Buy, Sell, Trade INJ on WazirX
Injective Protocol (INJ) listed on WazirX recently on 23rd November 2020 at 12 PM IST, where-in the traders can buy, sell and trade INJ with USDT on WazirX. They also hosted a series of events to give away prizes worth $680. They published an official blog with the details of the giveaway.
INJ is a part of their Rapid Listing Initiative where-in the tokens are listed on WazirX trading markets without enabling deposits and withdrawals. Therefore the users can neither deposit nor withdraw INJ token from another wallet.
Yet the users will be able to buy, sell, trade INJ on WazirX USDT market. And deposits, withdrawals will be enabled very soon.
Give Away Activities
The give away worth $680 was held on 23rd and 24th November 2020 with three different activities.
- AMA with Eric Chen on 23rd November 2020
An ask-me-anything (AMA) session was held with Eric Chen, CEO & Co-founder of Injective Protocol in order to get educated with INJ. The giveaway prize in this contest was $150
- 10 questions related to INJ were asked to Eric Chen crowdsourced from their Twitter followers. The 10 Twitter users were awarded $10 each.
- For the last 10 minutes, the discussion was unmuted and users had the chance to ask live questions to the CEO.
- $50 was awarded for top 5 questions from the Telegram group
- INJ Trivia Contest on 24th November 2020
The users had to follow the official WazirX, where 3 questions were shared on Instagram Story at an interval of 3 minutes. The users had to choose the correct answer for which $10 was rewarded for the correct answer.
The INJ Trivia Contest was held on WazirX Instagram Page with prizes of $30.
- Quiz Time with WazirX on 24th November 2020
Quiz Time with WazirX was held on its Telegram group. The users had the opportunity to showcase their knowledge in a fun quiz session and win a prize worth $500.
Further, the participants had to join the WazirX Discuss group on Telegram, where-in 10 questions were asked. Depending on the performance, the users were awarded $100 for the first place, $50 each for 2nd to 5th place and $10 each for 6th to 25th place.
The injective protocol (INJ) is said to be the first layer-2 DEX that unlocks the full potential of decentralized derivatives and borderless DeFi. It is implemented as a Cosmos SDK built with Ethermint means EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) on Tendermint.
It utilizes a Tendermint-based Proof-of-stake to facilitate cross-chain derivatives trading across Cosmos, Ethereum, and many other layer-1 protocols. Additionally, the protocol is collision-resistant and utilizes verifiable Delay functions (VDFs) to prevent front-running.
CEO of INJ: Eric Chen
CTO of INJ: Albert Chon
Partners of INJ: Binance, Altonomy, Pantera, Hashed, QCP Capital, StartX, CMS, Bitlink Capital.
- Trading Price: $1.1129 (at press time)
- Global Market Cap : $19,482,628
- Global Trading Volume : $8,516,282
- Circulating Supply: 13,608,281 INJ
- Total Supply : 100,000,000 INJ
Core Features of INJ
The layer 2-Cosmos zone that hosts the first trustless and fully decentralized exchange protocol paved the way to empower Next-Gen DeFi Applications. A fully decentralized order book, trade execution coordinator, order matcher and order execution environment is built for the very first time.
Injective Futures Protocol
The protocol embraces a new era of permissionless financial access. It’s possible with a fully decentralized peer-to-peer futures protocol supporting decentralized perpetual swaps and contracts for difference(CFDs). Hence, enabling anyone to create and trade on arbitrary derivative markets with just a price feed.
A new model of exchange which is completely open-sourced, unlike the centralized exchange model. Injective exchange eliminates the technical barriers of entry for anyone to trade on the exchange.
Injective governance is decentralized and governed by the Injective token community members. Anyone can join the community as stakeholders and participate in making decisions related to the protocol.
Aussie Bitcoin trader accuses two banks of discriminatory practices
A cryptocurrency trader based in Australia filed a complaint against two local banks in the region for systematic discrimination practices after these entities allegedly closed his bank accounts witho
The post Aussie Bitcoin trader accuses two banks of discriminatory practices appeared first on AMBCrypto.
A cryptocurrency trader based in Australia filed a complaint against two local banks in the region for systematic discrimination practices after these entities allegedly closed his bank accounts without issuing any warning. The trader named Allan Flynn has filed for proceedings against commercial banks ANZ and Westpac and wants compensation of about $192,000.
Flynn claimed that in the last three years, roughly 20 Australian banks have closed his bank accounts connected to his crypto exchange. This was despite the fact that the Bitcoin trader operated a crypto exchange registered with Australian financial monitoring agency – Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre – AUSTRAC. The platform apparently serves about 450 clients.
Other than ANZ and Westpac, CBA, NAB, ING, Bendigo Bank and other banks have allegedly suspended Flynn’s accounts.
The trader claimed that he informed ANZ and Westpac about the purpose of his account. He said that he maintained his account at one of the banks – Westpac – for almost a year, but it allegedly closed his account in five days, without warning. When Flynn asked about the reason, the bank told him that his account was “under investigation for cryptocurrency fraud.” Flynn alleged in a local report that he knew at least “one other trader who has had accounts closed more than 60 times” and added:
How am I supposed to run a lawful business if I can’t get a bank account?
Last year, Flynn approached the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA . The case was ruled in favor of Westpac and Flynn received $250 in compensation for inconvenience and stress.
Flynn has requested a compensation of $125,000 for emotional distress and is considering raising the amount to $250,000, after watching Bitcoin rally to over $30K.
Ten Key Takeaways from the NDAA’s AML Reforms
On January 1, 2021, the United States enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA) after the US House of Representatives and US Senate voted to override a presidential veto of the law. Included within the NDAA are a significant number of provisions related to anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing… Continue Reading
On January 1, 2021, the United States enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA) after the US House of Representatives and US Senate voted to override a presidential veto of the law. Included within the NDAA are a significant number of provisions related to anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT), including provisions reforming the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), a collection of statutes underpinning most of the current AML regulatory framework. These amendments, many of which have been under consideration for years, represent the most substantial AML-related reforms enacted since at least the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Below, we outline ten of the most significant AML provisions contained in the NDAA. Given the breadth of the reforms, it is particularly important for US “financial institutions” – including money services businesses (MSBs) and other non-traditional financial institutions subject to the BSA – to carefully review the Act to understand how their compliance obligations may have changed or may change in the future as the Act is implemented via regulation.
- Amendments to BSA to Explicitly Cover Digital Assets
The NDAA includes several changes to make clear that cryptocurrency and other digital assets are within the scope of the regulatory requirements of the BSA. For example, the NDAA amends the BSA in several provisions to clarify that the BSA also may apply to “value that substitutes for currency.” For example, Section 6201(d) of the NDAA amends 31 USC § 5312 to include “value that substitutes for currency” in the definitions of a financial agency, currency exchanger, and licensed sender of money, types of US financial institutions subject to the BSA’s AML obligations. It also amends the definition of “monetary instrument” to include “value that substitutes for any monetary instrument.” Section 6102(a)(3) of the NDAA, expressing the sense of Congress, explains that “although the use and trading of virtual currencies are legal practices, some terrorists and criminals, including transnational criminal organizations, seek to exploit vulnerabilities in the global financial system and increasingly rely on substitutes for currency, including emerging payment methods (such as virtual currencies), to move illicit funds.”
Some of this reflects useful codification of existing guidance from the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). For example, FinCEN has long taken the position that “administrators” and “exchangers” of so-called “convertible virtual currency” are subject to FinCEN’s BSA regulations, and, in 2011, the agency amended the regulatory definition of “money transmission” to include the transmission of “other value that substitutes for currency.” 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A). (Money transmitters are a type of MSB subject to FinCEN regulation). While FinCEN has held this position for several years, industry has raised questions regarding the scope of FinCEN’s statutory authority with respect to digital assets. The amendments contained in the NDAA appear intended, at least in part, to resolve any doubts regarding Congress’s delegation of authority to regulate this space under the BSA.
- Significant Expansion of Whistleblower Provisions
Section 6314 of the NDAA updates and expands whistleblower rewards and protections contained in the BSA. Specifically, under the amended provisions, whistleblowers can receive up to 30% of an assessed monetary penalty where the penalty totals more than $1 million. The precise amount of the award is dependent on a variety of factors outlined in Section 6314, including, among others, the significance and helpfulness of the provided information. The NDAA also enshrines a number of protections against retaliation for whistleblowers.
While whistleblowers could receive monetary awards under the prior version of the BSA, such awards were generally capped at $150,000 and were discretionary in nature. The increased monetary incentive could lead to an uptick in whistleblower activity regarding US financial institutions AML compliance programs, similar to the activity seen under regimes such as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s whistleblower program, created in 2010. That development led to a significant increase in tips to the SEC and generated a number of substantial monetary rewards for whistleblowers. See, e.g., U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Press Release, SEC Whistleblower Program Ends Record-Setting Fiscal Year With Four Additional Awards (Sep. 30, 2020).
- Requirement for Compliance Personnel to be Located in the United States
Section 6101 of the NDAA amends the BSA (31 USC 5318) to require persons responsible for establishing, maintaining, and implementing a US financial institution’s AML compliance program to be “persons in the United States who are accessible to, and subject to oversight and supervision by, the Secretary of the Treasury and the appropriate Federal functional regulator.” It is unclear if this means that every person providing compliance-related services to a regulated entity must be located in the United States or only those with more senior positions, such as the required compliance officer. It is also unclear if this refers only to employees of a regulated US financial institution or extends to AML compliance contractors, vendors, and other service providers as well.
This provision is likely to be particularly significant for foreign-located MSBs and US branches or agencies of foreign-organized banks, who can be subject to FinCEN regulation even if their business occurs only in part within the United States. These entities may have additional regulatory compliance obligations in other jurisdictions, making it difficult to relocate significant portions of their compliance teams to the United States. Consequently, this section may warrant further rulemaking and guidance from FinCEN about the scope of this requirement.
- Requirement to Disclose Beneficial Ownership Information
The NDAA also includes the Corporate Transparency Act of 2020, which seeks to address one of the longtime AML vulnerabilities in the US legal system – the use of US domiciled shell companies, and similar entities, to conceal the ownership or source of property and monetary instruments. The Corporate Transparency Act of 2020 requires: (1) certain companies known as “reporting companies” to report to FinCEN information regarding their beneficial owners (BOs); and (2) newly formed companies to provide such information to FinCEN at the time of formation and to update FinCEN if there is a subsequent change in the reported BO information. This provision is not immediately effective, but FinCEN is required to publish rules in one year regarding the format for reporting companies to provide required BO information for newly formed and currently existing entities. Reporting companies will have two years to comply with the new requirements.
The information will be maintained by FinCEN in a non-public database. The decision to use a non-public database differs from the approach taken in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom where certain beneficial ownership information is publicly available through the Companies House database. While the database is nonpublic in nature, FinCEN may, with a reporting company’s consent, disclose beneficial ownership information to a financial institution for purposes of compliance with that institution’s Customer Due Diligence requirements. Because unauthorized disclosure of such information is penalized under the Act, financial institutions that receive such information will need to implement safeguards with respect to the handling and use of such information.
The Corporate Transparency Act defines a beneficial owner to include an individual who owns, directly or indirectly, a 25% or greater equity interest in the company or who exercises “substantial control” over the company. The term “substantial control” is not defined in the Act. A number of companies and other entities are exempt from the reporting requirements, including publicly traded companies; private companies meeting certain requirements with respect to number of employees, revenue, and physical presence in the United States; and certain trusts. Many types of financial institutions already subject to FinCEN regulation are also exempt from the requirements.
- Enhanced Penalties for BSA Violations
The NDAA contains a number of provisions enhancing the applicable penalties for BSA violations. Section 6309 of the NDAA imposes penalties on repeat violators of “3 times the profit gained or loss avoided” by the repeat violator “if practicable to calculate” or, if not practicable, “2 times the maximum penalty with the respect to the violation.” Section 6310 prohibits persons found to have engaged in an “egregious violation” from serving on the board of a US financial institution for a period of 10 years. Section 6312 authorizes the return of profits and bonuses (i.e., disgorgement) for any person convicted of violating the BSA.
Section 6313 also adds new prohibitions, and corresponding penalties, for concealing the ownership or control of assets in certain monetary transactions involving “a senior foreign political figure, or any immediate family member or close associate of a senior foreign political figure” and concealing the source of funds in certain monetary transactions involving parties found to be a “primary money laundering concern” under an existing BSA provision, 31 USC 5318A.
- Authorization to Obtain Foreign Bank Records from Banks with US Correspondent Accounts
Section 6308 of the NDAA significantly expands the authority of the US Departments of Justice and Treasury to obtain AML-related information from foreign banks by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury or Attorney General to issue a subpoena to any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the United States and request “any records relating to the correspondent account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside of the United States” (emphasis added). Under the prior version of the BSA, such requests had to be limited to “records related to such correspondent account.”
Such a demand can be issued in furtherance of (1) any investigation of a violation of a criminal law of the United States; (2) any investigation of a violation of the BSA; (3) a civil forfeiture action; or (4) an investigation pursuant to Section 5318A (“Special measures for jurisdictions, financial institutions, international transactions, or types of accounts of primary money laundering concern”).
While a foreign bank may petition a federal district court to modify or quash the subpoena, the provision makes clear that “an assertion that compliance with a subpoena would conflict with a provision of foreign secrecy or confidentiality cannot be the sole basis for quashing or modifying the subpoena.” Section 6308 also requires covered financial institutions to terminate any correspondent relationship with a foreign bank within 10 business days upon notice that the Secretary of the Treasury or Attorney General has determined a foreign bank has failed to comply with a subpoena. Covered financial institutions closing correspondent accounts pursuant to Section 6308 are protected from liability related to the termination in any court or arbitral proceeding. Failure to comply can lead to civil and criminal penalties against US and foreign financial institutions, including asset forfeiture.
- Safe Harbor for Compliance with Keep Open Directives
Section 6306 of the NDAA provides safe harbor for a financial institution that complies with a written request from federal law enforcement to keep open a “customer account” or “customer transaction.” Such requests are typically sent by law enforcement who worry that account closure will tip off an illicit actor that their activity is under investigation. However, such requests can place industry in a difficult position by asking a financial institution to keep open an account when the institution has knowledge or suspects that an account may be used for illicit purposes. The safe harbor will help ameliorate these concerns provided the account or transaction is kept open consistent with the “parameters and timing of the request,” as required under the Act.
- Extension of BSA to Dealers in Antiquities
Section 6110 of the NDAA amends the BSA’s definition of “financial institution” to include “a person engaged in the trade of antiquities, including an advisor, consultant, or any other person who engages as a business in the solicitation or the sale of antiquities, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.”
The provision directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue proposed rules outlining the AML requirements of antiquities dealers under the BSA within a year from enactment. Section 6110 also directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with other federal agencies, to study the “facilitation of money laundering and terror finance through the trade in works of art” and issue a report to Congress within one year, including recommendations for regulation of the industry.
- Potential Creation of FinCEN No Action Process
Section 6305 of the NDAA directs FinCEN to assess “whether to establish a process for the issuance of no action letters … in response to inquiries from persons concerning the application of” the BSA or other AML/CFT laws and regulations. The Act further directs the Secretary of the Treasury to propose rulemakings implementing the findings and determinations in the no action assessment “if appropriate” within 180 days of enactment.
FinCEN currently issues “administrative rulings” to persons requesting an opinion regarding a specific issue within FinCEN’s authority. Such rulings can be issued privately or publicly (generally in a deidentified manner). However, there is currently no formal process by which FinCEN reviews such letters nor is there a specific timetable in which FinCEN is required to respond, meaning it can often take many months or longer to receive a reply.
Depending on the details of any final rule implementing a no action request process, it may provide greater certainty to entities considering approaching FinCEN. This is particularly true for FinTech and blockchain companies that are often engaged in novel business models that may not neatly fit within FinCEN’s existing regulations and guidance.
- Pilot Program on Sharing SARs with Foreign Affiliates
Section 6212 of the NDAA creates a pilot program for sharing suspicious activity reports (SARs) and certain related information with foreign branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates of certain regulated financial institutions. The Act directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue rules for such a pilot program within one year of enactment.
The pilot program will specifically exclude certain jurisdictions, including China, Russia, and other jurisdictions determined to be state sponsors of terrorism, subject to US sanctions, or that the Secretary believes “cannot reasonably protect the security and confidentiality” of shared information.
At present, FinCEN has issued guidance permitting certain financial institutions to share SARs and SAR information with a foreign “head office” or “controlling company.” The pilot program will seemingly be more permissive than that existing guidance, which may help international financial institutions have a more streamlined and integrated global AML compliance function.
Bitcoin SV, Maker, Dash Price Analysis: 18 January
Bitcoin SV showed weakly bearish momentum over the past few days, but that might be set to reverse shortly. Maker was in a phase of consolidation, and Dash showed some weak bearish pressure that could
The post Bitcoin SV, Maker, Dash Price Analysis: 18 January appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Bitcoin SV showed weakly bearish momentum over the past few days, but that might be set to reverse shortly. Maker was in a phase of consolidation, and Dash showed some weak bearish pressure that could gradually push the price toward $116.
Bitcoin SV [BSV]
Bitcoin SV’s charts resembled Bitcoin’s own price action over the past few days. Both coins appeared likely to see a breakout in the next few hours as they formed a descending triangle.
For BSV, the defense of the $200 region of support was encouraging for the bulls. The MACD indicated that the momentum, which had slowly slid beneath the zero line, might be about to see a reversal.
This wasn’t confirmed at the time of writing, but a good trading volume move to the upside will likely see BSV climb toward the $225 mark in the coming days.
The Bollinger bands were creeping closer to the price of MKR as volatility continued to fall. The price was in a phase of consolidation at the $1400 level, after posting strong gains earlier this month, surging nearly 143% in January to trade at $1445 at the time of writing.
A symmetrical triangle pattern (orange) was seen, and the declining trading volume over the past few days is also valuable information.
Slipping beneath the $140 level will see MKR retrace some of its recent gains. Significant regions of support lie in the vicinity of $1200 and $1030, which are 38.2% and 50% Fibonacci retracement levels.
The RSI slipped beneath the neutral 50 value and retested it as resistance to indicate a downtrend in progress. While this wasn’t strong bearish momentum, the Stochastic RSI was also falling.
Taken together, this pointed toward a minor downside for DASH over the next few trading sessions. The $113-$116 region can be expected to serve as support should DASH see a dip.
Crypto Games May Substitute Regular Video Games in 2021
4,700+ Bitcoin Added to Grayscale’s AUM in 48-Hours
IMF Gives Global Governments A Clear Message: Spend!
Stefan Thomas Is Okay with the Recent Loss of His BTC Fortune
Crypto Advocate Brian Brooks to Leave OCC
Tether’s Offshore Bank Discloses ‘Large Position’ in Bitcoin
January on Pace to Break More Crypto Records
Twitter CEO Dorsey Praises Bitcoin While Defending Trump Ban
Ethereum is On the Brink of Setting Fresh All-Time Highs as Bulls Take Control
Enormous Ethereum Investor Is Giving Away $450,000 in Crypto – Here’s Why
The future of finance: Synthetix just launched staking on Optimistic Ethereum
Crypto Long & Short: No, Bitcoin Is Not in a Bubble
Coinbase Creates Open-Door Policy for New Listings
Grayscale inflows hit $3.3B in record-breaking fourth quarter
3iQ’s Canadian Bitcoin Fund Hits C$1B in Market Cap
Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro promises to boost the use of Petro in 2021.
BeInCrypto Weekly News Roundup: January 16, 2021
3iQ Bitcoin Fund Reports C$1 Billion in BTC Under Management
Crypto Irrational, but Not in Bubble, Says UBS Analyst
Monday Markets Wrap-up: New U.S. SEC head and Its Global Crypto Implications
Why The Dark Net’s Most Active Market Ditched Bitcoin For Monero
Algorithmic asset experiments continue to entice traders & developers
UK Man Offers City $72 Million for Permission to Dig up Discarded Bitcoin Fortune
Bitcoin Struggles Below $38K, Why BTC Could Dive To $32K
Risk management in crypto: Aka ‘the art of not losing all your money’
Swiss Stock Exchange’s Crypto Trading Volume Soars — Hits Record $1.2 Billion
Introducing ethrift.io Non-Custodial FIAT Ethereum Gateway
Another Bruise for Ripple as Grayscale Customers Say Goodbye to XRP Trust
How RAMP DeFi Maximizes APY on Your Staked Crypto Assets
Kraken Daily Market Report for January 17 2021
Blockchain5 days ago
TNC IT Group’s Aladdin Exchange pre-launch event begins
Blockchain7 days ago
Investment Manager Guggenheim Has Some Advice as BTC Sheds Billions — ‘Bitcoin’s Parabolic Rise Unsustainable’
Blockchain1 week ago
Bitcoin Suffers Large Correction After Heavy Selling Causes Long Squeeze
Blockchain1 week ago
Time to Take Money Off The Table: Guggenheim CIO Amid the Bitcoin Plunge
Blockchain1 week ago
Economist Discusses What Would Happen if the Masses Ditch Fiat Currencies for Bitcoin
Blockchain1 week ago
Which ETH Layer-2 Solutions Will Airdrop?
Blockchain6 days ago
Amid price lows, Bitcoin correction seen as healthy and temporary
Blockchain6 days ago
Multiple Tokens See Rally Amid Looming ‘Alt Season’