Connect with us


Understanding zero knowledge blockchains



How to show you know something without showing what you know

Last Friday saw the launch of Zcash, a new public blockchain and associated cryptocurrency that attracted a lot of attention. By now, there are hundreds of cryptocurrencies, so any budding young entrant needs a serious differentiator to rise above the fray. In the case of Zcash, this is easy – Zcash users can send money to each other in absolute privacy. For a cryptocurrency based on a blockchain, this is a remarkable technical achievement. (Though it should be noted that other chains such as Monero and Dash aim at the same goal using simpler but less effective means.)

As I’ve written about before, in a general sense blockchains (whether public or private) represent a trade-off in which disintermediation is gained at the cost of confidentiality. Blockchains provide a clever new way for participants to safely share a database, even if they do not trust each other, without requiring a central intermediary. But there’s a price to pay for this peer-to-peer decentralization – the “node” belonging to every participant in the chain must verify every transaction for itself, and this in turn means that it sees what everyone else is doing.

Two ways to chain

In the case of public blockchains and cryptocurrencies, the shared database serves primarily as a record of who controls (and so effectively owns) how much cryptocurrency, with an optional sprinkling of “metadata” (bitcoin) or contractual logic (Ethereum) on top. By contrast, in private blockchains, we tend to see two major classes of use case: (a) the ownership and transfer of external assets represented by tokens on the chain, and (b) more general applications relating to data storage and retrieval. For example, in our own product MultiChain, these two classes of use case are implemented using native assets and data streams respectively.

When it comes to general data storage, the blockchain provides a number of services: proving where a piece of data comes from, timestamping it, and notarizing it immutably to prevent modification by a minority of blockchain participants. But the blockchain need have nothing to say about the data itself – each application can decide what a piece of data means, and whether it is valid. Bad data can simply be ignored at the application level, without causing harm to the blockchain’s state as a whole.

By contrast, if blockchains are directly transferring tokenized assets, they must apply internal rules regarding the validity of those transfers. To put it simply, an event such as “Alice pays Bob one Euro” will only be approved by the chain if Alice has at least one Euro to her name. While different types of blockchain express this rule in different ways (bitcoin transaction constraints vs Ethereum smart contracts), they all share the property that Alice’s finances must be known by every node in the chain. This allows them to assess whether her payment is valid, know how much Bob has as a result, and evaluate any future payments from Bob to Charlie and others.

At this point, readers familiar with blockchains will point out that Alice and Bob are not directly identified by name on a chain. Instead, each transacts under one or more “addresses”, which are long alphanumeric strings of gibberish that bear no relation to their real-world identities. While this is true, in reality it does not help a great deal, because there are several ways in which the connection between users and their addresses can be inferred.

First and most simply, in order to transact with someone on a blockchain, I need to know at least one of their addresses. So if I send them some money, I can see where that money goes next, and if they’re paying me, I can see where it came from. Second, if I happen to know something about a participant from the real world (e.g. what types of assets they trade at what time of day), I can search the chain’s activity for corresponding patterns, and then infer their address with a high level of confidence. Finally, once I know one address of a participant, I can often work out which other addresses they own and use, by monitoring the full flow of funds on the chain. While this is not trivial to achieve, it is certainly possible with sufficient motivation, as proven by companies such as Chainalysis and Skry who make a living providing this type of “network analysis” for bitcoin.

Saved by encryption?

The contrast between assets and data touches directly on the question of encryption. In the case of general data storage on a blockchain, we can encrypt the information stored, while still gaining the benefits of data provenance, timestamping and immutability. None of these features need insight into the data itself. Therefore it is perfectly valid for two participants to use a blockchain to store information which only they can read, while still gaining the benefit of other participants committing to the origin of that data and its existence at a certain point in time.

By contrast, encryption of this nature cannot be used by transactions that represent transfers of tokenized assets. If Alice and Bob were to encrypt their transaction, then the assets in question could not be used safely by any other participant in the chain, because nobody else would know where the assets actually are. The assets would cease to have any collective meaning on the chain, which destroys the entire point.

In the finance sector, this conflict between privacy and liquidity is the core difficulty of using blockchains to transfer assets, dashing the hopes of many a startup in the space. While the technical feasibility of moving assets over a blockchain has been proven by countless pilot projects, in practice this causes too much activity to be revealed between peers. Information leakage is a disadvantage at the best of times, but it’s a complete showstopper when a chain’s participants are in fierce competition, or where regulation forbids it.

As a result, many prominent “distributed ledger” startups have moved away from the idea of on-chain settlement, reverting to more traditional bilateral transactions which are encrypted and notarized on a blockchain under the “general data storage” paradigm. This can prevent disputes and double spends, but settlement itself remains external to the chain. While the blockchain is still providing some value, it is less transformative than originally hoped. No doubt there have been more than a few red-faced meetings between startups and their investors.

And yet, after all the disappointment, salvation may finally be at hand. Enter the zero knowledge blockchain.

Introducing zero knowledge

Before discussing this new type of blockchain, it’s helpful to understand the principle of zero knowledge itself. In a general sense, a zero knowledge proof is one which demonstrates the truth of a certain statement, without revealing any additional information beyond what it’s trying to prove.

To take an example, let’s say I have a color blind friend who owns two pens, which are identical except that one is green and one is blue. My friend cannot distinguish between them, and I want to convince her that they are indeed different. Of course, I can’t do this by simply telling her the colors, because she can’t assess if I’m lying or not.

So what can I do? (Why not take a minute and try to work out the answer yourself…) Well, I can ask her to take a piece of paper, and draw two lines on it in another room. When doing this, she can freely decide whether to use the same pen for both lines, or one pen for each. From her perspective the result looks the same either way. Then she comes back in with the paper, and I tell her whether she used one pen or two. Of course, if the pens were the same color, I would have no way of knowing. So the fact that I get it right proves they are different.

Well, not quite. There’s a problem with this logic. Even if the pens were identical I would still have a 50% chance of giving the right answer, because there are only two possibilities (she used one pen or two). So one lucky guess proves nothing at all. In order to strengthen my case, the game must be played over multiple rounds. After every round, my chance of being consistently right goes down by half. So with 5 rounds, I have a 1 in 32 chance of successfully faking. With 10 rounds, it’s 1 in 1024, and with 20 rounds, 1 in 1048576 – in other words, one in a million. Depending on my friend’s relative level of boredom and suspicion, she can reach any probabilistic level of proof that she desires, although never absolute certainty.

Bring on the snarks

Zero knowledge proofs in blockchains apply a similar principle, though of course they’re not about the color of pens. Rather, they aim to prove the statement “this transfer of assets is valid”, without revealing anything important about the transfer itself. Zcash uses a relatively new technique for zero knowledge proofs called zk-SNARKs, the full explanation of which is (to put it mildly) beyond the scope of this piece. But the basic idea is this: any computational condition can be represented by an arithmetic circuit, which takes some data as input and gives an answer of “true” or “false” in response. A zk-SNARK uses a model of this circuit to let me prove, to any desired degree of certainty, that I possess an input which gives a true response, without revealing the input itself. Philosophically at least, this is like proving that two pens are different colors, without revealing what those colors are.

A zk-SNARK uses a neat little trick to avoid the interactivity that is typical of zero knowledge proofs, in which a skeptical party repeatedly presents a challenge to the one making a claim. In the case of our pens, this challenge is my friend’s choice between using one or two pens in each round. This type of interactivity is not feasible on a blockchain because there is no trusted central party to set the challenges. Instead, a zk-SNARK uses an approximation of a “random oracle” in which the challenges are created deterministically by some code, but behave for all intents and purposes as if they were random. Not by coincidence, this combination of determinism and unpredictability uses the same kind of hash function that secures a blockchain itself.

Zero knowledge proofs have been around for a while, but zk-SNARKs introduce a number of innovations that render them usable in blockchains. Most importantly, zk-SNARKs reduce the size of the proofs and the computational effort required to verify them. Zerocoin, a previous attempt at using zero knowledge proofs in blockchains, requires 45 kb transactions, each of which takes half a second to check (figures taken from the white paper on which Zcash is based). This is drastically worse than bitcoin, whose transactions are typically 0.3 kb in size and can be verified in under a millisecond. By contrast, Zcash transactions weigh in at 1kb and can be checked in under 6 milliseconds. This puts Zcash in the same scalability league as bitcoin – a remarkable achievement. If we took our hats off to the creator(s) of bitcoin, we should take our socks and shoes off for this.

Caution advised

Before you convert all your bitcoin to Zcash, there are some caveats to bear in mind. First, Zcash’s cryptography relies on a trusted setup process, in which two long public keys are derived from a single randomly-generated private one. It is absolutely vital that this private key is destroyed, since anyone who possesses it can forge the proofs on which the system relies. In the case of Zcash, the private key was created in an elaborate ceremony, described in detail here. The ceremony involved several well known characters from the cryptocurrency world, each of whom (we are told) had only a partial view of the private key. In turn, this means that Zcash can only be compromised if all of the ceremony’s participants colluded maliciously. It is up to the reader to decide how confident they feel about that.

Second, even though it is relatively quick to verify an anonymous Zcash transaction, creating each of these transactions carries a serious computational burden. According to the Zcash Speed Center, it currently takes 48 seconds on a high-end server, and over 3 GB of memory. This makes it impractical to transact anonymously from mobile devices and older desktops and laptops. Zcash partially works around this limitation by supporting both regular visible cryptocoins (with fast transactions) and anonymous “notes” (with slow ones), with a built-in method for converting between the two.

Third, even if we assume that the underlying cryptography is sound, there could be bugs lurking in the Zcash code which allow anonymous notes to be conjured out of thin air. This would allow the Zcash monetary base to be limitlessly inflated, ultimately rendering the cryptocurrency worthless. Unlike transparent cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, this catastrophic event cannot be detected, because the entire point of Zcash is keeping transactions hidden. Nonetheless, according to Zooko Wilcox, the Zcash CEO, work is already under way to find a solution, so we can look forward to seeing it.

Finally, as with any cryptocurrency based on proof-of-work, the potential for 51% attacks remains. This means that a group of “miners” with over half of the network’s computational power can collude to reverse transactions that everyone else thought were complete (bad miners still cannot fake transactions which steal others’ funds). Zcash smartly relies on Equihash, a different hashing algorithm from bitcoin’s SHA-256, meaning that the huge mass of existing bitcoin mining power cannot be turned against Zcash. Equihash is also designed to be more resistant to the “ASICs” (special purpose microprocessors) that have turned bitcoin mining into an oligopoly, but only time will tell if hardware engineers can find a workaround, and at what cost.

Zero knowledge private blockchains

So far, we’ve focused our discussion on the public Zcash blockchain and cryptocurrency. But what about external assets moving over private or permissioned blockchains and shared ledgers? Can the same zero knowledge techniques be used?

On a technical level, the answer is undoubtedly yes. Compared with the theoretical and technological tour de force that underlies Zcash, it’s trivial to extend the protocol to support assets issued on a chain. All that’s required is to extend the conditions proven by a zk-SNARK to enforce the preservation of multiple assets, instead of a single cryptocurrency. Or even more simply, create multiple distinct anonymous subsystems on a single blockchain, each representing a different type of asset, and transact within each subsystem exactly as Zcash does today. This second method would require no understanding of zk-SNARKs at all.

How would an asset’s life cycle look in this model? First, a trusted entity issues tokens representing the asset, by sending a visible blockchain transaction certifying those tokens’ value. The same entity would then perform a second transaction which converts the visible tokens into anonymized Zcash-style “notes”, effectively moving the asset underground. These notes can then be secretly transferred from the issuer to others, and onwards among the chain’s participants. As with Zcash, the transfer transactions can be verified as valid by all blockchain participants without revealing their content. Finally, when a holder wishes to redeem a note, they convert it back into visible tokens using another Zcash-style transaction, send those tokens to the original issuer, and receive the equivalent real-world asset in return. We might also allow notes to be directly redeemed anonymously, in which case blockchain participants would not know how much of the asset remains in circulation.

So zero knowledge transactions promise to untie the Gordian knot which has prevented blockchains from being used for settlement in the finance sector. To recap, in a regular blockchain transaction, when an asset is sent from one bank to another, the details of that transaction are visible to every other bank on the chain. By contrast, in a zero knowledge transaction, the others only know that a valid transaction has taken place, but nothing about the sender, recipient, asset class (if we’re clever) and quantity. Even the volume of transactions can be obfuscated by participants regularly creating fake transactions in which they send assets to themselves.

In terms of privacy, this is as good as a gold bar travelling in a briefcase from one bank to another, but without the cost and time of physically moving the gold. And it’s better than using a trusted intermediary such as a custodial bank, because there isn’t even that single party who sees everything going on. For the first time, zero knowledge blockchains allow asset transfers to be digitally performed on a peer-to-peer basis, in perfect secrecy.

Don’t throw out that database (yet)

Assuming that Zcash’s technical fundamentals are sound, I fully expect it to reach the top tier of cryptocurrencies in terms of developer interest and market capitalization. But is there a similarly bright future for zero knowledge transactions in private blockchains? Will they make the transition from the laboratory to production-quality systems moving real money around the world?

It is, of course, far too early to tell. But there are a number of questions that need answering before permissioned blockchain advocates can point to zero knowledge transactions and triumphantly declare victory.

First, and most importantly, is this safe? Can we really be confident that both the underlying cryptography and its coded implementations are strong enough to prevent a malicious party from generating assets out of thin air? As mentioned earlier, unlike transparent blockchains, it is not yet possible to detect if the monetary base of a zero knowledge blockchain has been compromised. Still, there is no surer test of this technology than releasing it as an open public blockchain that is available for all to see and attack, and this is exactly what Zcash is doing. After several years of seeing Zcash running smoothly, institutions may become convinced that zero knowledge blockchains can genuinely safeguard their assets. As with all matters blockchain, patience is required.

A related issue is the novelty of zero knowledge cryptography itself. It’s true that regular blockchains rely on advanced cryptography – namely, asymmetric encryption (public/private keys) and cryptographic hash functions (digital fingerprints). And it’s also true that the great majority of blockchain programmers and application developers don’t understand the mathematical principles which underlie these techniques. But the broader point is this: if treated as black boxes, these methods have been widely employed for decades, by a huge number of developers and users (heard of https?) and everyone believes that they work. By contrast, until recently zero knowledge proofs were only known to a small community of academics, and didn’t have broad applications on the Internet or elsewhere. We can expect this obscurity to reduce the willingness of a bank’s CIO or risk officer to move their core processes to zero knowledge blockchains, at least for the next five years. And let’s not even start to imagine how long it will take regulators to get comfortable with assets moving around in this way.

Talking about regulation brings up another practical issue with zero knowledge blockchains. Anonymous transactions in a blockchain contain statements regarding asset transfers and ownership, but those statements are only visible to selected parties (namely, those directly involved). Even if we give a regulator full visibility into a zero knowledge blockchain and its participants’ identities, it has no way of knowing what is truly happening within. Of course, the regulator could ask all of the participants to identify and reveal their transactions, and they can do this efficiently using Zcash-style “viewing keys”. Nonetheless, if the parties to any particular transaction want to keep it secret, the regulator is stuck, and does not know who to fine. There is no custodial bank from whom it can obtain the full picture, and the only option for enforcement is to shut down the entire chain.

So what’s the bottom line? For now at least, I suggest simply following the progress of the public Zcash blockchain, to see how it develops and grows. If the history of Ethereum is repeated, there will be surprises and vulnerabilities lurking under the surface, waiting to be exploited by greedy opportunists. Nonetheless, in the longer term, make no mistake: zero knowledge transactions are a game-changing breakthrough for blockchains. If the underlying cryptographic principles prove sound, expect them to significantly broaden the range of use cases to which blockchains can be applied.

Please post any comments on LinkedIn.



Bitcoin Sees Largest Exchange Inflows Since March 2020 Crash

Another bearish signal for Bitcoin as the cryptocurrency sees the largest exchange inflows from external wallets last seen in March 2020.



Table of Contents

Rate this post

Another bearish signal for Bitcoin has been looming around the corner with the digital asset seeing the largest inflows from external wallets to spot exchanges last seen in March 2020, signifying investors are ready to sell-off their holdings.

Bitcoin Sees the Highest Daily Spike in Exchange Inflows

Having already lost over 50% of its value from its all-time high in just two months, numerous technical indicators are signaling Bitcoin towards even more adverse price reactions.

Following reports of the digital asset crossing the much-dreaded “death cross”, new on-chain data reveals that investors are depositing massive portions of their holdings to exchanges in order to cash out their holdings.

READ  Gazprom’s Oil Unit Opens Crypto Mining Farm at One of Its Drilling Sites

For instance, data from CryptoQuant shows that on June 21 Bitcoin saw the highest daily spike in inflows from external wallets to spot exchanges, last seen during the COVID-19 induced March 2020 crash, that took the cryptocurrency to as low as $3,000.

Even though the leading cryptocurrency has recovered more than $10,000 from the previous weeks, the digital asset has indeed weakened due to China’s brutal crypto crackdown.

Stablecoin Inflows Drop Considerably

At the same time, data from CryptoQuant indicates that the stablecoin inflows to exchanges seem to have dropped as investors turn bearish on Bitcoin.

For instance, during the first five months of the year, the circulating supply of stablecoins was on a steady rise and accelerated somewhat as the market sold off in May. However, stablecoin issuance came to a standstill at the beginning of June as bearish trends took over the Bitcoin market.

READ  Altcoins Notch Multi-Year Highs as Bitcoin Price Move Towards $60K

Since then, stablecoin inflows to exchanges have fallen to their lowest level last seen in October 2020.

Usually, stablecoin inflows are viewed as bullish catalysts. However, CryptoQuant’s recent newsletter warns of similar spikes in stablecoin issuance in the past followed by a prolonged price declines:

 “After the bottom of the last bear market (2018-2019), we saw a steady rise in issuance events. At the top (June 28, 2019) of this bullish period, there was a large issuance event (the two big spikes in July-August 2019 are due to USDT ETH issuance). It looks like the same is happening right now.”

#Bitcoin #Bitcoin Inflows

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa

Continue Reading


Dogecoin Gets Hit the Hardest Among Top 10 Coins, Plunges Over 20%

Dogecoin has gotten hit the hardest among the top 10 coins and saw its second-worst day of the year on June 22 by plunging down over 36% to $0.17.



Table of Contents

Rate this post

Meme-based cryptocurrency Dogecoin gets hit the hardest among the top 10 coins and saw its second-worst day of the year on June 22 by plunging down over 36% to $0.17, the lowest level since Apr. 23.

Dogecoin Gets Hit the Hardest Among Top 10 Coins

On May 19, joke cryptocurrency Dogecoin shed over 55% within a single day, but it managed to climb back to almost half of the losses before the daily close.

The meme-based coin is currently trading 77% lower since May 8, from its current all-time high of $0.74 on May 8. The market cap, which was $34.97 billion on June 21, has now slid down to $27.22B in just the last 24 hours.

READ  Crypto Market Hits $200 Billion, Bitcoin Rallies To $7K: BCH, LTC, EOS, ADA Analysis

Dogecoin is currently the biggest loser among the top 10 cryptocurrencies, plunging over 20%, despite major altcoins like XRP, Binance Coin, and Polkadot experiencing double-digit losses.

The value of popular cryptocurrencies remained weak on June 22 after the crypto market witnessed a massive crash a day earlier, following China’s intensified crackdown on Bitcoin.

Over the bigger picture, Dogecoin looks weak that needs upside catalysts to rebound from current levels.

For instance, if Dogecoin declines below the support at $0.25, it will head towards the next support level at $0.2250. A successful test of the support at $0.2250 will push the cryptocurrency towards the next support at $0.2150.

Dogecoin-Branded NASCAR Crashes Like DOGE

Stefan Parsons’ car emblazoned with the Dogecoin logo crashed into the wall during Stage 2 at Nashville Superspeedway on June 19th. Fans of meme-based cryptocurrency fans pushed the hashtag #dogecar trend on Twitter.

READ  Vitalik Buterin Reveals Making $4.3M from $25,000 Investment in Dogecoin

The car was sponsored by Springates, a manufacturer of auto parts whose CEO is a DOGE enthusiast. Parson escaped unhurt but the value of the cryptocurrency did not.

DOGE has a long history on the NASCAR tracks. In April 2014, for instance, Dogecoin fans raised 68 million DOGE worth about $42,000 at the time, via a Reddit campaign to sponsor Josh Wise’s Ford Fusion car. Interestingly, Wise raced in the same team as Stefan Parsons’ father Phil.

#DOGE #Dogecoin

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa

Continue Reading


VanEck to Launch a Mutual Fund that Invests in BTC Futures

Global investment manager VanEck has recently filed an introductory prospectus to launch a mutual fund that put its money into BTC Futures.



Table of Contents

Rate this post

Global investment manager VanEck has recently filed an introductory prospectus to launch a mutual fund that put its money into BTC Futures through its Cayman Islands-based subordinate. Rest, it has been revealed that the fund may also put some of its unsettled assets into the United States treasuries. 

VanEck to Initiate a Mutual Fund That Invests in BTC Futures

The Bitcoin Strategy Fund is not going to have any exposure to the spot price of the top crypto asset and it said:

“The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances, in bitcoin futures contracts (“Bitcoin Futures”), as well as pooled investment vehicles and exchange-traded products that provide exposure to bitcoin (together with Bitcoin Futures, “Bitcoin Investments”). The Fund does not invest in bitcoin or other digital assets directly.”

In addition to this, it has already been reported that the global investment manager VanEck has filed requisitions for both Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs earlier this year.

However, the United States Securities and Exchange have not approved any of them as of yet. 

Moreover, the SEC has initiated the process of looking for additional comments to affirm whether or not it should checklist the Bitcoin ETF proposal of VanEck.

Mike Novogratz Comments on China Crypto Crackdown

The CEO of Galaxy Digital, Michael Novogratz has recently released a statement sharing his opinion on the effect of the ongoing China crackdown on crypto.

Novogratz took it to Twitter and said:

“China news isn’t good. Xi is an authoritarian leader who wants control over things. $BTC is the opposite of authoritarianism. Chinese citizens will always find a way to move assets outside the system but they are making it harder. Will take some time to play out. Keep the faith.”

Novogratz is sure that the Chinese Crypto owners will be able to shift their assets outside China, but it will take some time.

READ  Block.One Social Media Platform Voice Announces its Launch

#BTC futures #Mutual Fund #VanEck

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa

Continue Reading


Yearn Finance (YFI) and Synthetix (SNX) Technical Analysis: What to Expect?

Synthetix and Yearn Finance are sinking. If $7 falls, SNX/USDT may halve to $4—or worse. Meanwhile, YFI/USDT is on the cusp of falling further to $26k.



Table of Contents

Rate this post

Synthetix and Yearn Finance are sinking. If $7 falls, SNX/USDT may halve to $4—or worse. Meanwhile, YFI/USDT is on the cusp of falling further to $26k.

Yearn Finance (YFI)

The automated aggregator allows DeFi investors to draw maximum yields from various protocols. YFI is central to the platform.

Past Performance of YFI

The YFI/USDT is still under the shadow of sellers who dominated in the second half of May 2021.

Bears are in control, and liquidation across the board may flatten out attempts to revive bulls.

Presently, YFI is down nine percent against the USD and ETH on the last trading day.

READ  BaFin Eases Licensing Process For Foreign Crypto Custodians 

Day-Ahead and what to Expect

The path of least resistance is southwards.

Although Ethereum’s fundamentals might rejuvenate YFI/USDT price action, candlestick arrangement, and BTC weakness combine to deflate optimistic bulls.

YFI bear bars are banding along with the lower BB, signaling selling pressure below $40k and the middle BB.

YFI/USDT Technical Analysis

YFI Price Daily Chart for June 22

Losses of June 21 were perpendicular, pointing to sellers’ convictions.

Accordingly, every high may present a selling opportunity for YFI/USDT bears, targeting $26k or May 2021 lows.

Unexpected gains from spot levels, preferably with high trading volumes, reversing June 21 losses may trigger a revival with targets at $40k for YFI.

Conversely, further dumps firmly place YFI/USDT price action to sellers.

Synthetix (SNX)

The decentralized derivatives trading DeFi protocol uses SNX as its token. In addition, the platform plans to adopt Optimism as its Layer-2 scaling option.

READ  COTI and Avalanche (AVAX) Technical Analysis: What to Expect?

Past Performance of SNX

SNX sellers have reversed over 80 percent of gains made during the steep increase from November 2020 to 2021 peaks of February 2021.

Losses may continue considering the state of price action, favoring sellers.

SNX is down double-digits as of writing, falling 11 percent against the USD on the last trading day.

Meanwhile, trading volumes rose to $78 million, suggesting possible offloading.

Day-Ahead and what to Expect

SNX sellers, based on price action in the daily chart, are motoring ahead.

At spot rates, dips below $7 confirming June 21 draw-down may see another dump down towards $4—visible reaction points of November and December 2021.

SNX/USDT Technical Analysis

SNX Price Daily Chart for June 22

Confirmation of SNX/USDT bear bar of June 21 below $7 could cement sellers’ conviction.

READ  4 Reasons to Scrutinize Before Using the Service

In that case, SNX prices may halve to $4.

Conversely, suppose prices find support at spot rates, reversing June 21 losses despite the intense selling pressure. In that case, SNX could lift off above $8 to $14 in the medium term.

#DeFi #SNX #SNX/USDT #Synthetix #YFI #YFI/USDT

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa

Continue Reading
Esports25 mins ago

4 Shurima cards revealed for Legends of Runeterra’s Rise of the Underworld expansion

AR/VR33 mins ago

Blaston Reverses Facebook’s VR ad Testing After Backlash

Energy35 mins ago

Orion Metal Exchange Extends “Fee Free Precious Metal Buyback Program”

Energy38 mins ago

American Made Tactical Supports US Job Creation To Help Keep America Working

Esports41 mins ago

VCT Stage 3 predictions: What we expect from the final stretch of VALORANT’s first circuit

Esports44 mins ago

ACNH Warm Painting: Everything You Need to Know

Esports45 mins ago

VALORANT’s Episode 3: Reflection and KAY/O are now live

Esports45 mins ago

Emboar Blast Burn Pokemon GO: How to Get Blast Burn for Emboar

Esports46 mins ago

Tepig Community Day Pokemon GO Guide

Energy47 mins ago

Solis reconocida mundialmente con el sello “Top PV Brand 2021” para inversores

Esports49 mins ago

Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance Voice Actors: Who Voices Utaar?

Esports49 mins ago

Janna player uses ultimate to wipe out 5 enemies in League’s Nexus Blitz mode

Energy52 mins ago

Worldwide Wire and Cable Materials Industry to 2030 – Key Drivers, Restraints and Opportunities

Cleantech1 hour ago

1366 Technologies To Invest $300 Million In Solar Module Production In India

Aviation1 hour ago

Europe’s Stored Aircraft Reach A Pandemic Era Record Low

Energy1 hour ago

El sector de la maquinaria de trabajo aéreo de XCMG ocupa ahora el sexto lugar a nivel mundial

Big Data1 hour ago

Amazing Low-Code Machine Learning Capabilities with New Ludwig Update

Energy1 hour ago

A Eastman expande seu portfólio de soluções sustentáveis com a resina reciclável Cristal™ para cosméticos.

Energy1 hour ago

Gates Expands Thermoplastic Polyurethane Line-up with Best-in-Class Parabolic Pitch Belts

Cleantech1 hour ago

Kia Shows Us How Hybrids Are Changing & Improving, Leading To More EVs

Blockchain1 hour ago

Bitcoin Sees Largest Exchange Inflows Since March 2020 Crash

Aviation2 hours ago

United States Unlocked: The Country’s Top 15 Routes

Esports2 hours ago

Niantic Labs Reveals Roadmap for Removing Pandemic Bonuses in Pokemon GO

Esports2 hours ago

StarLadder CIS RMR groups and schedule revealed

Cleantech2 hours ago

Pope Gets a New LEAF in His EV Fleet

Aviation2 hours ago

Virgin Atlantic Celebrates 37 Years After A Really Bad One

CNBC2 hours ago

Tide is making the first laundry detergent for space

Crowdfunding2 hours ago

Financial Technology Association Creates Advisory Board, Adds Top Fintech Experts to Guide Strategy

EdTech2 hours ago

Merlyn Mind emerges from stealth with $29M and a hardware and software solution to help teachers with tech

AR/VR2 hours ago

Haptics Use Cases and Applications in VR: Training