BAT is cool and the ad blocker in the Brave browser works really well. I use it on ad-heavy websites which burn up my computer on other browsers (which is any news site nowadays...). I still use Chrome day to day though because of the developer tools. Hopefully the project has some success because I appreciate the ethos behind it - empower users to capture some of their value from the attention economy.
Roughly, coins would spike hard, then correct somewhat, but still generally be up heaps.
I was shocked at how consistently coins would spike upon or days/weeks before being listed on Binance, so when NANO (then Raiblocks) was known to be soon listed, I traded some BTC for it and sure enough it spiked some 30% or so and I made a little bit off it. It was the only time I made money off crypto from an actual legitimate prediction based on evidence. The market seemed to just be scoffing at the idea of caring to be efficient (Weird-sounding finance vocabulary that basically means the price is already in equilibrium due to investors "already knowing" such obvious information, and traded with respect to it such that you still can't tell if the price is going to go up or down)
Wonder if folks at Coinbase did or could have engaged in insider trading? And if they did, does it even fall under SEC jurisdiction or crypto currencies are in the wild West of insider trading?
This is why they are making the announcement now. I would suspect that only a few trusted people would have been involved in making the decision on which tokens to explore. They then made this announcement that they are exploring it at the same time as it was announced internally.
> We are making this announcement internally at Coinbase and to the public at the same time to remain transparent with our customers about support for future assets.
This was probably the right thing to prevent insider trading. There was evidence of insider trading when Coinbase added BCH, so they might be just completely avoiding the risk of information leaks.
> Wonder if folks at Coinbase did or could have engaged in insider trading
They'd be fools not to. Cryptocurrency trading is not regulated by SEC type entities (yet). Until it is regulated, you can get away with insider trading and even other activities like wash trading, painting the tape, pump and dump etc.
Not true, you can go to jail for that stuff today. The moment there is a derivative (like a futures contract),the CFTC has jurisdiction (and has already sent subpoenas).
I don't believe anyone has been caught yet. Coinbase was in trouble after the BCH situation though, both risking an investigation as well as hurting user and investor confidence.
> Until it is regulated, you can get away with insider trading
You would have criminally mis-used Coinbase’s information which properly belongs to its shareholders. There is no statute against insider trading. It’s all a breach of fiduciary duties.
If you're interested in learning more about how the cryptography in Zcash offers users robust financial privacy, check out the talks and slides from Zcon0: https://z.cash.foundation//blog/zcon0-recap/
BAT is an interesting choice. I'm a fan of Brave browser and it will be intriguing if BAT is able to pull off its mission of monetizing the internet while protecting privacy. I really hope they succeed.
ZRX is the odd-ball for me -- and I was an early investor. It's a governance token and it's not even needed to use with a decentralized exchange. In fact, a lot of exchanges aren't using it for fees.
But it makes since ZRX is part of the list. Its been rumoured for a long time given Coinbase's relationship with members of the 0x team.
Probably because it's more difficult to build infrastructure for. As an example, the Ledger Nano hardware wallet still isn't compatible with Monero but is with ZCash, despite XMR being older and having a much larger market cap than ZEC.
Also Gemini, another leading US exchange, added ZEC recently and Coinbase wanted to catch up.
I'm sorry, but that reads like gibberish. I think I remember Zcash from my Keybase account, but now I'm going to associate it with these other experiments irrespective of how legitimate it might otherwise be.
"In evaluating these assets for exploration, we relied as much as possible on the criteria in our published Digital Asset Framework, but found that many of the criteria required communication with external parties to fully evaluate."
They may have decided that deposits of zcash should be sent in the clear, not anonymously. I believe monero is always anonymous, so maybe they didn't want to deal with that?
