People’s Bank of China Has Filed 84 Digital Payment Patents For CBDC’s: Report

According to the Chamber of Digital Commerce, China has filed 84 patents for the digital yuan, its new upcoming digital currency.

The patents date to 2017 and are credited to the People’s Bank of China’s (PBoC) Digital Currency Institute. They were filed to the Chinese Patent Office (SIPO) and indicate some important aspects like the one where the Chinese government is able to alter the currencies supply after some specific events like interest rates going up, or the one of integration with traditional bank accounts while the connection with digital currency chips cars or digital wallets is still possible.

The Chinese Government Will Track Down Transactions

The patent applications are related to the integration of the digital currency in the already existing banking infrastructure. This is what Mark Kaufman, the patent attorneys for Rimon Law and a former employee of the Chamber of Digital Commerce said about them:

“Virtually all of these patent applications relate to integrating a system of digital currency into the existing banking infrastructure.”

Meanwhile, the Chamber’s president, Perianne Boring, mentioned how a mechanism that’s able to stop the tracking of transaction by the Chinese government doesn’t exist yet.

Will Other Governments Take China’s Example?

In November 2019, Mu Changchun, the head of PBoC’s Digital Currency Institute, spoke at a Singapore conference and said:

“We are not seeking full control of the information of the general public.”

The newly filed patents come only to prove that the Chinese government is committed to issue a digital currency, which may convince other governments to take action in the same direction. For example, the Japanese government recently talked about China’s digital yuan and Facebook’s Libra, saying these should be combated with a digital currency released by Japan. Norihiro Nakayama, the foreign affairs parliamentary vice-president of Japan said,

“China is moving toward issuing digital yuan, so we’d like to propose measures to counter such attempts.”

Will the US Release Its Own Digital Currency?

There have been signs that the US may be considering issuing its own digital currency too, as Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chairman, said on Tuesday that this matter needs to have an answer and that:

“We’re working hard on it.”

Read Original/a>
Author: Oana Ularu

Chamber of Digital Commerce And The Blockchain Association Side With Telegram In SEC GRAM Case

An amicus brief was just filed by the Chamber of Digital Commerce in the continuing legal battle between the SEC (United States Securities Exchange) and Telegram.

The document which was filed on January 21st was authored by one Lilya Tessler, the current head of Sidley Austin LLP, based in New York, and counsel to the Chamber.

An amicus brief is a legitimate paper that enables a non-litigant to provide their opinion or expertise in an ongoing case. Lilya states that the Chamber was interested in providing arguments on how the U.S District for the Southern District of New York ought to consider crypto assets.

Established in 2014, the Chamber is a not for profit organization that seeks to promote the use of crypto assets and any other technology based on blockchain infrastructure. The Chamber, as part of its undertaking, has been able to create numerous crypto and blockchain-related advocacy groups such as the Token Alliance and the Blockchain Alliance.

Digital Chamber of Commerce Asks for Clarity Pertaining to Investment Contracts

Taking into account the position they have taken on blockchain technology, the Chamber insisted that it was not looking to state whether the $1.7 billion Gram token sales could be considered a securities transaction.

Rather, it was interested in ensuring that there was enough transparency when it came to regulations pertaining to cryptocurrencies. It went on to state that:

“Although the Chamber does not have a view on whether the offer and sale of Grams is a securities transaction, the Chamber has an interest in ensuring that the legal framework applied to digital assets underlying an investment contract is clear and consistent.”

The Chamber then went on to ask the court to try and define what a digital asset was, in reference to investment contracts, and the securities transactions which may have been associated with it. According to the association, there were two approaches to making an analysis regarding the issue at hand, including determining whether such a commodity could be offloaded in a normal commercial transaction.

The Blockchain Association Also Files Amicus Brief In Favor of Telegram’s GRAM

Not only did Chamber of Digital Commerce step up to provide insight into the case, but The Blockchain Association (which includes industry giants like Coinbase, Ripple, Circle, and more) to provide third party perspective to the judge. Also filed on Jan 21st, stating:

“The SEC’s lawsuit also raises novel questions regarding whether companies are forbidden from raising funds from sophisticated U.S. investors, under well-established regulatory provisions, to build blockchain networks.”

“The Court’s answers to these questions will influence companies’ decisions about whether to introduce blockchain products, investors’ decisions about whether to support this new technology, and innovators’ decisions about whether to base their companies in the U.S. or abroad. Before filing this action, the SEC had provided no clear rules regarding these questions. And what little guidance it had offered differs drastically from both existing law and its position in this case.”

As you can see from the statement above, the Blockchain Association wants the court to carefully consider the actions presented as they will have lasting impacts on not only Telegram but past and future endeavors.

“The Court’s decision regarding whether Grams themselves were securities at the time of the Purchase Agreement (before Grams even existed) could have far-reaching effects throughout the industry.”

The Blockchain Association and the Chamber of Digital Commerce are both saying that the fault lies at the hands of the regulations put in place. They are not adequate and up-to-date enough to deal with today’s technology innovations as many people feel the same about their stance on Tax regulations. The Association went on to say:

“The Court should not block a long-planned, highly anticipated product launch by interfering with a contract between sophisticated private parties. Doing so would needlessly harm the investors that securities laws were designed to protect.”

What are your thoughts on the case? Are the two amicus briefs that were filed yesterday correct in saying that the courts shouldn’t tread lightly. Or do you feel this is a clear case of securities violations?

Read Original/a>
Author: Daniel W

SEC Files an Emergency Motion to Know How Telegram Spent $1.7 Billion After Company’s Refusal

  • US SEC filed an emergency motion to know how much it spent and in what manner the Telegram Messenger application will be integrated with the TON blockchain
  • But Telegram refuses to disclose its bank records and answer relevant questions
  • Last year, the SEC announced that Telegram and its Gram (GRM) token sale is an unregistered digital token offering

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a court order on Jan. 2 asking a New York federal judge to compel messaging platform Telegram Group Inc. to hand over the details of how the alleged $1.7 billion raised in its Initial Coin Offering (ICO) have been spent.

In the emergency file motion filed on Thursday in the US District Court for the Southern District of NewYork, the SEC claims that the bank records are highly relevant to the ongoing case against Telegram, alleging the digital asset class was an unregistered securities offering.

“The requested bank records are highly relevant to the issues in dispute in this case, including how much money Telegram has spent, and in what manner, in developing the TON Blockchain, the Telegram Messenger application to be integrated with the TON Blockchain, and related applications.”

As per the filing, the agency is requesting for both documentation and testimony from Telegram regarding the use of the funds raised from investors and sources. SEC’s motion states,

“Defendants are now refusing to disclose the bank records concerning how they have spent the $1.7 billion they raised from investors in the past two years and to answer questions about the disposition of investor funds.”

Back in October, the SEC announced that Telegram and its Gram (GRM) token sale constitutes an unregistered digital token offering and consider it “unlawful”. The regulator filed a restraining order against the company and Telegram Open Network (TON).

At the time, Stephanie Avakian, the co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said,

“Our emergency action today is intended to prevent Telegram from flooding the U.S. markets with digital tokens that we allege were unlawfully sold.”

This resulted in a delay in the launch of the TON blockchain.

Read Original/a>
Author: AnTy

Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor, Craig Wright, Fails To Settle Kleiman Case Due To Lack Of Funds

Court documents filed recently in Florida show that Craig Wright, who claims to be the famous Satoshi Nakamoto, who is credited to have invented Bitcoin, now says he has no funds to settle his case with David Kleiman.

According to Cointelegraph, Wright told the complainant that he was pulling off an earlier out-of-the court settlement agreement as he was unable to meet the 500,000 BTC ($4.5 billion) needed.

The case has been brought back to the court by Kleiman’s lawyer and seeks to compel Wright to settle the agreement or the case goes to full trial.

After signs that the case was coming to an amicable solution, Kleiman halted active proceedings to focus on how the issue would be settled even agreeing to prolong the settlement time to the end of October. However, as court documents indicate, Wright has broken the settlement agreement.

The court documents have been filed by Ira Kleiman who instituted the charges last year accusing Wright of falsifying enterprise documents as well as other documents with the intention of defrauding the estate of David Kleiman, his late brother.

In August, Wright was found to be in contempt of court for his failure to divulge the amount of Bitcoins he holds which reportedly are about 1.1 million, CoinDesk reports.

After the hearing commenced, Wright told the court that he was unable to access his Bitcoin as the death of David Kleiman, his former business counterpart, affected some of the wallet logins. However, the court dismissed the claim saying that Wright’s arguments were inconsistent.

The court documents show that Wright did not give a notice before he broke the non-binding agreement.

Wright had at an earlier time bid to be given extra time to confront the judge’s sanctions giving an excuse of the approaching Hurricane Dorian.

In related news, Wright has severally explained that Satoshi Nakamoto, credited for starting the Bitcoin and crypto movement, copied his white paper.

Keep it here as we follow the proceedings and relay them directly to you as the case goes on.

Read Original/a>
Author: Joseph Kibe

Onecoin Victims Denied by Court for Alternative Service Request on ‘Crypto Queen’ And Two Others

The New York Southern District Court has denied a request filed against alleged fraudulent digital currency scheme OneCoin and other individual defendants linked to the scheme. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit about one month ago with the hope of being awarded damages arising from the fraudulent and for alternative service of their complaint. Judge Valerie E. Caproni nixed the plaintiff’s request through an order signed yesterday, November 1, 2019.

In the lawsuit dated October 1, 2019, lead plaintiff Donald Berdeaux and plaintiff Christine Grablis filed a Motion for Leave to Effectuate Alternative Electronic Services upon the four defendants; Sebastian Greenwood, OneCoin Ltd, Irina Andreeva Dilinska, and Ruja Ignatova. The plaintiffs proposed alternative services on the defendant OneCoin via social media and Federal Express to the company’s Dubai office, email to [email protected], and [email protected]

The plaintiffs further claim that they were unable to find addresses that would effectuate services on defendants Dikinska, Greenwood, and Ignatova by traditional means provided for under Rule (2) and (4)(f)(1). These three defendants have been executive employees of OneCoin and apparently operates in Europe. Their locations are, however, yet to be known, and as a result, the plaintiffs have proposed service on the three defendants via Federal Express to OneCoin offices and by email to their known addresses.

The court noted that the plaintiffs lacked to provide proof that the proposed email was functional and practical for use. The website, which also matches the proposed email seems to be nonfunctional. The plaintiffs were advised by the court to address the concerns in a new alternative service application.

Judge Valerie E. Caproni said in the ruling that,

“the court denies the plaintiffs’ motion because they did not show that they had taken all reasonable steps to serve the defendants.”

The court was skeptical that The plaintiffs’ proposals on alternative means of service meeting due process was a concern for the court. The plaintiffs stated that OneCoins address is listed as the United Arab Emirates address. OneCoin’s registered office to persuade the court but lacked to provide evidence to support the assertion.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit represent all those individuals who transferred cryptocurrencies or fiat currency either directly or indirectly to the defendants OneCoin in which to invest in their Trade Packages and suffered monetary injuries as a result. The lawsuits backdate to all transfers made from April 2014 to March 2018.

Read Original/a>
Author: Denis Miriti

Bitfinex and Tether Lawsuit Analysis: The Severity of Roche Freedman’s Case

Stablecoin firm Tether and its associate exchange Bitfinex have received a suit filed by a New York-based legal firm Roche Freedman against Tether token (USDT, stating that it is engaged with market manipulation as the consequence of an unpublished paper. The case encloses that the above-mentioned firms were involved in a “sophisticated scheme” on account of “part-fraud, part-pump-and-dump, and part-money laundering.” We see a significant decrease of approximately 10% as of press time in the market value of the USDT/BTC trade pair because of this lawful dramatization.

Roche Freedman believes that the Tether’s case of all its Tether tokens (USDT) equaling to one U.S dollar is an unmitigated lie. According to the suit, it guarantees that the firm under question has consistently been giving huge amounts of unbacked tokens to not only control the local crypto market but also the digital resource showcase at large. The agents for Tether and Bitfinex gave separate articulations asserting that they have been made aware of an unreleased paper blaming them for controlling the digital currency market. The statements were made just a couple of days before the lawsuit was declared open. The organizations guaranteed that the claims were ridiculous and that if such an article is presented in court against them, they were going to protect themselves.

Regarding the matter of whether these recent charges are authentic, Braden Perry – a government investigation attorney calls for attention to the case that it does not uncover anything new given that the Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have been investigating the two firms for quite a while. In any case, these are just claims and no defense has yet been witnessed. He accepts that no genuine damage should originate if the lawsuit is filed. But if any data that confirms these cases ends up open sooner or later, at that point Bitfinex and Tether will no doubt experience some genuine reputational harm.

Daniel Ameduri, writer of “Don’t Save for Retirement: A Millennial’s Guide to Financial Freedom,” was contacted by Conitelegraph to reveal some insight into the circumstances. He believes that the case will probably fail due to the absence of sheer insights.

Felix Shipkevic, an attorney told Cointelegraph that it wasn’t astonishing to find a legal suit against both Tether and Bitfinex considering the lawful interest these firms have received by the New York lawyers over the previous year. Not just that, Felix believes that it will be very hard for the firms to back their charges of crypto market control as they will need to show rationale to manipulate and gain from the damages.

The case thereby highlights that the stablecoin market is in critical need of specific guidelines that can keep such occasions from surfacing again later on.

Read Original/a>
Author: Sritanshu Sinha

What Impact Will Samsung’s New Blockchain SSD Patent Have On The Crypto Mining Industry?

Samsung recently filed for a patent called Programmable Blockchain Solid State Drive and Switch. While not a lot of details about this new project are currently known, many people in the industry have already been pointing out how useful this new technology can be.

So, how will this new technology work? It can be used to mine crypto’s better than some ASIC miners, which are specialized mining devices created by crypto mining manufacturers. Their only purpose is to be used for mining so, if someone else creates a better technology, they will be obsolete.

Despite the obvious effects that the patent can cause, no one is actually sure that the final product will be ever developed. Sam Town, a crypto analyst, told Coindesk, who reported on this story, that parents can be a defensive weapon to stop other companies from creating a similar product.

They do not necessarily need to be created in order to defend your idea. It’s not that you want to use it, you just want other people not to be able to do it.

It is no surprise that Samsung is entering the crypto mining industry, as the company develops some of the chips which are used in ASIC miners. In fact, some people may even say that it took too long.

If a company with the size and power of Samsung enters the market, other companies will certainly have problems, especially if they are not so big and are very focused on mining only. Even big ones such as Canaan and Bitmain may be affected. It is important, however, to wait and see what will happen. It is impossible to measure the effect of some technology before it is on the market.

Read Original/a>
Author: Ali Qamar

Multi-level Marketing Promoter of Bitcoin Funding Team and My7Network Will Settle With FTC

The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has agreed to settle the charges it filed in 2018 against a pyramid scheme that involved 4 individuals. As part of the settlement, the promoters of recruitment-based cryptocurrency schemes are permanently banned from operating or participating in any multi-level marketing program. Additionally, they are supposed to pay a fine of $500,000.

The press release states that the defendants had the structure of the schemes made sure that few would profit. Most associates failed to get back their initial investments. YouTube, conference calls, and various social media platforms were used to source new victims.

It states:

“As part of their proposed settlements with the FTC, Dluca will pay $453,932, and Chandler will pay $31,000. Pinkston also agreed to a $461,035 judgment, which will be suspended upon payment of $29,491, due to his inability to pay the full amount. If he is later found to have misrepresented his finances, he will be required to pay the full amount.”

Thomas Dulca, Eric Pinkston, Louis Gatto, and Scott Chandler were behind a prominent pyramid scheme which was shut down in 2018. Under the names Bitcoin Funding Team and My7Network, the four fraudsters recruited participants to maintain the pyramid. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 5-0. The FTC filed the proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Operation crypto sweep is trying to make ICOs safer in the US and Canada. It comes as part of a joint effort between state and provincial securities regulators in the US and Canada. NASAA stated in August of 2018 that the operation had investigated over 200 ICOs in its first four months of activity.

Read Original/a>
Author: Sritanshu Sinha

E.ON Energy Network Company Files for Blockchain Patent for a Data Sensor Collection Device


E.ON Files For Blockchain Patent For A Data Analytics Device

Energy company E.ON has filed for a patent application for a blockchain-based data analytics device with the European Patent Office. The news was announced the company’s official website on July 19. The announcement on the website also gave an insight into how this device for which the company has filed the patent for works. The analytics device makes use of a number of sensors to collect user data which then can be sold to firms in need of those data. The user can supply data from a number of smart devices found in homes.

The user collecting the data would have the sole authority and only they can decide to sell a part of the data or the complete data set. E.ON claims that not even they can access the data from the device without explicit consent.

How Does The Analytic Device Safeguard User Data

As per the website description, the device is shaped in the form of a small box with a size similar to a €5 bill. The device makes use of blockchain technology and high-end encryption to ensure data security and privacy.

Matthew Timms, the chief digital and technology officer believes the device would become a trendsetter for users to save their own data and have the authority to sell it, instead of cooperations simply using it without their consent. He called it a new innovation and explained the reason behind it,

“Our Future Lab team has managed to combine blockchain and big data with a simple hardware solution. We want our customers to have absolute control over the analysis of their data. The ability to sell parts of these analyses within a more secure, traceable framework is completely new.”

The announcement also claims that a prototype of the device has passed the international safety standard test and received a certificate from German testing laboratory SGS. The company plans to start customer testing for the product by the year-end and officially release the product in the open market for sale by the next year.

[Author Alert] The author’s opinions above are solely based on their own self-conducted research. Assume any and all authors are using, holding, trading and/or buying cryptoassets mentioned as a portion of his or her financial portfolio. Use information at your own risk, do you own research, never invest more than you are willing to lose.

Read Original/a>
Author: Bitcoin Exchange Guide News Team

Mt. Gox Founder Jed McCaleb Stands Accused of Misrepresentation in New Lawsuit

Mt. Gox Founder Jed McCaleb Stands Accused of Misrepresentation in New Lawsuit
  • Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy in 2014 after a hack worth millions of dollars.
  • Two former traders are going after the former CEO for misrepresenting the issues faced by the exchange.

Mt. Gox is one of the most notable failures in the cryptocurrency industry, and the troubles were thought to be over a long time ago. However, for the founder, the troubles are still present. Jed McCaleb is now being faced with a lawsuit, based on his mishandling of the exchange.

Reports from CoinDesk confirm that that the legal action was filed on May 19th by Joseph Jones and Peter Steinmetz, adding that the former CEO knew about the “serious security risks” imposed on the exchange at the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011.

The lawsuit was filed by two former traders of Mt. Gox, who say that McCaleb was not truthful about the financial situation of Mt. Gox after the hack occurred. The court filing said that the defendants were made aware of the risks that Mt. Gox took that let hackers get into the exchange in the first place. The filing adds:

“Rather than secure the exchange, McCaleb sold a large portion of his interest in the then sole proprietorship and provided avenues to the purchasers to cover-up the security concerns at the time without ever informing or disclosing these issues to the public.”

Towards the end of 2011, Mt. Gox was the largest Bitcoin exchange for their trading volume when it was hacked. The attack took 850,000 Bitcoin with it, which was valued at $400 million at the time.

However, this theft was preceded by a missing 80,000 Bitcoin on the exchange, which was not as highly publicized. As a result, the exchange ended up shutting down all trading operations by 2014 when it filed bankruptcy. At the time, Steinmetz said that he personally owned 43,000.

The complaint claims that McCaleb decided to sell most of his interest in Mt. Gox to Mark Karpeles, rather than have the publicity around the lack of refund to users. Court documents indicate that Karpeles was placed in charge of the exchange in 2011 and happened to hold 88% of the shares for the exchange.

In comparison, McCaleb only held 12%. He was charged with data manipulation in the exchange, prosecuted in the courts in Japan, and found guilty.

Despite being eight years since the hack, there are still creditors of the exchange that are working to get back the funds that they lost. However, the trustee of the exchange was ultimately accused of taking the wrong steps when they liquidated the assets, even extending the deadline in April to continue their efforts.

McCaleb appears to be doing rather well for himself at the moment. After all, he ended up founding Ripple, and he co-founded Stellar, which are both flourishing. Unfortunately, no matter the progress that he has made since the travesty of Mt. Gox, these problems seem to keep following him.

Read Original/a>
Author: Krystle M