 block) on May 11, 2020 would: Get as a reward 6.25 BTC Earn if they converted all 6.25 BTC into USD in 2020. Bitcoin price on halving day was around . $8007 USD $53,781 USD Sit on today (March 11, 2024), if they had HODLed ~ $800,000 USD An investment of $100 dollars in bitcoin on May 11, 2020 would gain you ~ $836 USD today, March 11, 2024! Fourth Halving Event: April 16, 2024 (Watch this space, I’ll update it!) Total Bitcoin supply on April 16, 2024: 19,687,500 Total Bitcoin left to mine after April 16, 2024: 1,312,500 Price of BTC at closing on April 16, 2024: My prediction is it will likely be around $80k USD! TBD. A success miner (solver of 1 block) on April 16, 2024 would: Get as a reward 3.125 BTC Earn/sit on if they converted all 3.125 BTC into USD in 2024. Bitcoin price on halving day is TBD TBD This is not investment advice, it should be obvious. Again, we are not a investment company, and I am not an investor. But hey, if you do the math, one can see how genius the Bitcoin whitepaper & protocol is in creating demand, especially right after each halving! Let’s see what happens in the next 4 years. And come back after April 16, 2024 for more updated numbers :)

How much was each Bitcoin worth in USD following each halving event since its creation?

প্রতিটি বিটকয়েন তৈরির পর থেকে প্রতিটি অর্ধেক হওয়ার ঘটনা অনুসরণ করে USD-এর মূল্য কত?

Wie viel war jeder Bitcoin nach jedem Halbierungsereignis seit seiner Entstehung in USD wert?

¿Cuánto valió cada Bitcoin en USD después de cada evento de reducción a la mitad desde su creación?

Combien valait chaque Bitcoin en USD après chaque événement de réduction de moitié depuis sa création ?

इसके निर्माण के बाद से प्रत्येक पड़ाव घटना के बाद प्रत्येक बिटकॉइन का अमेरिकी डॉलर में मूल्य कितना था?

創設以来、各半減期イベント後の各ビットコインの価値は米ドルでいくらですか?

생성 이후 각 반감기 이벤트 이후 각 비트코인의 USD 가치는 얼마였습니까?

Quanto valeu cada Bitcoin em dólares americanos após cada evento de redução pela metade desde a sua criação?

Сколько стоил каждый биткойн в долларах США после каждого халвинга с момента его создания?

Yaratılışından bu yana her halving etkinliğinin ardından her bir Bitcoin'in USD cinsinden değeri ne kadar oldu?

Mỗi Bitcoin có giá trị bằng USD bao nhiêu sau mỗi sự kiện halving kể từ khi nó được tạo ra?

自创建以来，每次减半事件后，每个比特币的美元价值是多少？

I recently spoke with Dr. Rein Wu, a computer scientist who spent four years at Visa as a Senior Research Scientist focusing on developing deep learning algorithms and machine learning systems before founding , an AI-enabled prediction market incubated by the SEI chain. PredX.ai In our conversation, we delved into next-gen prediction markets, the concept of Futarchy, and the significance of prediction markets in today's context. It’s a pleasure to have you. To start, can you please share your origin story? Thanks for inviting me. I’m obsessed with computer science, artificial intelligence, and emerging tech. That sums up who I am. I’ve been studying AI since 2009 before it was a cool buzzword. I specialized in it for my bachelor’s degree at the Capital Normal University, Beijing. Then I did my Ph.D. in Computer Science at the University of Houston and graduated as the best PhD student in the department in 2018. Professionally, I started as a research intern at Qualcomm. Then, I worked at VISA for nearly four years, going from an intern to a Senior Research Scientist. In 2023, I distilled 10+ years of experience in recommendation systems, reinforcement learning, etc., to build PredX. Before this, I founded IndicatorLab, an AI-powered risk management solution for portfolio managers. I’m on a mission to use AI for robust, safer, and more profitable markets. Before we get into PredX, tell us why prediction markets matter. Why now? We’ve tried predicting future outcomes almost since forever. From weather conditions to match results, gauging how things might go helps make better decisions. But despite that, retail users didn’t have formalized incentive frameworks to monetize predictions. They could speculate on the market price of financial assets or partake in illegal betting. Traditionally, exchanges offer a fixed set of asset classes, appealing only to the sentiments of certain traders. This applies to stocks, crypto—everything. Prediction markets can fix this. The problem is, most existing ones are inadequate. They let users trade or speculate on various events, but competitive distribution mechanisms result in narrow focus. Speculators still don’t have the incentives necessary to engage consistently. With various major elections and sports events coming up in 2024, now is a good timing for a new generation of prediction market. It’ll allow better community participation in decision-making procedures. Aligning intent in multi-stakeholder ecosystems is critical right now. Especially with recent developments in AI, which takes data analysis and prediction modeling to a new level altogether. What separates next-gen predictive markets from the current lot? They’ll optimize for relevance and sustainability. As we’re doing at PredX. Let me explain. People transact and trade in prediction markets only if the event or topic resonates with them strongly. It must align with their interests. It must be debatable, so the stakes of winning are significant. You need to give people good reason to care. Relevance is key. And besides aligning interests, timeliness is crucial. Personalization using AI-powered web scrapers and recommendations is how PredX ensures relevance. Sustainability is another key aspect. Both rewards and engagement must be consistent. Event creators and traders must benefit equally. So, instead of token holdings or such metrics alone, we’ve tied rewards to the users’ engagement levels. Balancing relevance and sustainability in next-gen prediction markets has many benefits. For example, we provide rich educational resources to users on the PredX platform, helping them make well-informed decisions. Traders can use Telegram bots, etc., to execute transactions faster. What’s more: our integrated machine learning framework lets users build custom bots easily, in very little time. Finally, decentralization is the most obvious benefit for end-users. It enhances accessibility and reduces manipulation, censorship, and extortion risks. To conclude, can you tell us a bit about Futarchy and how it’s related to PredX? Sure. Economist Robin Hanson proposed Futarchy in 2007. It’s a radical concept of governance based on the idea—vote on values, bet on beliefs. This model addresses the glaring limitations of pure democracies, i.e., sub-par information distribution, political manipulation, etc. In Futarchy, people elect representatives who set the nation or organization’s values and goals. Then, free-market speculation and traders choose the policies and methods to best achieve these goals. The idea has become increasingly popular in the last decade, with proponents like Vitalik Buterin. From our perspective, this means a greater demand for futarchy-as-a-service solutions, which PredX offers. It’ll help improve community-led decision-making in Web3, leading to a meritocratic and more equitable future. We’ll have a fairer, more inclusive world—that’s ultimately what emerging technologies like crypto, blockchain, and artificial intelligence bring.

Enhancing Community-led Decisions via Prediction Markets: A Discussion With Dr. Rein Y. Wu of PredX

GitHub offers a way to customize one's profile by allowing one to create a in a specific repository, named as your profile, , . A couple of years ago, I automated the update of my GitHub profile with up-to-date info: my latest blog posts, my upcoming talks, and the last recorded YouTube talk. I took the time to document how to do it . README e.g. nfrankel/nfrankel on this blog At the time, I chose Kotlin scripting because I was proficient enough in Kotlin, but I wanted to learn the scripting part. Over the years, I became more and more dissatisfied with the solution. I recently moved away from Kotlin Scripting to Python. In this post, I want to explain my reasons and document the migration. The previous situation First things first, I'm a big proponent of Kotlin; my issues were in other areas. When I first developed the code, I had the feeling that Kotlin scripting was an unloved child. The documentation is pretty straightforward about it: Kotlin scripting is Experimental. It may be dropped or changed at any time. Use it only for evaluation purposes. We appreciate your feedback on it in YouTrack. Get started with Kotlin custom scripting I didn't pay much attention then, believing it was temporary. The problem is that the status has stayed the same over two years. At some point, an experiment either graduates or the product is dropped. But Kotlin scripting stays in an intermediate Schrödinger state, neither really living nor truly dead. Kotlin scripting allows dependencies via in-file annotations. Here's a dependency to the Freemarker templating engine: @file:DependsOn("org.freemarker:freemarker:2.3.32") Dependabot and Renovate are bots that can regularly check dependencies for updates. Renovate manages more ecosystems than Dependabot, , Docker Compose, but still doesn't handle Kotlin scripting. It's a vicious circle because since not many use Kotlin scripting, it doesn't support it, and since it doesn't, not many use it. The consequence is that I had to check dependencies by myself regularly. e.g. The final problem in my setup was entirely unrelated to Kotlin scripting but was the push to change anyway. I had put the script inside the magic GitHub repo. For this reason, the GitHub history contained daily README commits sprinkled with dependency upgrades and my changes. The target setup I put the code in a different repo than the profile one. I now have two repositories: : the target repo with the nfrankel README : the repo hosting the script nfrankel-update It fixes the latest issue I mentioned above. I chose Python because I used it for simple scheduled jobs in the last couple of years, and I'm happy enough about the results. A simple search pointed me to the following dependencies: to send HTTP requests requests to parse YAML payloads PyYAML for the templating engine Jinja2 I manage them via Poetry. Renovate manages Poetry; it takes care of my first concern. What the code does is precisely the same. It's about reading posts from this blog's , talks from my underlying blog repo, and videos from YouTube. RSS feed Challenge During the migration, I had a couple of hiccups, but the biggest challenge was committing to another repository. Most GitHub actions either don't touch the repository hosting the action at all or commit to it and it only. In my case, I'm decoupling the script and the repo it acts upon: jobs:
  update:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - name: Checkout repo                                 #1
        uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - name: Checkout profile repo                         #2
        uses: actions/checkout@v4
        with:
          repository: nfrankel/nfrankel
          path: nfrankel
          token:  ${{ secrets.NFRANKEL_GITHUB_TOKEN }}      #3
# Set up and run the script here
      - name: Commit README and push                        #4
        uses: EndBug/add-and-commit@v9
        with:
          cwd: './nfrankel'
          add: README.adoc
          default_author: github_actions
          message: Automatically update README.adoc Checkout current repo, the one hosting the script Checkout profile repo in a sub-directory Use an explicit GitHub token Commit the and push it to the profile repo README The magic happens in step 3 above. By default, GitHub allows you to commit to the repo of the action. When one wants to commit to other repos, one needs to have a regular token, the same one you'd use of GitHub. Besides, you must set the token in the checkout step, not the commit step. The rest is usual. outside Conclusion In this post, I've explained why and how I migrated from Kotlin scripting to Python. In my context, the latter is a better fit than the former. It will be the case until JetBrains commits to Kotlin scripting. The complete source code for this post can be found on . GitHub To go further: Get started with Kotlin custom scripting Poetry Checkout multiple repos (nested) Automatic token authentication Originally published at on March 3rd, 2024 A Java Geek

From Kotlin Scripting to Python: Why I Changed How I Automate

I recently spoke with , CEO and Co-Founder of . From a leadership position in the IDF to being a Principal at i3 Equity Partners, Bentzi has a wealth of experience spanning various industry verticals. In our conversation, we delved into the current state of institutional , the problems enterprises face when adopting crypto, and possible solutions. Hope you enjoy. Bentzi Rabi Utila crypto wallets Welcome, Bentzi. Let’s kick this off with Utila’s origin story and vision. Sure. Utila’s journey began with a realization that my co-founder, Sam, and I had after studying, experimenting, and building in the cybersecurity and asset management space for many years. Enterprises and institutional players are increasingly adopting digital assets like crypto. Especially since spot BTC ETFs went live and ETH ETFs became more evident than before. For context, we have secured transactions worth $3+ billion in the last six months or so. But there’s a big gap when it comes to secure, user-friendly, and versatile wallets or asset management infrastructure for these enterprises. They’re forced to rely on providers that are too complex and not flexible enough. Complicated and lengthy onboarding processes, sub-par UI/UX, steep learning curves are some of the major challenges for institutions trying to manage their crypto holdings efficiently. This can’t go on. So, we built Utila to offer a secure, no-fuss, self-serving, and all-inclusive wallet platform that understands and meets the demands of enterprise-grade crypto-asset management. You’ve been a proponent of non-custodial solutions for enterprises. Please explain why and how that’s significant. We say— But so far, we didn’t have the tools to help enterprises adopt and implement this powerful idea efficiently. not your keys, not your crypto. Entities with massive holdings have little or no control over their digital assets when working with legacy custodians. This slows them down and increases operational and counterparty risks. Privacy is also at stake in low-trust, multi-stakeholder environments where institutions mostly operate. Their interactions involve highly sensitive data, and even minor breaches result in tremendous costs—monetary and otherwise. Scalable, self-custody options, on the contrary, put enterprises in the driving seat. With platforms like Utila, they can enjoy the seamless, hassle-free nature of legacy asset management along with the security and robustness of cryptography, decentralization, etc. They get autonomy, above all, which is a big competitive edge in today’s world and business scenario. Did any particular technological development help enable self-custody at scale for enterprises? Yes, of course. Solving the so-called Trilemma was a core technical challenge. You couldn’t have security, scalability, and usability at once. Recently, however, innovations in Multi-Party Computation (MPC) changed the game. We fully capitalized on this opportunity to build Utila. Using MPC, we found a way to let enterprises generate ‘private keys’ and sign transactions securely without the hassle of Common Line Interface (CLI) and so on. That handles seamlessness under the hood. But an intuitive frontend was the other key piece in the puzzle. It wouldn’t be possible to build this a few years ago, mainly because we didn’t have developers with the required skill set. Now, we have talented people and tools to abstract complex mechanisms and create a rich UX/UI for users without giving up critical features. With that, we could combine the best of legacy and novel frameworks. The outcome: an end-to-end asset management ecosystem for crypto-native enterprises and institutions. Before we wrap, where do you see institutional crypto adoption in the next 3-5 years? And how would that impact the industry overall? I’m very bullish and for various reasons. We, as an industry, are focusing more on the fundamentals than short-term price movements and market dynamics. They’re important markers, no doubt, but there’s much more to blockchain and crypto than speculation. Especially if we want to build sustainable frameworks that last and actually contribute to a better, more equitable world. Utila, for one, is all about using innovation to redefine how value is created, stored, and transacted at scale. We take this mission very seriously because it can set new standards for the future. Institutional adoption is super important for crypto’s long-term success. While retail participation is the daily bread and butter, bigger entities help solidify the ground upon which new things are built. We’re currently in a similar position as Web2 was in the early-2000s. In the next 3-5 years, we’ll see a significant rise in crypto-based mass market use cases. That too, without the downsides of the Web2-led tech boom, i.e., security and privacy concerns, etc. But to achieve that goal, we must work together instead of against each other. Collaborative innovation is the cornerstone of crypto and Web3’s success.

Secure Crypto Asset Management for Institutions: A Discussion with Bentzi Rabi, CEO of Utila

HackerNoon COO and CEO Discuss Entrepreneurship, Working With Your Spouse, and More

by Jeff Garzik and Ralph Benko We agree with the recently published Techno-Optimist Manifesto We agree with the recently published , hailing, among other things, the importance to civilization of energy and, thus, of good, practical energy policy. Abundant, reliable, readily affordable power is what unlocks a nation's dynamism, builds factories, creates jobs, enhances national security, and reduces poverty and famine. Techno-Optimist Manifesto A specter is now haunting those of us (including us) who believe that equitable prosperity is a great thing for people and the planet both. This specter is the shade of those who are anti-technology and anti-prosperity. Pro-prosperity goes under the rubric of e/acc, shorthand for “ .” As an aside, that might be a coinage derived from “ .” The latter had its day, although now is tarnished by the spectacular fall of its most enthusiastic and flamboyant promoter, . effective accelerationism effective altruism Sam Bankman-Fried The opponents of tech, and of its attendant general prosperity, have been dubbed the “decels.” Possibly a sly allusion to “incels.” e/acc also goes by the term “techno-optimism.” Many prominent center-leftists are at least as enthusiastic about the promise of technology to improve the lives of people and the planet as are the card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Techno-optimists tend to lean libertarian, whether left or right. Prominent among the leading proponents are masters of the universe , , , (with stated reservations about AI), and . Also notable are economist, blogger, and journalist ( ), public intellectual Peter Zeihan, who refers to the process of deindustrialization now underway as “decivilization,” and , who presents at a16z with exceptional clarity on matters such as . Marc Andreessen Ben Horowitz Bill Gates Vitalik Buterin Peter Thiel Noah Smith an incisive self-professed political southpaw Ryan McEntush how to scale nuclear power The villains in this drama are those who committed to “degrowth,” or shrinking the economy, perhaps by the “spectre of degrowth communism” of “Kohei Saito, the rising star of contemporary Marxist thought….” best exemplified Marxists Never Cease To Delight in Spectral Haunting Marxists just never cease to delight in spectral haunting. Some people just have to learn the hard way. We’ve written about the tussle between us techno-optimists and the luddites at ; ; at ; and at . Let’s up the ante. Toward a Pragmatic American Energy Policy To Build or Not to Build Washington? Just Face Facts Yankee Ingenuity The sweet spot of Washington Power and Light, our policy institute, is good energy policy, the foundation of equitable prosperity. In that, we are not alone. Marc Andreessen recently, in his . wrote: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto “Energy is life. We take it for granted, but without it, we have darkness, starvation, and pain. With it, we have light, safety, and warmth. We believe energy in an upward spiral. Energy is the foundational engine of our civilization. … We believe we should place intelligence and energy in a positive feedback loop, and drive them both to infinity. We believe we should use the feedback loop of intelligence and energy to make everything we want and need abundant.” should be And as Noah Smith observes in : Don’t be a Decel “Energy technology is arguably the most important kind of technology that humans create, since everything else we do is downstream of our ability to harness energy.” It isn’t very romantic of us, but … our mission is to encourage policy based on real-world data to produce great results, rather than relying on faith-based dreams we call “hopium.” We consider ourselves proud pragmatists. Pretty much everyone, including the innumerate, has heard of Einstein’s E = mc2, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. the world’s most famous equation. PBS calls it While it is profound to prove that energy and matter are interchangeable, in day-to-day terms it’s not the most important equation around. We nominate, instead, e2/acc: effective energy accelerationism. Capitalism’s monster Those advocating economic “shrinkage” (to steal ) are an odd lot. Consider the frailty of the romantics, like Saito. He was critiqued by Thomas Fazi at , as “capitalism’s monster.” a phrase from Seinfeld Unherd To wit: “It is no coincidence that Saito comes from Japan, which enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. But for most people on the planet, especially those living in poorer countries, climate change among the lowest policy priorities — well below more pressing material concerns such as hunger and poverty, access to water and sanitation, and education. systematically ranks “To the billions of people who still live in extreme poverty, and the millions who don’t even have access to electricity, Saito’s vision of degrowth communism, and his plea to scale back production and consumption, is unlikely to be very appealing. In fact, Saito’s insistence that countries in the Global South should refrain from pursuing growth — even ‘green growth’ — might very well be seen as a form of Western eco-imperialism. … “In this sense, degrowth communism suffers from the same drawback of old-school communism: it’s an intrinsically universalist worldview, one that purports to offer a one-size-fits-all solution for all human societies, regardless of local cultural and civilisational specificities. This globalist outlook is typical of post-Nineties leftism, which Saito harks back to in several respects. This is also evident in his rejection of the nation-state, viewed as a reactionary, quasi-fascist construct, rather than the framework through which virtually all the major social, economic and political advancements of the past centuries were achieved. “It’s a view that is completely at odds with global realities. Capitalism’s monster? At odds with reality? Yeah, that’s our poster child villain, all right! Curtis Yarvin: the greatest living Hobbesian philosopher, formidable poet, and classic antihero, declares Trotsky at Burning Man Among others in the techno-pessimistic camp is the always interesting contrarian Curtis Yarvin – the greatest living Hobbesian philosopher and poet, a classic antihero rather than villain, and possibly simply being arch – recently published “ .” Therein, he wrote: a techno-pessimist manifesto “Where did this ideology come from? While the connection is obviously a coincidence, techno-optimism is a curious historical match for another deeply American ideology from the 20th century: Trotskyism. “In (1924), Trotsky wrote: Literature and Revolution “Through the machine, man in Socialist society will command nature in its entirety, with its grouse and its sturgeons. He will change the course of the rivers, and he will lay down rules for the oceans. This does not mean that the entire globe will be marked off into boxes, that the forests will be turned into parks and gardens. Thickets and forests and grouse and tigers will remain, but only where man commands them to remain. And man will do it so well that the tiger won’t even notice the machine, or feel the change, but will live as he lived in primeval times. The machine is not in opposition to the earth. The machine is the instrument of modern man in every field of life… “Man, who will learn how to move rivers and mountains, how to build people’s palaces on the peaks of the Mont Blanc and at the bottom of the Atlantic, will not only be able to add to his own life richness, brilliancy and intensity, but also a dynamic quality of the highest degree. The shell of life will hardly have time to form before it will burst open again under the pressure of new technical and cultural inventions and achievements. Life in the future will not be monotonous! “Narrator: nor was it. “More than that. Man at last will begin to harmonize himself in earnest. He will make it his business to achieve beauty by giving the movement of his own limbs the utmost precision, purposefulness and economy in his work, his walk and his play. He will try to master first the semiconscious and then the subconscious processes in his own organism, such as breathing, the circulation of the blood, digestion, reproduction, and, within necessary limits, he will try to subordinate them to the control of reason and will. Even purely physiologic life will become subject to collective experiments. The human species, the coagulated Homo sapiens, will once more enter into a state of radical transformation, and, in his own hands, will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection and psycho-physical training. “One can easily see Trotsky at Burning Man…. “Here again the ‘scientists, technologists, artists, and visionaries beyond our wildest dreams.’ Was Trotsky the first ‘effective accelerationist?’ Life takes you funny places.” “Life takes you funny places.” True! Washington Power and Light Last year, we constituted a new, tech-savvy think tank in Metro DC, Washington Power and Light, to advocate for, to quote Bastiat (see below), a “real, serious and pragmatic” energy policy, a policy rooted in technological reality rather than “pretty to think so” romantic dreams. Thus, we heartily welcome a recent big reveal at Ben Horowitz’s blog, “ ,” that a16z has desired to engage politically, seriously, to conduct a savvy “revenge of the nerds” political crusade to make the pro-techno worldview stick: Politics and the Future “We believe that advancing technology is critical for humanity’s future, so we will, for the first time, get involved with politics by supporting candidates who align with our vision and values specifically for technology. “While “Big Tech” is well represented in Washington D.C., their interests are often at odds with a positive technological future as they are more interested in regulatory capture and preserving their monopolies. As a result, technology startups need a voice. “We are non-partisan, one issue voters: If a candidate supports an optimistic technology-enabled future, we are for them. If they want to choke off important technologies, we are against them.” Badly needed! Politicians have mostly taken their eye off the ball and turned Congress mostly into a slapstick pie-fight over mostly trivial matters. Consider the daily political news. Much of it covers the struggle between the Democrats (the Donks) and the GOP (Pachyderms, thank you, Thomas Nast!). And, implicit therein, the forever war between the left and right. And much of the news now is devoted to the internecine intraparty struggles, such as within the administration, between the privileged progressives and the rank-and-file workers of the labor-and-ethnic left. And the marquee battles between the MAGAs (“the Chaos Caucus”) and the Regular Republicans in the House. “A full phase-out of fossil fuels would take the world back into caves.” Meanwhile, note the recently convened and concluded CAP28, whose presiding officer rocked the world by observing candidly, as reported by : Reason “ Al Jaber also that a full phase-out of fossil fuels would ‘take the world back into caves.’ Into the caves we go: said Some scientists and activists have not welcomed Al Jaber's blunt realism, but have said his are ‘verging on climate denial.’ comments “To be sure, Al Jaber has been properly criticized for a possible conflict of interest, as he is also the CEO of the Emirati state-owned oil and gas company, ADNOC. But he's correct to weigh tradeoffs and to point to the fact that world leaders need a more concrete plan, since toothless U.N. agreements don't really cut it.” “What Is Seen and What is Not Seen” We confidently submit that, in the spirit of Bastiat’s final work, – “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” – that which is invisible is often more consequential than what is visible. CE QUON VOIT ET CE QUON NE VOIT PAS And the previously almost invisible war between the techno-optimists (“the squares”) and the techno-pessimists (“the hippies”) is, we believe, the truly important political, social, and cultural battle now going on. As the fox confided to the , “And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” Thus, let us look with our hearts. Little Prince Why is the war between the techno-optimists and the techno-pessimists of existential importance? Bastiat, courtesy of : Mises.org In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause — . The others unfold in succession — : it is well for us if they are . Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference — the one takes account of the effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are and also of those which it is necessary to . Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, . Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil. it is seen they are not seen foreseen visible seen foresee and the converse “In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. If often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man, absorbed in the effect which , has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation. is seen “This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others. It has to learn this lesson from two very different masters — experience and foresight. Experience teaches effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action, by causing us to feel them; and we cannot fail to finish by knowing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Foresight. For this purpose I shall examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena, by placing in opposition to each other those , and those .” which are seen which are not seen The struggle over tech is crucial because it is, at base, a struggle between prosperity and austerity. Prosperity affords us agency. Poverty is a vice, not a virtue. The Soviet bloc, exponentially poorer than the capitalist running dogs of the West, experienced far worse environmental degradation than did the capitalist world. It is better that we fight over what to do with our discretionary income than scrap for subsistence. Shall we use our surplus wealth to clean up our rivers and air? Plant forests? Invent new tech? Buy more aircraft carriers? Pay down the national debt? These are much worthier fights to have than those available while struggling for survival in a condition of great scarcity. Sorry, Luddites. Few indeed wish to return to the caves. Bad policy.  Bad politics. As Churchill, on the floor of the House of Commons, , ‘The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.’ observed Misery loves company. That said, misery makes for bad policy. So, let’s accelerate our technology and, with it, our prosperity. Then… watch the Congress. Those fights will be merry indeed but much more productive than what we are now witnessing. Bravo to the : “We believe we should place intelligence and energy in a positive feedback loop and drive them both to infinity. We believe we should use the feedback loop of intelligence and energy to make everything we want and need abundant.” Techno-Optimist Manifesto To remain great or regain greatness, America can and must have abundant, reliable, readily affordable energy from practical, reality-driven sources. Abundant, reliable, affordable power unlocks a nation's dynamism, builds factories, creates jobs, enhances national security, and reduces poverty and famine. Accept no substitutes. Jeff Garzik serves as the founder and chairman of the policy institute Washington Power and Light.  Before co-founding Bloq, he spent five years as a Bitcoin core developer and ten years at Red Hat. His work with the Linux kernel is now found in every Android phone and data center running Linux today. Ralph Benko serves as co-founder and general counsel to Washington Power and Light. He is also the co-founder and general counsel for F1R3FLY.io and has worked in or with 3 White Houses, two executive branch agencies, and the Congress, as well as many political and policy institutes. He is an award-winning columnist.

“What is Essential is Invisible;” Enter Energy/Acceleration

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." This old metaphor, attributed to Bernard of Chartres, can describe the current situation of all inventions. We’re in this technology stage thanks to the advances made by our predecessors, and Obyte (all cryptocurrencies, indeed) is no different. Without computers, the Internet, specialized software, and cryptography, the whole crypto world wouldn’t be here. If we look more closely into the software and cryptography realms, numerous milestones had to be achieved before the appearance of decentralized money. Then, afterward, some others would come to make the Obyte ecosystem possible. The gives them credit at the end, but do you know who they are and what they really did? Let’s check a bit of history and interesting inventions. We’re in debt to experts from all parts of the world and their previous creations. Obyte whitepaper Satoshi Nakamoto Of course, this is the more obvious one. Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency ever, and someone named Satoshi Nakamoto created it. We know little about him, though. He reportedly was born on April 5, 1975, he’s known as a brilliant programmer and a recognized —online activists behind decentralized tools. Beyond this, there are more questions than answers about his persona. Or their personas. We don’t even know if that’s his real name because he (or they?) chose the path of complete privacy. cypherpunk , on the other hand, is the first and most adopted cryptocurrency so far. This piece of software operates on a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, enabling direct transfers without intermediaries —besides the miners. Transactions are verified by network nodes through cryptography, and recorded in a public ledger called the blockchain. It’s not fully decentralized and has , but it’s the start of the cryptocurrency world. Bitcoin its own set of issues However, we don’t have miners or “validators”, as we don’t have a “blockchain” but a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure. This way, all transactions sent to the DAG are truly censorship-resistant and not dependable on third parties. We took a lot of the Bitcoin original system in Obyte, including the P2P transparent crypto-network and the goal to eliminate middlemen. Sergio Demian Lerner He describes himself this way: “In short, my name is Sergio Demian Lerner. I’m a Cryptofan, Independent Security Researcher, and Bitcoin specialist since 2011.” It could be an understatement, though. Lerner is an Argentinian programmer who has created and participated in a lot of cryptocurrency projects, and more importantly for us, he’s the original designer of DAG-like coins. He even mentions Byteball (now Obyte) in his . personal story He’s helped to fix over 8 vulnerabilities in Bitcoin and has been involved in projects like Copay (now BitPay), Bitshares, Counterparty, Ethereum, and Monero. Interestingly enough, the Obyte wallet UI is based on Copay. Lerner has collaborated in open-source crypto projects for years (and for free), but he’s not exactly a cypherpunk. Among others, he co-founded the blockchain auditing company CoinFabrik in 2014, and the Bitcoin-based sidechain ecosystem Rootstock (now RSK / IOV Labs) in 2015. Additionally, he’s a pioneer of atomic swaps, also mentioned in the Obyte whitepaper. considered As for the DAG, but create the chain themselves**,** with every transaction. We took this idea to create Obyte, and added Order Providers (OPs) as mere waypoints to order transactions, without them being powerful middlemen as miners or centralized companies. Lerner as “a cryptocurrency without blocks,” where every user would be a “miner” —in the sense that they wouldn’t need miners, described it Serguei Popov While Lerner first described DAGs to create cryptocurrencies, he never coded the project himself. However, other developers were interested in the idea and started to propose (and create) new ecosystems around it. Serguei Popov and the IOTA team were likely the first ones back in October 2015. Popov is a Russian-Brazilian mathematician in charge of the conceptual side of the IOTA crypto project. After receiving his Diploma and Ph.D. from the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics of Moscow State University in 1997, he left for Brazil to start an academic career as a professor. interested in cryptocurrencies by 2013, first in Bitcoin and later in the altcoin Nxt. By sharing his own calculations about that network on Bitcointalk, he got to meet the Nxt founder, Sergey Ivancheglo. He became Then, in , Sergey and David Sonstebo invited him to contribute to the theoretical side of IOTA —and that's how the was born, inspired by the previous work by Lerner. Users validate transactions by confirming two previous ones, promoting scalability and feeless microtransactions. However, unlike Obyte, their network is still controlled , and not by the users. late 2015 Tangle whitepaper IOTA is a cryptocurrency designed for the Internet of Things (IoT). It utilizes the Tangle, a DAG network, just like Obyte. by their foundation Tom Holden Some months before the release of Obyte (Byteball, back then), a Bitcointalk member known as Tom Holden proposed another DAG-like system to create an improved cryptocurrency. He named it Transaction Directed Acyclic Graph (TDAG). It utilizes a structured DAG that must form a bounded lattice, ensuring a unique root node and childless node. Each transaction references previous ones, like in every DAG. Besides, it offers incentives such as transaction fees and fee burning. We don’t know who Tom Holden really is, or what he does. However, is connected to the DAG-like ecosystems and probably his early proposal urged us to think about and fix some potential vulnerabilities that this type of system may bring. Tony Chryumov (Tonych), the Obyte founder, participated in that thread and pointed out a potential attack vector where an adversary could construct a shadow DAG, including double-spends, and spend more on fees in the shadow DAG than in the legitimate DAG. The attacker could then publish the shadow DAG, leading users to switch to it as it appears more profitable due to higher fees spent. Obyte solved this issue with the creation of witnesses (Order Providers). Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta They also appear in the Bitcoin whitepaper as the proponents of Linked Timestamping, a cryptographic method that involves associating a timestamp with a piece of data or information, establishing a chronological order of events (or transactions). This process creates a chain or link of timestamps, where each timestamp is linked to the previous one, forming a secure and tamper-evident sequence registered in a difficult-to-alter and widely observed platform, such as a printed newspaper or a public ledger. Both Americans, Haber is a cryptographer and computer scientist, while Stornetta is a physicist —like was. They met while working for the communication company Bellcore (now Iconectiv), and co-authored the paper " ” in 1991. Currently, is an advisor member of the cryptocurrency Kadena and Yugen Partners, a private equity firm for crypto projects. Meanwhile, is a partner and Chief Scientist at the latter one. In other words, they are the creators of the first “blockchain,” so to speak. Tim May How to Time-Stamp a Digital Document Haber Stornetta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWVoPBkPd6g&embedable=true The order in a DAG is different than in a blockchain, . They serve the same function as the newspaper in our first example: they’re well-known and trusted to post serially, which is equivalent to not publishing two versions of the same issue of the newspaper. Light clients in Obyte rely on witnesses to prove that a transaction exists. By default, light clients select Order Providers as their light client witnesses. but Obyte took the idea of publishing transactions in a widely observed system, such as a newspaper, and created the witnesses Bonus: 1984 Also mentioned in our whitepaper, " " by George Orwell, published in 1949, is a dystopian novel that explores a totalitarian society ruled by an oppressive government led by the Party and its enigmatic leader, Big Brother. Set in an alternative year, 1984, the story follows Winston Smith, a low-ranking member of the Party who becomes disillusioned with the oppressive regime. 1984 The novel delves into themes of censorship, surveillance, and the manipulation of truth, portraying a bleak future where individualism is suppressed, history is rewritten, and the concept of reality is distorted. This is a world where nobody would like to live, and sadly, it’s also not that far from what some modern countries have become, to varying degrees. , , , and of everyone’s money are now realities everywhere. That’s why activists are dedicated to creating freedom tools, and that is (or that should be) the raison d'être of cryptocurrencies. Obyte was created as a freedom tool as well, even more decentralized than its predecessors. We’re working hard to create a free world for everyone, everywhere. Ready to join us? Mass surveillance totalitarian regimes democratic censorship unjustified control like cypherpunks Featured Vector Image by storyset / Freepik

Obyte Precursors: Who Helped to Create Our Decentralized Ecosystem?

Obyte Precursors: কে আমাদের বিকেন্দ্রীভূত ইকোসিস্টেম তৈরি করতে সাহায্য করেছে?

Obyte-Vorläufer: Wer hat zur Schaffung unseres dezentralen Ökosystems beigetragen?

Precursores de Obyte: ¿Quién ayudó a crear nuestro ecosistema descentralizado?

Précurseurs d'Obyte : qui a aidé à créer notre écosystème décentralisé ?

ओबाइट प्रीकर्सर्स: हमारे विकेंद्रीकृत पारिस्थितिकी तंत्र को बनाने में किसने मदद की?

オバイトの先駆者: 私たちの分散型エコシステムの構築に貢献したのは誰ですか?

Obyte Precursors: 누가 우리의 분산형 생태계를 만드는 데 도움을 주었나요?

Precursores Obyte: Quem ajudou a criar nosso ecossistema descentralizado?

Предшественники Obyte: кто помог создать нашу децентрализованную экосистему?

Obyte Öncüleri: Merkezi Olmayan Ekosistemimizin Oluşturulmasına Kim Yardımcı Oldu?

Tiền thân của Obyte: Ai đã giúp tạo ra hệ sinh thái phi tập trung của chúng tôi?

Obyte 前身：谁帮助创建了我们的去中心化生态系统？

Crypto promised to be secure and immutable, so why Is hacking commonplace? As most know by now, crypto is short for cryptography, so it must already be secure, right? But the fact is that thefts are a routine occurrence as a result of hacks and attacks. Cyberattackers made off with worth of crypto in 2023, and not mincing any words, was a discussion topic at the TechCrunch Disrupt event in September. $2 billion “Why is Web3 Such a Cybersecurity Disaster?” Yet crypto’s proponents still to the fact that platforms like Bitcoin and Ethereum are secure against attackers and use phrases like “not your keys, not your crypto” to espouse the view that self-custody is the best protection against theft or censorship. point While the numbers tell a clear story, crypto’s supporters aren’t simply being disingenuous when they talk about the security of blockchain. The networks that operate Bitcoin and Ethereum have always proven to be resilient against attacks. But due to the immaturity of the industry and a lack of rigor in cybersecurity operations, the applications built on and for these networks frequently prove to be far more vulnerable than the underlying infrastructure. In the absence of universal standards or regulations, the industry needs to find the will to raise the bar. The Changing Landscape of Blockchain Attacks In a blockchain network, the first security defense is its encryption. Transactions are encrypted, decentralized, and stored in blocks that are linked cryptographically, creating an immutable chain. So far, no one has managed to interrupt the biggest chains by inserting fake transactions. Users can only authorize a transaction by entering their unique private key. However, since users are fallible humans, for many years, the first line of attack for hackers was discovering private keys through methods such as phishing and malware. Cyberattackers always target the biggest rewards for the least risk or effort, and so key-holding employees at centralized exchanges became the earliest targets. From 2017 onwards, Ethereum became a hub of activity for smart contracts and decentralized applications, allowing anyone to create code that governs cryptocurrency or programmable money. The explosion of innovation created many use cases for cryptocurrencies that the world began to see in 2021 in what became known as ‘DeFi’ applications. This on-chain liquidity created a new bull run and began to flow through DeFi protocols and bridges that connect otherwise unconnected blockchain ecosystems. Unfortunately, since every one of these protocols is based on code, which is also written by fallible humans, this innovation opened up a whole new set of attack vectors for hackers. , the percentage of all cryptocurrency stolen using DeFi protocols rose from 30% in 2020 to 97% in the first quarter of 2022. According to Chainalysis data By the second quarter of the same year, Chainalysis had become the biggest security risk facing the industry. The amounts involved in bridge and DeFi exploits can be eye-wateringly high – stolen in the 2022 DPRK hack of the Ronin bridge. Even in the down markets of 2023, a single attack can result in losses of , as users of Mixin Network found out. announced that cross-chain bridges $600 million up to $200 million So who’s to blame? What makes this segment such a honeypot for hackers? While the risk-reward ratio is similar to centralized exchanges, DeFi also offers the allure of pseudonymity and permissionless access, with proceeds available immediately for a liquid exit. Furthermore, the decentralized environment means that users are often flying blind, navigating a poor user experience where glitches are commonplace and there is no recourse for clicking the wrong button in error. However, a far more significant problem is the relative lack of maturity in the sector when it comes to cybersecurity. When coding Turing-complete languages such as Solidity, it’s still very easy to program in bugs, or it may be possible that the code allows for unanticipated outcomes that can be exploited by attackers. Although things have improved somewhat over recent years, there are still no best practices when it comes to protocol security and audits to identify and eliminate these issues. Many DeFi projects now engage third-party code auditors in an attempt to root out bugs and security issues, and some also operate bug bounties to encourage indie developers and white-hat hackers to support their efforts to maintain clean code. The lack of uniform standards and the complexity of technology means the average person can't be sure how effective a security audit really is. Plus, not all audits are equally reliable. The best auditors often have long waitlists, leading to newer auditors filling in the gap. This can be risky because protocols might end up with a low-quality audit and not realize it until a hacker finds a weakness. For those handling large amounts of user funds, getting a top-notch audit is crucial but often not feasible due to these challenges. Raising the Bar While industry-wide teething problems explain the issues to a certain extent, it’s impossible to ignore the elephant in the room – an overall lack of rigor that’s applied to Web3 protocols compared to their Web2 counterparts. Robust cybersecurity operations almost always incorporate an element of monitoring, where suspicious activity can be flagged, investigated, and, in many cases, averted via automated incident response before a hack occurs. Projects like Forta, Tenderly, and Hypernative have all sprung up to fill this gap in the market. However, the tools that have been developed for centralized systems are generally unfit for purpose in a decentralized environment. After all, intrusion detection has little use where access is permissionless by design. But things are changing. The publicly available nature of blockchain data combined with the power of machine learning means that it is possible to monitor and detect threats on blockchain-based protocols in real time. By harnessing a decentralized network of bots, each dedicated to monitoring either generic threats or protocol-specific activity, it’s possible to garner a tremendous amount of threat intelligence data, which can then be consumed by users or developers. In most cases, it would be possible to shut down operations and stave off a threat before it becomes an incident. The availability of Web3 monitoring tools and their efficacy in detecting attacks in advance before any funds get stolen are now sufficiently developed such that they can and should become an industry standard. Furthermore, this should be prioritized as one of the most significant leaps forward in cybersecurity that the industry can make in the coming years. Although hackers will invariably find the next vulnerability, cutting the current lines of attack off from the source will make DeFi a significantly safer place for its beleaguered users.

Is Crypto (In)Secure?

Stories, News & Mentions about PRODRONE

Prodrone’s Stories on HackerNoon

Prodrone's News & Mentions