Crypto NEws

Celsius Network to Manage Funds for United Nations Initiative

freotech 0

The Celsius Network has become a founding member of the SDG Impact Fund within the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals initiative.

Decentralized lending and borrowing platform Celsius Network will manage the Sustainable Development Goals Impact Fund (SDG Impact Fund) within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals initiative, according to a press release published September 21.

The Sustainable Development Goals is an international program focused on bringing a “better and more sustainable future for all.It addresses global challenges such as poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, prosperity, and peace and justice. The initiative aims to achieve a series of targets by 2030.

Per the announcement, the SDG Impact Fund will be launched by financial services firm Fifth Element with the aim to raise several hundred million dollars and deploy them in both fiat and digital format using a public blockchain. The fund will purportedly be the first to accept and operate all forms of crypto and digital assets in compliance with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Within the partnership with Fifth Element, Celsius Network is reportedly looking to “bring power back to the peopleby providing banking services typically reserved for top tier asset owners. Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky said thatby offering earned interest rates up to 7.1 percent, we allow individuals to make the same passive income Wall Street has been making for years.Scott Stornetta, adviser to Celsius, commented:

“We see a great opportunity to use this technology to deliver the value collected by different U.N. organizations in a more precise and effective way to the people and organizations that need it most.

In February the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) embraced cryptocurrency by starting a charity drive for Syrian children, asking PC gamers to use their computers to mine Ethereum (ETH) and donate their earnings. Later in April, UNICEF Australia also announced an initiative that allows users to give their computer’s processing power to mine cryptocurrency for charity.

Home Crypto News Irrational Exuberance Revisited: Is Crypto The New Dot-Com Bubble?
[wp-stealth-ads rows="1"]
Irrational Exuberance Revisited: Is Crypto The New Dot-Com Bubble?

Irrational Exuberance Revisited: Is Crypto The New Dot-Com Bubble?


And should we even focus on ‘bubble or not’ that much?

If you have ever encountered the word ‘cryptocurrencyor ‘bitcoin,’ there is a solid chance that within the same paragraph or even sentence the word ‘bubblecould also be found. Bubble has indeed become a shibboleth for crypto sceptics, especially after the market soared at the end of 2017, and the widening gap between valuation and intrinsic value of digital currencies and tokens became ostensible to many.

Yet not all bubbles are created equal: some bubble-framed references and metaphors tend to surface more frequently in media space than others. Perhaps the crypto’s most conspicuous historical analogy is the dot-com bubble of the early 2000-sand quite understandably so. There is almost irresistible temptation to draw parallels between the burst of the booming market that emerged around early applications of a disruptive communication technology, and the highly volatile market that emerged around the blockchain ecosystem.

The recent slump in crypto prices has only made face similarities more pronounced. As Bloombergreported earlier this week, VanEck’s MVIS CryptoCompare Digital Assets 10 Index, which tracks the prices of top ten digital assets, went down 80 percent compared to its January high. Symbolically, this development is now more dramatic than the Nasdaq Composite Index’s 78 percent nosedive at the height of the dot-com crash. The overall market cap dipped below $200 billion, shrinking by a factor of more than three from the all-time high. Does this mean that crypto market is doomed to follow the pattern of the early internet boom’s infamous explosion?

Bubbles and dot-coms

In the simplest terms, market bubbles occur when assets are traded at prices that by far exceed their fundamental value. Even though this can happen in virtually every market, tech industries, widely construed, are especially prone to such dynamics. Perhaps this is due to the human tendency to get excited over potentially disruptive technologies and then engage in speculative behavior fueled by this excitement. The technology in question does not necessarily have to be a digital onethe British ‘railway maniaof the mid-19th century could serve as agood example of an ‘analogbubble.

The mid to late 1990s saw the rapid growth of internet-powered consumer markets. Sensing the ‘next big thing,’ entrepreneurs and investors flocked into the space, inflating each other’s ardor along with valuation of internet startups, which sprouted prolifically in the bull market. At the time, adding .com to a company’s name did the same to its stock as adding ‘blockchain’does today. The Nasdaq Composite stock market index was the one that tracked many of those technology companies, and it was doing greatuntil a certain moment. At its peak in March 2000, the index reached the value of$6 trillion. A few years before, then-Chairman of the Fed Alan Greenspanfamously observed that ‘irrational exuberancetends to ‘unduly escalate asset values.Once the dot-com bandwagon headed steeply downhill, the term ‘irrational exuberanceentered just about every analytical reflection on what has happened.

The bubbleburst. Expectations were set too high, the market was too overheated, and many of the dotcomsproved unable to come up with sustainable business models, let alone deliver services worth anything comparable to what investors poured on them.  In less than two years, more than half of the companies folded, while trillions of dollars of investorsmoney just vanished. As the widespread narrative goes, the explosion of the dot-com bubble helped weed out numerous opportunistic players, thus clearing the way for those serious companies that had authentic ideas and a truly clairvoyant visiontoday’s giants like Amazon and Apple usually among the primary examples. Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin famouslycharacterized these events as ‘creative destructionand, along with many others, pointed out that the crypto market might be following the same trajectory.

Degrees of similarity

Indeed, the dot-com bubble and the hypothetical crypto bubble share many striking commonalities, from powerful waves of irrational exuberance fueling their explosive growth to grandiose disruptive promise of their underlying technologies to trend lines describing the dynamics of their capitalization. As perMorgan Stanley’s March report, cryptocurrency price chart is broadly mirroring the Nasdaq index chart from the turn of the century; the number of bear cycles and rebounds, as well as their depth, are largely similar, as are the regularities in trading volumes. Some other very smart people have independently reachedsimilar conclusions by using fancy statistical techniques to compare those two sets of data points. So, is it warranted that the painful burst is what invariably awaits us all? Or has it already happened in January, meaning that we are now living through the gloomy days of decay akin to the dot-com post-wreck 2001? The unsatisfying answer is that we cannot know for sure.

One thing to bear in mind is a number of important features that are still different between the two sets of circumstances. The most obvious one to look at is the size of the market, even though the relevance of this metric is debatable: whereas the Nasdaq Composite index amounted to six trillion dollars on its brightest day, the crypto market’s high-water mark is around half a trillion. At least we can rest assured that the damage to the overall economy in the case of collapse would be less dramatic than eighteen years ago.

A more consequential variable might be the pace at which the markets move. According to the same analysis by Morgan Stanley, in blockchain industry things happen 15 times faster than in the early internet sector. This is a product of a number of important distinctions between the two cases. One is that thanks to Twitter, Reddit, and Telegram, the information environment around crypto markets is richer, more transparent and more responsive to relevant (and not-so-relevant, for that matter) signals. Another point is that, unlike dot-com startups that were mainly supported by venture capital flowing from institutional actors, crypto markets rely on millions ofretail investors globally a good deal. In sum, the ‘crypto bubbleis a more diverse constellation of actors who have a wealth of information about the market, which is arguably more distributed geographically than any other. This looks like a set of structural differences that could yield outcomes that are different from what the story of dot-coms would predict.

In histhoughtful analysis published on Hacker Noon during the first downward tide of the year, Noam Levenson argues that the digital asset market has not yet reached the levels of adoption and capitalization needed for a proper ‘popping.Moreover, the dot-com-like crash might not even take place at all, and instead crypto markets would just bounce between bear and bull cycles until widespread adoption helps them entrench in a less volatile territory. The point is, we might well be past the crash, or simply in another loop of bear market on our way to the new heights. It is impossible to assert one or another with confidence, since there is only so much that can be learnt and extrapolated from the dot-com casea case that is somewhat similar but not identical to the current state of the crypto market.

Does it even matter?

Ultimately, whether digital assets are a bubble or not is no more than a debate over terminology. Even within the crypto community, it is clear to the majority that the present-day tangible output that blockchain-based ventures can offer lags far behind the figures observed at the home page of It is also clear that these two values will have to realign at some point, similar to how it eventually unfolded with internet companies. The right questions to ask are what the timeline will be, and what the resultant configuration of the industry will look like; what share of today’s players will survive and which ones will eventually make it to the status of Amazons and Googles of the blockchain industries of the future; whether the industry will progress through a devastating crash or a relatively soft landing.

According to a radical viewpoint, nearly every market is a bubble, and a market’s progression is just a sequence of inflations and pops. The general sentiment among crypto stakeholders seems to be that the price drop is unavoidable at some point, and many of the less viable projects will have to go. Further still, even the stock market frenzy around potentially disruptive technologies might be viewed as an unlikely means of accomplishing a greater good, opening up the floodgates of capital for industries would otherwise seem too novel and risky: “Nothing important has ever been built without irrational exuberance.”

[wp-stealth-ads rows="1"]


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

[wp-stealth-ads rows="1"]