Category Archives: Cryptocurrency
Cryptocurrency TRON Falls More Than 3% In 24 hours – Benzinga – Benzinga
Over the past 24 hours, TRONs (CRYPTO: TRX) price has fallen 3.01% to $0.06. This is opposite to its positive trend over the past week where it has experienced a 3.0% gain, moving from $0.06 to its current price.
The chart below compares the price movement and volatility for TRON over the past 24 hours (left) to its price movement over the past week (right). The gray bands are bollinger bands, measuring the volatility for both the daily and weekly price movements. The wider the bands are, or the larger the gray area is at any given moment, the larger the volatility.
The trading volume for the coin has decreased 32.0% over the past week, while the overall circulating supply of the coin has increased 1.18% to over 101.73 billion. The current market cap ranking for TRX is #25 at 6.17 billion.
If you are interested in purchasing TRON and want to know the best cryptocurrency exchanges, follow this link to Benzinga Money.
Do you want to learn more about trading and be able to analyze your own portfolio of stocks or cryptocurrencies? Consider signing up for Benzinga Pro. Benzinga Pro gives you up-to-date news and analytics to empower your investing and trading strategy. You can follow the link here to visit.
Powered by CoinGecko API
This post contains affiliate links from which Benzinga may earn a commission.
This article was generated by Benzingas automated content engine and reviewed by an editor.
Link:
Cryptocurrency TRON Falls More Than 3% In 24 hours - Benzinga - Benzinga
Cryptocurrency Cronos Decreases More Than 3% Within 24 hours – Benzinga – Benzinga
Over the past 24 hours, Cronoss (CRYPTO: CRO) price has fallen 3.65% to $0.43. This is opposite to its positive trend over the past week where it has experienced a 20.0% gain, moving from $0.37 to its current price.
The chart below compares the price movement and volatility for Cronos over the past 24 hours (left) to its price movement over the past week (right). The gray bands are bollinger bands, measuring the volatility for both the daily and weekly price movements. The wider the bands are, or the larger the gray area is at any given moment, the larger the volatility.
The trading volume for the coin has fallen 53.0% over the past week which is opposite, directionally, with the overall circulating supply of the coin, which has increased 0.39%. This brings the circulating supply to 25.26 billion. According to our data, the current market cap ranking for CRO is #18 at 11.05 billion.
If you are interested in purchasing Cronos and want to know the best cryptocurrency exchanges, follow this link to Benzinga Money.
Do you want to learn more about trading and be able to analyze your own portfolio of stocks or cryptocurrencies? Consider signing up for Benzinga Pro. Benzinga Pro gives you up-to-date news and analytics to empower your investing and trading strategy. You can follow the link here to visit.
Powered by CoinGecko API
This post contains affiliate links from which Benzinga may earn a commission.
This article was generated by Benzingas automated content engine and reviewed by an editor.
Read more:
Cryptocurrency Cronos Decreases More Than 3% Within 24 hours - Benzinga - Benzinga
Dear Littler: Is paying employees with cryptocurrency an option? – Littler Mendelson PC
Dear Littler: We are a multi-state employer with operations in multiple technology hubs, including Silicon Valley and Austin. Over the past several months we have heard from multiple applicants and employees about whether the company offers cryptocurrency as an option for compensation. While I am generally aware of what cryptocurrency is, I do not have enough understanding to make an informed decision. Is paying cryptocurrency as a component of compensation an option?
Confused on Crypto
Dear Confused on Crypto,
While cryptocurrency has been around since at least 2009, it has become more mainstream recently and you are seeing that widespread recognition with your applicants and employees. For the uninitiated, cryptocurrency is a digital peer-to-peer payment system secured and verified through private codes housed on an encrypted public ledger called blockchain, without the use of banks or any other financial institute. We are seeing an uptick in questions from employers about using cryptocurrency as a signifier in a competitive labor market. While there are mayors,1professional athletes,2and at least one country3that are embracing cryptocurrency, we recommend a cautious approach to using cryptocurrency as wages for your employees.
The paramount question is whether it is legal to pay wages to employees in the form of cryptocurrency. Under federal law (Fair Labor Standards Act), wages must be paid in cash or negotiable instrument payable at par. 29 C.F.R. 531.27. Multiple states, including California, require that wages be paid in cash or negotiable form of U.S. currency. Cal. Lab. Code 212 (prohibiting payment in scrip, coupon, cards, or other thing redeemable, in merchandise or purporting to be payable or redeemable otherwise than in money). Cryptocurrency is neither cash nor a negotiable instrument in the United States, and is not backed by the government or other legal entity. Therefore, use of cryptocurrency for base wages (hourly or salary) is not recommended. While there may be an argument that some forms of cryptocurrency are readily exchangeable for U.S. currency, the legal system is still catching up to the use of cryptocurrency and has not issued any binding precedent to allow for the practice of payment of wages in cryptocurrency. Therefore, we recommend the use of traditional U.S. currency for payment of all wages to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local minimum wage requirements, overtime statutes, and salary thresholds for exemption classifications.
A separate issue related to paying any form of wages in cryptocurrency is the associated transaction fees for selling cryptocurrency, exchanging cryptocurrency to U.S. dollars, or using a cryptocurrency exchange card. Many states, including California, expressly require that wages be paid without discount. Even without an express statute prohibiting the practice, providing wages in a manner that cannot be utilized without incurring a fee effectively lowers the employees take-home pay and may compound any employee frustrations if the value of the cryptocurrency decreases. Certainly, a number of retailers are accepting some cryptocurrencies, but until employees can pay their rent, mortgage, utilities, and other essentials in cryptocurrency, there are risks associated with paying wages handcuffed with transaction fees.
Considerations for non-exempt employees further complicate matters. Given the inherent nature of value fluctuations with cryptocurrency, the appropriate regular rate of pay for overtime, paid sick time, meal and rest break premiums, or reporting time pay would be a constantly moving target and may be difficult to determine. Any unpaid time or historical time/pay adjustments would require not only a recalculation based on the value of the cryptocurrency at the exact time of the adjustment, but also a recalculation of all other regular rate of pay payments in that time period. Assuming the calculations could be done correctly, there would be a significant administrative burden and cost for your payroll department and/or external payroll provider.
In addition to wage and hour risks, there are accounting and tax reporting difficulties that you should discuss with a tax professional or tax attorney.
Practical Recommendations
We understand that using cryptocurrency may be viewed as a differentiator in attracting or retaining talent, so if you are considering using cryptocurrency, we have the following recommendations:
The bottom line, Confused on Crypto, is that until our wage and hour laws catch up with the technology, traditional forms of wage payment, particularly for non-exempt employees and for base pay, should continue to be the norm in most instances. As with most issues, please run any proposed changes to your methods of payment by wage and hour counsel before implementing them.
Read the original here:
Dear Littler: Is paying employees with cryptocurrency an option? - Littler Mendelson PC
Digital Currency Vs Cryptocurrency Whats The Difference? – CNBCTV18
Ever since Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, during her 2022 Budget speech, announced that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) would be rolling out its digital currency, there has been a lot of chatter about what exactly a digital currency is and how will it differ from cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Dogecoin and other popular tokens.
If youve been wondering how digital currency will differ from cryptocurrency then this guide will help you know everything about these two forms of currencies. Lets begin by defining them first.
Digital Currency is the digital format of fiat currency that you carry around in your wallet or withdraw from an ATM. Its the same currency that is backed by an authority, the Reserve Bank of India in case of Indian currency, and can be exchanged for actual currency if and when it is scheduled to be launched in 2023.
Cryptocurrency is not backed by a central figure but derives its purchasing power from its community of users. Technically, they are pieces of code created by mining that are managed through a digital ledger called as blockchain to ensure transparency at each stage of its journey. Although coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum have many uses when it comes to NFTs and the upcoming metaverse, they cannot be utilised outside of blockchain as these are digital assets that can be traded but not used as a legal tender in India.
Now that we know about them, here are five major differences between digital currency and cryptocurrency.
1 - Centralisation
The biggest difference digital currency and cryptocurrency is the question of who has control over the monetary value of your coins. In case of digital currency, it would be the Reserve Bank in India or Fed in the US along with the government, banks and other middlemen, all of whom would have to come together to set the value of the currency in question. This is why you would read of the Turkish Liras depreciation by over 40% in 2021 or the collapse of financial systems in Myanmar and Afghanistan once the central authority is left powerless.
Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, follows a transparent procedure right from mining to ownership to transfer of crypto assets. Its value is also independent of central banking authorities and regional geopolitical problems.
2 - Encryption
Once again, cryptocurrency trumps digital currency when it comes to encryption. Digital currencies are essentially e-cash that doesnt need any special indigenous methods to encrypt them. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, are stored on a blockchain and the coins themselves are stored in wallets that offer a much higher degree of cyber security.
3 Transparency
The biggest advocates for cryptocurrency will cite the transparency afforded by the platform. Every detail regarding cryptocurrency transactions is in the public domain thanks to the presence of a decentralised ledger that records all the blockchain details. With digital currency, only the banking authorities along with the sender and receiver are involved in the transaction involved. In case of conflict over any asset, cryptocurrencies are easier to manage as the records are there for everyone involved to see, whereas digital currencies could involve bureaucratic hurdles and other problems in case of any conflict. This decentralisation of data is, in fact, one of the driving forces leading to the adoption of cryptocurrencies across the world.
4 Stability
Digital currency is usually stable and also relatively easy to manage, thanks to having wider acceptance in the global market. Digital currency, being the fiat version of approved currency, is traded and understood by a vast majority of the population. This, in turn, makes it more stable when compared to a new technology such as cryptocurrency that has started gaining attraction but isnt mainstream yet. Added to that, the price volatility of cryptocurrencies is another aspect that hampers its stability even as new tech and features mean that it is slowly but steadily gaining traction all around.
5 Legality
Most countries, including India, are now taking a look at the legality and acceptance of cryptocurrencies. Since these arent backed by any governing body, most traditional frameworks dont assign any value to them. However, the swift rise in the number of depositors and various use cases of blockchain today and the upcoming metaverse, where the only method of payment remains cryptocurrencies, means that some sort of discussion around the legality of cryptocurrencies is bound to happen sooner than later. For now, countries around the world are firm in backing their own fiat currencies.
This is a Partnered Post
Go here to see the original:
Digital Currency Vs Cryptocurrency Whats The Difference? - CNBCTV18
Cryptocurrency Company Fined $100M In Novel Action Concerning Registration Obligations For Crypto Lending Product – JD Supra
On Monday, February 14, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged cryptocurrency lending company BlockFi Lending LLC (BlockFi) with failing to register the offers and sales of its retail crypto lending product, violating the registration provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and making certain material misrepresentations regarding the level of risk associated with its product. To settle the charges, BlockFi agreed to pay a $50 million penalty, cease its unregistered offers and sales of the lending productBlockFi Interest Accounts (BIAs)and bring its business within the provisions of the Investment Company Act within 60 days. BlockFi also agreed to pay an additional $50 million in fines to 32 different states to settle similar charges.
Under Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), any securities that are offered or sold must be registered with the SEC unless they qualify for an exemption. And under Sections 3(a)(2) and 7(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the Investment Company Act), issuers of securities that are (1) engaged in the busines of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities and owning investment securities that (2) have a value in excess of 40% of the issuers assets must register as an investment company with the SEC.
According to the SECs order, beginning in March 2019, BlockFi offered and sold BIAs to the public without registering them as required, but prior to the order, there was arguably some degree of open question as to how crypto lending products such as BIAs would be treated. The SEC applied the longstanding tests set forth in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 6466 (1990), and SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 (1946), and concluded that the BIAs were securities both because they were notes and also because BlockFi offered and sold the BIAs as investment contracts. Critical to the findings were that, at least as alleged by the SEC, through BIAs, investors lent crypto assets to BlockFi in exchange for the companys promise to provide a variable monthly interest payment; investors in the BIAs had a reasonable expectation of obtaining a future profit from BlockFis efforts in managing the BIAs based on BlockFis statements about how it would generate the yield to pay BIA investors interest; and investors had a reasonable expectation that BlockFi would use the invested crypto assets in BlockFis lending and principal investing activity, and investors would share in the resulting profits in the form of interest payments resulting from BlockFis efforts. Because the SEC found that the BIAs were securities, the order found that BlockFi operated for more than 18 months as an unregistered investment company because it issued securities and also held more than 40 percent of its total assets, excluding cash, in investment securities, including loans of crypto assets to institutional borrowers.
The size of the SEC fine was likely influenced by the fact that the SEC also found that BlockFi had made certain material misrepresentations regarding the level of risk associated with BIAs. In particular, the SEC alleged that BlockFi made a statement in multiple website posts that its institutional loans were typically over-collateralized, when in fact, most institutional loans were not. And while the SEC did not allege that this in fact led to losses, and specifically noted that these misstatements were the result of an operational oversight, the SEC likely concluded that the risk of misstatement was increased by the lack of registration.
The SECs action against BlockFi is the first of its kind, though not the first sign that the SEC is focused on crypto lending products; it has previously been reported that at least one other crypto company withdrew a contemplated crypto lending product after receiving similar inquiries from the SEC. Commenting on the Order, SEC Chair Gary Gensler noted:
Todays settlement makes clear that crypto markets must comply with time-tested securities laws, such as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. It further demonstrates the Commissions willingness to work with crypto platforms to determine how they can come into compliance with those laws.
The SECs latest action is another reminder that its existing rules can apply to any number of scenarios in the rapidly developing fintech space generally, and crypto currency trading specifically, and that the SEC (and other regulators) will particularly apply scrutiny whenever retail customers are impacted.
Links & Downloads -
SEC Order
[View source.]
Read the original here:
Cryptocurrency Company Fined $100M In Novel Action Concerning Registration Obligations For Crypto Lending Product - JD Supra
SC asks Centre to clear its stand on legality of cryptocurrency trade in India – The Tribune India
PTI
New Delhi, February 25
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to make its stand clear on whether cryptocurrency trade involving Bitcoin or any other such currencies is legal in India or not.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant, which was dealing with a case related to the quashing of multiple FIRs registered against one Ajay Bhardwaj and others for allegedly duping investors across India by inducing them to trade in Bitcoin and assuring them high returns, said that the accused were booked for their involvement in Bitcoin trade.
The bench told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Centre and Enforcement Directorate, We want you to tell us on affidavit whether cryptocurrency trade involving Bitcoin or any other such currencies is legal in India or not? What is the regime for Bitcoin trade at present?
Bhati said she would file an affidavit on the legality of the cryptocurrency trade and added that the accused, who is seeking quashing of proceedings, has not been cooperating with the investigating agency after being granted bail by the court in 2019.
She said that 47 FIRs have been registered against the accused of duping people across the country and the issue involves a trade of 87,000 Bitcoin worth Rs 20,000 crore.
The bench ordered, We direct the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer of Directorate of Enforcement within two days and thereafter cooperate with the investigation as and when called upon to do so. The investigating officer shall file a fresh status report before this court on or before four weeks, indicating the progress of the investigation and whether there has been any cooperation on the part of the accused. List after four weeks.
The bench said the ad-interim order restraining the arrest of Bhardwaj shall continue till the next date of listing of the matter.
At the outset, Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for one of FIR informant Vipin Kohli, said that he has filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Bhardwaj on the ground that he has not disclosed true facts of the matter to this court and concealed material in his writ petition thereby misleading this court.
The advocate said that Bhardwaj has deliberately suppressed the fact that Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Patiala House Court through court notice had issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of the accused under section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code.
These material facts were not disclosed to the court when the bail was granted to him. Hence, we are seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner, Alam submitted.
He said that after the grant of bail to the accused, the complainant was attacked in a hotel, which is on CCTV cameras.
The bench asked whether the grant of bail to other accused has been challenged to which the advocate replied in affirmative.
Bhati said that even the co-accused, who have also been granted bail are also not cooperating in the matter.
The bench noted in its order that a status report has been filed in July 2021 by the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate and Bhati has submitted that the accused has not cooperated in the course of the investigation.
It noted that there is an allegation of collection of 87,000 Bitcoins (valued at approximately Rs 20,000 crores) and prayer is being made that the ad-interim order granting an interim stay of arrest be vacated.
The bench made it clear that it is testing the petitioner Bhardwaj and asked him to cooperate in the investigation and for now, it is not vacating the protection from arrest.
The allegation against Bhardwaj is that he along with other co-accused, who are mostly his family members, had induced investors to invest in Bitcoin through a multi-level marketing scheme on false promises of securing to the investors a 10 per cent assured monthly returns for 18 months that is total of 180 percent profit.
It was alleged that due to the dishonest inducement, the customers invested their Bitcoins in the said business, but after making an investment they did not get the assured returns.
The FIRs also said that to escape from inevitable punishment under the law, Bhardwaj and other co-accused persons collectively, in a dishonest manner and with the deliberate intention of destroying all the evidence shut down the fake gainbitcoin website through which investors made the investment.
Here is the original post:
SC asks Centre to clear its stand on legality of cryptocurrency trade in India - The Tribune India
Third Party Debt Orders and Cryptocurrency – Lexology
InIon Science Ltd and Duncan Johns v Persons Unknown, Binance Holdings Limited, Payward Limited and Mirriam Corp LP, the first-ever third party debt order was granted in relation to cryptocurrency.
Third party debt orders are generally a method of enforcement for judgements involving money, as opposed to cryptocurrencies. The granting of the third party debt order in this case to the value of 2.9 million - enabled victims of crypto-related fraud to recover what is rightfully theirs.
The Case
The case was brought after the first claimant was the victim of a cyber-fraud in 2020. This involved the persons unknown transferring a large amount of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin out of the first claimants account.
The claimants successfully applied for a proprietary injunction, a freezing injunction and disclosure orders against various cryptocurrency exchanges, including Binance Holdings and Payward Ltd (a subsidiary of Kraken Exchange). The disclosure order led to Payward Ltd disclosing that Mirriam Corp LP was the holder of the now-frozen account that had been used to carry out the fraud. The disclosure also showed there were amounts of both cash and cryptocurrency in that account. The claimants obtained a judgement for 2,935,204.30 against Mirriam Corp after it failed to respond to the claim.
The High Court then made an interim third party debt order relating to a debt owed by Payward to Mirriam Corp. A third-party debt order allows whoever is owed money to take what is owed from whoever currently has the money. In this case, Payward owed money to Mirriam Corp which was its customer that could be used to repay the 2,935,204.30 that Miriam Corp owed the claimants under the judgement.
Payward had no objection to the third party debt order, but Mirriam Corp did not respond to the application (just as it had not responded to the original claim for 2,935,204.30). Despite Mirriam Corps lack of response, the High Court made the third party debt order final. The judge was satisfied that there was a debt payable from Payward to Mirriam Corp and that Ion Science and Duncan Johns were entitled to have the interim order made final. The courts ruling ensured the claimants could recover what they had lost in the fraud.
Other Aspects of the Case
While this case was notable for the use of the third party debt order, it was also significant for a number of other reasons.
It was believed to have been the first time the Commercial Court had heard a fraud case involving an initial coin offering - where finance is raised through the creation of cryptocurrency. It was also the first time that a court had considered the lex situs (location) of Bitcoin to establish jurisdiction.
The case was also the first example of a court granting permission to serve a free-standing Bankers Trust order out of the jurisdiction against cryptocurrency exchanges. Such an order compels a third party (in this case a cryptocurrency exchange) to disclose certain information to the applicant. In AA v Persons Unknown, it was doubted whether this could be done but the Ion Science case confirmed it could be. This is set to be of great use to anyone who is trying to trace and recover assets that they have lost to crypto-related fraud.
Conclusion
The successful application for the third party debt order in this case can be seen as proof that fraud using virtual assets such as Bitcoin is not necessarily a safe haven for bad actors. It demonstrated that assets can be traced and followed no matter what form they take. This new asset class cannot now be viewed as a refuge for fraud and money laundering within the UK financial system.
Cryptocurrency scam costs woman and father nearly $400,000 – NewsChannel5.com
MARSHALL COUNTY, Tenn. (WTVF) A Tennessee woman and her father are out nearly $400,000 after a cryptocurrency scam that started on an encounter with a popular dating app.
After 24-year-old Niki Hutchinson's mom died in 2020, she inherited her mom's house, which she sold, splitting the money with her father, Melvin.
Then, Hutchinson says, she joined the dating app Hinge, where she met someone calling themselves "Hao."
During their conversations, Hutchinson asked about Hao's hobbies. He rattled off a long list, before ending with "Cryptocurrency."
"He was very casual about it too," Hutchinson said.
After more conversation, Hao told Hutchinson, "if you want to invest in cryptocurrency, I can teach you. This is my field. I can be your teacher."
Hutchinson then set up an account on a legitimate cryptocurrency site, but then Hao told her to transfer her money to what she was told was a "cryptocurrency exchange platform." Over time, Hutchinson invested her money from the sale of the house, eventually encouraging her dad to invest too, after the account started showing what Hutchinson thought were big profits.
"It actually got over a million dollars, and it was $1.2 million when we said its time to cash out," said Hutchinson's dad, Melvin.
But the two had actually been putting money in a digital wallet, controlled by the scammers.
They told Hutchinson they'd need to pay a nearly $400,000 "tax bill" to get their money out. They didn't pay it, but in the end, Hutchinson and her dad had paid the scammers nearly $400,000 already.
But instead of reacting in anger, Hutchinson's dad turned to love.
"She was just crying, 'Dad, I'm so sorry, this is a scam.' All I could do is hug her and tell her I love her and say it's going to be ok," Melvin said.
Now the family wants to warn others of this quickly growing cryptocurrency scam, while getting back on their own feet.
Hutchinson says part of the money from the sale of her mom's house was meant to go toward her grandmother's care at a Cool Springs assisted living center. Hutchinson has started a GoFundMe fundraiser for support.
Link:
Cryptocurrency scam costs woman and father nearly $400,000 - NewsChannel5.com
Cryptocurrency Billionaire’s Political Action Committee Spends Early and Big in Race for the Oregon’s New Congressional District – Willamette Week
Protect Our Future, a political action committee funded by cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, has bought more than $420,000 in TV ads for the last week of February and the first week of March, supporting the candidacy of political newcomer Carrick Flynn for Oregons new congressional seat.
Its early in the primary for such a significant TV buyand could lead to record spending for a congressional seat if that pace continues. Bankman-Fried made his fortune with the Bahamas-based cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which sells Bitcoin, and he is seeking to influence federal regulation of virtual money, Politico reported earlier this month. (It did not report the new spending in Oregon.)
A tax-dodging billionaire in the Bahamas has no place in Oregon politics, says Robin Logsdon, a campaign manager for Intel engineer Matt West, another candidate for Oregons 6th Congressional District. I dont think the people of the 6th District are going to let himbuy a seat for his friend regardless of how much he spends.
Carrick campaign manager Avital Balwit disputes the idea the candidate is friends with the billionaire: Carrick has never met or talked to Sam Bankman-Fried.
A representative of Protect Our Future PAC did not return calls seeking comment.
Continue reading here:
Cryptocurrency Billionaire's Political Action Committee Spends Early and Big in Race for the Oregon's New Congressional District - Willamette Week
Cryptocurrency is the money of the future and is far superior to gold, Binance chief says – The National
The full potential of blockchain has not yet been realised, the founder and chief executive of Binance, the worlds largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, said.
Blockchain, the technology behind cryptocurrencies, holds the potential to offer applications that are beyond our current imagination, Changpeng Zhao said in Dubai on Thursday.
Cryptocurrencies are the money of the future."
Mr Zhao was speaking during one of nine Future Talks that Dubais Museum of the Future is hosting from February 24 to March 29.
The museum opened to the public on Tuesday.
It is a great honour to be one of the first speakers in the Future Talks series and to witness first-hand the Museum of the Future it is truly fantastic, Mr Zhao said.
Once you have a couple of hundred million people using cryptocurrency, you cannot erase it
Changpeng Zhao, founder and chief executive of Binance
Blockchain has many new applications we had previously not even imagined, and it is fitting to be talking about cryptocurrencies here, at the Museum of the Future, as cryptocurrencies are the money of the future.
There has been growing interest in the cryptocurrency market in the UAE as consumers and investors flock to digital assets.
In December, Dubai World Trade Centre Authority and Binance signed a preliminary agreement to develop an industry centre for global digital assets in the emirate.
The initiative will help to expedite Dubais plans to establish a new international digital asset ecosystem, which will, in turn, generate long-term economic growth using innovation, the authority said at the time.
Mr Zhao said the main risk with cryptocurrency is the risk of not adopting it.
If you dont take that risk, you dont have the future, as you dont have the future of money.
Bitcoin is neutral, and it doesnt have borders. It doesnt side with anyone. And it can be used in any country. So, in theory, it should hold its value in this way it is far superior to gold, Mr Zhao said.
He said cryptocurrencies and blockchain are not bubbles and would not go away.
Once you have a couple of hundred million people using cryptocurrency, you cannot erase it.
Having moved from China to Canada, Mr Zhao worked in McDonalds outlets and gas stations during his teenage years. He later made a foray into independent trading by establishing a broker trading platform called Fusion Systems in Shanghai.
He was a member of the founding team of Blockchain Info, before taking a senior position with cryptocurrency company Okcoin. He founded Binance in 2017 after raising $15 million through an initial cryptocurrency offering.
Mr Zhao said strong regulations to govern the industry were important.
The industry is still young we need frameworks. It is also very important for industry players to be working closely with regulators. Some regulators like Dubai, the UAE, in many parts of the world are very, very smart about this, he said.
Binance will organise its blockchain conference in Dubai from March 28 to 30.
We should encourage people to adopt this technology, but we should adopt it in a safe way. There should be information sharing, but there has to be a balance with privacy, he said.
Updated: February 24th 2022, 6:06 PM