It was while attending a weekly meeting that I organized in London that I first heard people passionate about Luna and UST. The currency kept rising, they said, and South Korean citizens were using UST to pay for groceries, they claimed.
At the time, I was skeptical to say the least. A stablecoin backed by another token that could go to zero at any time seemed insecure at best. One of my biggest journalistic regrets was not delving deeper into the issue and writing a detailed analysis of its risks. Yet even if I had, any article would have been debunked by the self-proclaimed Lunatics, the cult formed around Do Kwon.
“Anon, you might want to listen to CT influencers about unanchoring UST for the 69th time. Or you could remember that they’re all poor now and go running instead, “Kwon posted on before the stablecoin collapse – as one of many arrogant messages about the project’s position he allegedly regret later.
Since Luna and UST collapsed, taking with them up to $40 billion in value, many people have been skeptical of projects that even vaguely resemble such a stablecoin. So, unsurprisingly, when a stablecoin type project called Ethena ENA
+6.39%
began to gain momentum, the comparison was made.
Ethena is a complicated beast. At first glance, it looks like a stablecoin with a high yield, as offered by UST. But in reality, it’s more of a combination of a structured product and a stablecoin, potentially split depending on whether the token is staked, as noted Bulk search.
When I spoke to Ethena founder Guy Young, who goes by the pseudonym Leptokurtic, in February, he said his worst-case scenario for the project was counterparty risk. It is possible that funds stored with institutional grade custodians such as Fireblocks and Copper could be lost for any reason. “I think the worst thing that could happen would be if one of these institutional custodians ran into a major problem and basically lost their assets,” he said at the time, showing a willingness to discuss what could go wrong. pass.
At the same time, Ethena is much more transparent and open about its potential risks. For example, on his FAQ page, it details seven risks the project faces, from funding rates to FX failure and even regulatory issues (which, given that the project offers a return through the efforts of a few third parties, seems deserve to be recognized). It examines each issue in detail and explains how it monitors certain risks.
So while the issue of Ethena’s risk profile is very complex and the subject of much debate on and transparent — without skeptical articles. facing criticism to report potential defects. And this, one could say, constitutes progress.
Now let’s move on to a selection of stories that caught my attention this week.
No, the DOJ did not transfer 30,000 bitcoins to Coinbase
A few major crypto news sites reported that the DOJ sent 30,000 BTC to Coinbase last week. However, this figure was not entirely accurate.
Like the block covered in real time, the DOJ wallet sent a test transaction of 0.0001 BTC to a wallet labeled as belonging to Coinbase Prime on Arkham. The rest of the funds were sent to a new address, meaning they stayed put, in all likelihood. A little after, 2,000 BTC was sent to the same Coinbase wallet with the remaining funds sent to a change address.
Although the Bitcoin blockchain is a bit complex to follow, this basically means that 2,000 BTC went to Coinbase, and the rest likely stayed in the same wallet (albeit using a different public key).
This is a bit confusing, but it seems important to note because it marks the difference between the government selling $132 million worth of bitcoin and $2 billion.
Wormhole hacker initially eligible for his airdrop
Cross-chain protocol Wormhole initially awarded tokens to the entity behind its $323 million hack in 2022.
Approximately four addresses associated with the hack were awarded more than 31,600 W tokens, worth approximately $38,000.
While the tokens were initially allocated to these addresses, they have now been removed from allocation, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Big donors support third Alliance fund
Brevan Howard Digital, the crypto arm of the global asset management giant, and Galaxy Digital, the crypto company founded by billionaire Mike Novogratz, have both invested in crypto accelerator Alliance’s third fund, writes Yogita Khatri in his latest scoop.
Alliance Fund III had its first close in February, with commitments from Brevan Howard Digital and Galaxy Digital worth $20 million. Each company has already invested $10 million in the fund.
Fund III seeks to raise an additional $80 million by July, capping it at $100 million. It is planned to invest $500,000 per startup.
Disclaimer: The Block is an independent media outlet providing news, research and data. Since November 2023, Foresight Ventures has been a majority investor in The Block. Foresight Ventures invests in other companies in the crypto space. Crypto exchange Bitget is an anchor LP for Foresight Ventures. The Block continues to operate independently to provide objective, impactful and current information about the crypto industry. Here is our current financial information.
© 2023 The Block. All rights reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.