Binance Futures Weekly Volume Hits Record $16B

Binance Futures has doubled its weekly trading volumes since the start of the year, according to a recent report published on Binance blog.

Binance Futures Weekly Volume Exceeds $16 Billion

The platform was launched six months ago and has managed to increase its weekly volumes from under $50 million to over $16 billion as of February 10. The expansion was possible thanks to several factors, including the introduction of new products.

The growth of Binance Futures comes amid a competitive market. Other major players, including Bakkt and Bitfinex, recently launched Bitcoin derivatives as well.

Binance claims that one of the reasons why traders prefer its futures trading platform is that they can get access to the entire ecosystem without the need to spend on fees when moving funds between spot and futures accounts.

Binance said that it offers exposure to 20 perpetual futures markets and 100 spot markets. In the first months, traders could open positions on BTC/USDT only. Then, the platform has gradually added other futures pairs traded against USDT, including ETH, XRP, EOS, LTC, BCH, TRX, ETC, LINK, XLM, ADA, XMR, DASH, ZEX, XTZ, BNB, ATOM, IOTA, ONT, BAT, NEO, and VET.

Another factor that helped Binance Futures stay competitive is that its futures contracts simulate the spot instruments. This has been achieved also because the perpetual contracts are denominated in USDT – the stablecoin pegged to the US dollar.

Altcoins Attract More Traders

Once Binance Futures started to expand its altcoin portfolio, the open interest and daily volume on its altcoin markets have got closer to BTC/USDT. In fact, the total daily volume of altcoin perpetual markets has exceeded the daily volume of BTC/USDT futures in mid-February.

In total, open interest across altcoin markets has increased from below USDT 20 million at the beginning of the year to over USDT 191 million as of mid-February. During the same period, open interest in altcoin markets on Binance Futures has increased from 10% of total open interest to 40%.

What other altcoins do think Binance Futures will add soon? Share your expectations in the comments section!

Image via Shutterstock,

Stellar Development Foundation (SDF) Joins Blockchain Association

Stellar Development Foundation (SDF) Joins Blockchain Association

According to a report by Decrypt published on February 18, 2020, the Stellar Development Foundation – the organization behind the Stellar blockchain network and its native XLM digital token – has officially joined blockchain industry trade and lobbying group, the Blockchain Association.

Stellar Now a Member of the Blockchain Association

In a bid to foster blockchain adoption en masse, open-source distributed ledger technology (DLT) project Stellar has joined the Blockchain Alliance – a lobbying group with a mission to bring crypto adoption into the mainstream in the U.S. Notably, some of the other members of the Blockchain Association include the likes of Coinbase, Ripple, and Kraken, among others.

In 2019, the Blockchain Association got the limelight for spearheading the cause for “The Token Taxonomy Act” which seeks to exclude cryptocurrencies from the official definition of a security in the U.S.

It’s also worth highlighting that the Blockchain Association is just one among some 40 lobbying groups pushing for conducive regulations and business ecosystem for DLT and cryptocurrency businesses in the U.S. Per sources close to the matter, a combined total of $42 million was spent by crypto and DLT businesses for lobbying congress in Q1 2019 alone.

Commenting on the addition of the Stellar Development Foundation to the lobbying group, Kristin Smith, Executive Director, Blockchain Association, said:

We believe that open blockchain technology will help bring a more inclusive and accessible system, helping build a new system of global trust to meet the expectations of today’s savvy digital citizens.


By bringing Stellar on board, we’ll be able to leverage their expertise to highlight open blockchain technology’s potential in our conversations with policymakers.

Lobbying Groups Doing their Bit

In face of the strict regulations imposed by regulatory bodies in the cryptocurrency industry the world over, blockchain lobbying groups are burning the midnight oil to ensure that the industry doesn’t end up lagging behind due to lax regulatory attitude.

As reported by BTCManager on October 23, 2019, Stellar rival Ripple Inc. had bagged the membership of the Blockchain Association to lead the fight for blockchain technology adoption.

Like BTCMANAGER? Send us a tip!

Our Bitcoin Address: 3AbQrAyRsdM5NX5BQh8qWYePEpGjCYLCy4

BAT Still Stuck Under Important Levels, But Strength Growing — Price Analysis


Now that Bitcoin (BTC) is taking a breather from what is technically a long term uptrend, the crypto markets are going risk-off and altcoins have seen heavy selling as a result. One star performer from the past, Basic Attention Token (BAT), saw some slight gains during the initial 2020 surge but is still trapped under some key levels after being rejected. Overall, however, it seems to be uptrending in the long term.

We start on the weekly BAT/Bitcoin chart and immediately see an interesting candle from last week. There are huge wicks in both directions, although a larger sell wick, looking like a mid-trend spinning top. This wick topped out at a significant resistance from 2019, at roughly ₿0.000032, and this level likely forms the top of what is looking increasingly like a bullish consolidation.

overall uptrendBAT chart by TradingView

We can say this because of the HTF higher low put in during 2019. The 55 EMA is slowly curling up, with the 8 EMA clearly uptrending. Finally, we saw major volume pour in during the last two weeks; and heavy buying into an uptrend should be bullish.

same storyBAT chart by TradingView

On the weekly BAT/Dollar chart, we see a similarly positive situation, with BAT’s price pushing up on regional resistance at around $0.27. We see the same extreme wicking in both directions, but overall stability at the end of the week and support near the 8 EMA which holds the uptrend.

Finally, if we come down to the daily BAT/Bitcoin we can see that all of the recent selling came with the general market decline; it is therefore not so much a reflection of BAT but rather of the crypto markets as a whole.

deep selloff but holding so farBAT chart by TradingView

BAT looks like it’s recovering quickly, with two days of aggressive defense to push it back above a local support level. The histogram, although dipping into the red at time of writing, is rapidly arching back toward bullish expansion; and as such, the EMAs are still safely bullish.

Overall, this proven altcoin continues to look strong, despite the recent selloff. As we covered yesterday, altcoins are likely to continue gaining market share at Bitcoin’s expense by the look of the trend, and BAT should reap the fruits of this.

The views and opinions expressed here do not reflect those of and do not constitute financial advice. Always do your own research.

Featured Image Credit: Photo via

Celsius Joins Major Cryptocurrency Firms Using Simplex’s Fiat Onramp

What can I do to prevent this in the future?

If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

If you are at an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.

Meet the Network Investor: A Venture Capitalist Who Invests in DeFi

What can I do to prevent this in the future?

If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

If you are at an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.

Hester Peirce: Tell Me How to Improve My Safe Harbor Proposal

Hester Peirce is a Commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The views here are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SEC Commission or her fellow Commissioners. She can be contacted at Read on for reaction from lawyer Preston J Byrne.

Earlier this month, I proposed a securities law safe harbor for token distributions. My motivation was the fear that many crypto entrepreneurs have: that a token distribution might be deemed by my agency – the SEC – to be a securities offering.  How, then, is a would-be network supposed to mature into a functional or decentralized network? Network effects are unlikely to take hold until tokens are distributed to, and freely transferable, among potential users, developers and participants of the network. The securities laws cannot be ignored, but neither can securities regulators ignore the conundrum our laws create.

The safe harbor seeks to balance the objectives of protecting token purchasers and providing the regulatory flexibility that allows innovation to flourish. Accordingly, the safe harbor protects token purchasers by requiring disclosures tailored to their needs, preserving the application of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, and enabling purchasers to participate in networks of interest. The safe harbor also provides network entrepreneurs the time and regulatory flexibility to build their networks. 

Underlying the three-year grace period is a premise that the nuances and ambiguities in determining whether a token transaction represents a security transaction exist primarily in the earlier stages.

The safe harbor would provide network developers with a three-year grace period – exempted from the registration provisions of the federal securities laws – within which they could facilitate participation in and the development of a functional or decentralized network, so long as the following conditions are met:

  • The team must intend for the network to reach network maturity –defined as either decentralization or token functionality – within three years of the first token sale and undertake good faith and reasonable efforts to achieve that goal.
  • The team would have to disclose key information on a freely accessible public website.  
  • The token must be offered and sold for the purpose of facilitating access to, participation on, or the development of the network.  
  • The team would have to undertake good faith and reasonable efforts to create liquidity for users.  
  • The team would have to file a notice with the SEC to rely on the safe harbor.

When I announced the safe harbor, I emphasized that it is a work in progress, one that would benefit from the power of decentralized wisdom. The thoughtful discussion I had hoped the proposal would prompt has begun already. Reactions have ranged from enthusiastically supporting it, to dismissing it as unnecessary.  Suggested improvements include clarifying how the safe harbor interacts with the laws of other domestic and foreign jurisdictions, allowing issuers to provide liquidity directly rather than through a third-party trading platform, and recasting the safe harbor around specific contractual obligations. Briefly, I will address two emerging themes in the conversation.  

First, some commentators have worried that the proposal would reignite the 2017 [initial coin offering] craze. The safe harbor is designed to provide a safe path forward for legitimate projects and to make attracting funds more difficult for fraudulent projects. The safe harbor requires the disclosure of specific information about the project and development team, preserves the SEC’s antifraud authority over safe harbor token sales, and excludes bad actors.  

“If this is it, please let me know . . . if this is it, I want to know.” If this is not it, I want to know that too.

A second area of concern is the lack of a bright-line test for whether a token is a security at the end of three years.  To avoid the securities classification at the end of the safe harbor period, the network would have to be decentralized, which means it is not controlled and is not reasonably likely to be controlled, or unilaterally changed, by any single person, group of persons, or entities under common control.  Alternatively, the network could be functional, which means holders can use the tokens in a manner consistent with the utility of the network.  

Underlying the three-year grace period is a premise that the nuances and ambiguities in determining whether a token transaction represents a security transaction exist primarily in the earlier stages of a development of a network. The lack of control over the network or the functionality of the network should be demonstrable within three years, and if not, the development team must be willing to take a clear-eyed look at the viability of the project as originally envisioned in light of our existing regulatory structures.  

My preliminary responses to these early concerns should not be taken as discouraging further dialogue on these and related issues. I continue to urge people – this time in the words of Huey Lewis and the News – “if this is it, please let me know . . . if this is it, I want to know.”  If this is not it, I want to know that, too. Give me a call, send me an email, stop by my office, provide feedback at the SEC’s FinHub webpage or post your comments online so that everyone else can see them, too.  

Disclosure Read More

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

Preston Byrne: Peirce’s Safe Harbor Proposal Would Be Hilarious If It Weren’t So Serious

Preston Byrne, a columnist for CoinDesk’s new opinion section, is an attorney at Byrne & Storm, where he advises cryptocurrency miners, decentralized protocol developers, custom software development shops, and interactive computer services businesses. This is his bi-weekly column, “Not Legal Advice,” an opinionated roundup of bigger legal topics in the crypto space. And, yes, it is not legal advice. Hester Peirce’s CoinDesk op-ed about her Safe Harbor proposal is here.

Much ink has been spilled over the last six years about the extent to which U.S. securities laws can and should apply to the sales of cryptographic tokens by protocol developers.

The default position that a conservative law firm will follow is that in the U.S. the sale of a token by a protocol developer before a token network is launched is the sale of a security. Current Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) policy appears to say that, in the life of any cryptocurrency, there will come a point when the token has been distributed to sufficiently many hands and the network’s architecture is sufficiently distributed – or as SEC corporate finance director Bill Hinman put it in 2018, “sufficiently decentralized – where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts,” and thus the token ceases to be a security.

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, aka “Crypto Mom,” thinks the government should facilitate startups that want to have a go at turning their definitely-are-securities-today into maybe-not-securities-tomorrow. She has proposed a safe harbor to achieve this, whereby token startups will be given a three-year head start to take an ICO coin and turn it into a “decentralized” network, i.e. one which:

is not dependent upon a single person or group to carry out the essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts… (such that) the tokens must be distributed to and freely tradeable by potential users, programmers, and… secondary trading of the tokens typically provides essential liquidity for the development of the network and use of the token.

The three-year safe harbor period will allow protocol devs time to:

facilitate participation in, and the development of, a functional and/or decentralized network, unrestrained from the registration provisions of the federal securities laws so long as [certain] conditions are met.

In other words, under the proposal, crypto projects would be able to sell securities to the public and work towards “decentralization” by, among other things, selling still more of these securities and creating a robust market for these securities, in the hope that engaging in the sale and marketing of these securities will turn them into non-securities, despite the fact that they will function in the marketplace exactly as securities do today at all relevant times.

This proposal would be hilarious if it weren’t so serious.

The most significant issue is that the proposal relies on a standard for “decentralization” which isn’t entirely certain today. Although the SEC has “decentralization” guidelines in print, projects that appear technically indistinguishable receive differing regulatory treatment for reasons that, to industry experts, are not immediately apparent.

Take, for example,, Sia and Telegram. claims to have raised north of $4 billion in a yearlong, rolling ICO for the EOS blockchain that kicked off with the purchase of billboard advertising in Times Square at the Consensus 2017 conference. Sia did an unregistered ICO also, raising roughly $150,000. 

Telegram, by contrast, endeavored to sell its tokens to U.S. persons via the Rule 506(c) exemption of Regulation D. At a predetermined future date,’s and Sia’s presale tokens converted to live network tokens. At a predetermined future date, Telegram’s presale tokens were to convert to live network tokens. was fined $24 million, or about 60 basis points on $4 billion, and walked away, and its once-were-securities-but-I-guess-now-they’re-not coins continue to be listed on major exchanges. Comparatively smaller offender Sia was fined $250,000, or twice what they raised, and walked away. Telegram, by contrast, drew an emergency injunction in the Southern District of New York and the project has ground to a halt.

Of course, there are reasons why the SEC might be friendlier to some startups and less friendly to others. For example, startups that approach the SEC and cooperate will be treated more gently than those that do not. But, fundamentally, the real problem here is that the SEC’s “decentralization” test, as currently used, and as proposed to be used in the future, is unquantifiable to the point of being unconstitutionally vague.

There is no agreed statutory or technical definition of what makes a project more or less “decentralized.” When prominent developers and industry marketers cannot agree on a uniform definition of the term, which more often appears to be marketing-speak than as a definite, measurable quality, I struggle to see how the government should be in a better position to do so. For this reason, I would struggle to advise a client seeking to adhere to the “decentralization” test whether they are decentralized or not. 

The only thing that is made clearer by this proposal is that, to paraphrase an industry colleague, “’blockchain technology’ and Mom & Pop investors don’t have lobbyists. Coinbase does.” This proposal is fantastic for startups who need capital, market venues who need trading volumes to survive and the lawyers who advise them. For this reason, I don’t expect that many U.S. law firms will raise significant objections to this proposal which, if adopted, would almost undoubtedly be the single greatest creator of transactional legal work since the invention of securitization.

It would facilitate a headlong rush of issuers into the lightly-regulated crypto-capital markets as every company in the world sought to obtain American investors’ capital without selling them so much as a single basis point of equity or taking on a single dollar of debt, all without needing to sort out the details for 36 months.

If that’s the rule the SEC wishes to adopt and the result it wishes to bring about, that’s the Commission’s prerogative. I might suggest that a simpler approach would be for the government to approach tokens like it approaches bitcoin: treat coins sold in an initial coin offering as something sold, a securities sale, and treat a mined coin as something made, a mere commodity, which will still allow for a great many experiments in blockchain tech to flourish without creating incentives for every company in America to launch its own token.

Crypto scam numbers on the rise

The Wall Street Journal reports on Feb. 8:

Seo Jin-ho, a travel-agency operator in South Korea, wasn’t interested in exotic investments when a colleague first introduced him to PlusToken, a platform that traded bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. But the colleague was persistent.

His investment grew at a dazzling rate. He invested more—a lot more. In less than five months, he bought $86,000 of cryptocurrencies, cashing out only $500.

The story ends in a familiar way, with Seo Jin-ho losing all of the money he invested.

Crypto-analytics company Chainalysis estimates that after a fairly busy 2017 in which $1.83 billion was “invested” in crypto scams, 2018 was a quieter year. This is perhaps understandable given the noises that the SEC made from January through November.

In 2019, however, a staggering $3.99 billion – that’s billion with a B – was reportedly lost to crypto-investment scams. This suggests that regulatory intervention in 2018 was not aggressive enough to deter the continuing growth of “scam” activity.

Clamping down on scams is almost universally understood as an important prerequisite to mass adoption and acceptance of cryptocurrencies as a viable payment and financial services technology. When asking why investors seem so uniquely susceptible to crypto scams, it bears mentioning that each of the top ten coins in circulation was issued otherwise than through a regulated channel, with the SEC and Department of Justice, at least as far as the public is aware, declining to take action against ethereum, tether, XRP, litecoin, Binance Coin, bitcoin cash, bitcoin SV and tezos, and taking a $24 million punt on EOS, despite there being identifiable promoters for each project (usually a notionally non-profit foundation but sometimes a for-profit entity).

The absence of an adequate regulatory regime means that a new “scam” project is virtually indistinguishable from one that has shed that label through accidental success. The marketing material for, say, ethereum and for any “scam” currency are primarily found on informal channels such as internet fora and Twitter promotional posts rather than in the form of an offering circular. The closest thing to “legitimacy” that any particular project can obtain is a listing on Coinbase or Binance, commercial actors with commercial interests that call for them to list and trade more coins in greater volumes, regardless of the gain or loss to investors.

A “safe harbor” that made it more difficult for retail investors to distinguish bona fide projects like Blockstack from known scams like OneCoin for a three-year period would likely undo much of the progress towards mainstreaming crypto adoption that has been made to date, which has seen large institutional players like Bakkt or Fidelity Digital Assets enter the space.

Disclosure Read More

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

Bitcoin Daily Golden Cross Forms, Bull Market Has Officially Arrived

Bitcoin to Conquer $12.5K Level Before May, Says Veteran Trader Bitcoin

Bitcoin Daily Golden Cross Forms, Bull Market Has Officially Arrived

Bitcoin (BTC) just added another huge factor to the bullish case, as a golden cross of the 50-day and 200-day moving average appears on the daily chart.

Bitcoin 50-Day MA Crossed Over, Sparking Expectations of Big Rally

Bitcoin prices managed to bounce quickly from a dip close to the $9,500 level. A recovery to $9,800 also meant the price charted a bullish indicator, a golden cross of the 50-day and 200-day moving average.

This longer-term indicator has happened only a handful of times in the history of BTC, and has preceded significant rallies.

A golden cross also preceded the rally of bitcoin from April 2019 onward. However, the price climb did not arrive immediately. For now, bitcoin prices settled once again above the $9,700 support level.

In the past few days, as BTC corrected from the $10,000 tier, predictions on future price moves diverged. There is an overall expectation for a rally ahead of the halving, but also short-term views to a significant slide.

Golden Cross No Guarantee of Immediate Price Action

The golden cross and death cross, however, are not working as an error-proof predictive tool. Analysts note that BTC behavior often does not follow through with the bullish or bearish scenario.

Unlike traditional assets, BTC has multiple factors that can cause illogical moves and volatility. Intraday volatility is also highly unpredictable, with dramatic price moves within minutes.

For BTC, a few indicators are putting up a clash of bearish and bullish narratives. A golden cross and the halving expected in 84 days look like a certain recipe for a rally, a new yearly high and even an all-time high. However, the bearish case looks at trading waves and suggests the current level may see a more significant dip.

A neutral sentiment based on the Bitcoin fear and greed index led to mixed predictions, where a rally is not out of the question, but a short-term dip is also a possibility.

This time, the golden cross is viewed as an even more significant event, as daily averages start to look favorable for the first time since the 2019 rally. The rally caused 175% gains, though it failed to take BTC to its previous highs.

BTC trades, however, may happen on a smaller time scale, especially given the heightened activity on BitMex. The cross of moving averages may be an indicator outside the scope of intraday trading. However, the overall chart behavior is still viewed as potentially signaling not only a BTC rally but similar performance for altcoins.

What do you think about the BTC golden cross? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!

Images via Shutterstock, Twitter @Kvcrypto1 @shitcoinriddler @CryptoBull

Appetite for Crypto Assets Could Grow as PBOC Announces Easing

The crypto market is off to a bad start this week. But that has not depleted its possibilities of registering a big fat rebound thanks to Beijing.

The People’s Bank of China announced that it is slashing down interest rates on its medium-term loans – from 3.25 percent to 3.15 percent. At the same time, it injected about $29 billion worth of yuan into the system, which included $14 billion in repurchase agreements.

The easing decision came as a response to the growing COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic that has killed more than 1,600 people and infected 50,000 others so far. China last week had announced that it would go ahead with a capital injection of about $170 billion to safeguard its economy from the virus panic.

Crypto Rebound Incoming

The Chinese stimulus helped to push investors’ appetite for risk-on assets higher, resulting in upside rebounds in the regional stock market. But, as Bloomberg observed, part of the new money also made its way into the crypto market, with even the most underperforming assets surging threefold.

Omer Ozden of Rocktree Capital – a Chinese investment advisory firm, told the media mogul that Chinese traders quarantined in their homes are using digital assets like cryptocurrencies as a “viable diversification,” adding that they mostly traded smaller-cap coins over the top cryptocurrency Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, prominent macro analyst Mati Greenspan said fearful investors are willing to take risks in alternative cryptos.

The Quantum Economics founder added that – after China’s announcement of a $170 billion stimulus – the altcoin market visibly outperformed bitcoin’s, with many second-class assets taking lead over the benchmark crypto.

“Altcoins are outperforming bitcoin consistently on a day-to-day basis pretty much since the beginning of this year […] It means investors are looking to take risks,” he told BlockTV.

Global Growth Projections Down

While economists continue to assess the full impact of Coronavirus on the global economy, early projections indicate a 0.2 percent cut in the growth already. According to Hussein Sayed, the chief market strategist at FXTM, the dwindling sentiment could prompt the Federal Reserve to introduce their own stimulus program.

“Whether Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s warning about the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the US economy will potentially justify a further cut in interest rates remains to be seen, with speculators already pricing in a 43% chance of a rate cut by mid-year,” he told Kitco.

Rate cuts make some analysts bullish for bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tokens. Thomas Lee of Fundstrat Global Advisors, for instance, said markets view easing as a sign of a weakening US dollar which, in turn, is good for bitcoin.

Going by the crypto market’s immediate reaction to PBOC’s easing policies last week, it is, therefore, possible that it – as a whole – stages a massive bull run.

Derivatives Exchange Deribit Adds Daily Ether Options to Its Offering


Derivatives Exchange Deribit Adds Daily Ether Options to Its Offering


Leading digital asset margin trading platform Deribit has announced it added daily ether options contracts to its offering.

The trading platform announced the move via a tweet. This is the second options instrument listed on the digital asset exchange as, earlier this month Deribit launched daily Bitcoin index options to its clients.

The Panama-based cryptocurrency exchange’s Ethereum-based product has a strike price intervals of $5 while keeping its other parameters similar to those of the Bitcoin options contracts, meaning it has a lifetime of two days and can be traded on the 24-hour preceding the expiry.

Options are derivatives contracts based on the value of an underlying asset. They give their holders the right but not the obligation to buy or sell the asset at a specific price on or before a predetermined date. A call option – a bullish bet – represents the right to buy, while a put option – a bearish bet – represents the right to sell.

Deribit is also set to reduce the tick size for its ether options from 0.001 ETH to 0.0005 ETH on February 19. The platform’s daily products have no settlement or delivery fees, and according to its CMO Andras Caron could attract more users, specifically day traders, to the platform. He was quoted as saying:

Daily options only have one or two days remaining lifetime and thus lower time value or premium and thus [are] cheaper. These shorter-dated, cheaper options are great instruments to use for short term strategies enabling the trader to hedge events or benefit from expected short term moves.

Deribit is currently facing heated competition in the cryptocurrency derivatives space, as the Intercontinental Exchange’s crypto venture Bakkt and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) have launched crypto derivatives as well.

Featured image by Clifford Photography on Unsplash.