How to get started with BOSCore - To meet future demand our technical team is developing solutions to not only support expansion plan of one billion BOSCore accounts but also the potential to support Bitcoin, Ethereum and EOS while retaining security for high value transaction settlement.👍
Relictum Pro has the potential to surpass the total value of Bitcoin and Ethereum-RLC Coin
https://preview.redd.it/o4so69pth6s41.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b94627213350c46a1976eb7d91ff61c72e864490 A blockchain is a chain of squares, and Relictum Pro is an arrangement of occasion formalization having dynamic squares notwithstanding the chains of squares themselves. This enormously expands the conceivable outcomes and brings to another degree of the numerical contraption, and permits you to make one-dimensional models of chains, yet two-dimensional, three-dimensional, and even four-dimensional models of occasion formalization. Relictum Pro is an undeniable blockchain stage fit for working in both private and public access for government, business and private exercises. #relictum.pro #relictumpro #relictcoin #relictum #blockchain5.0 #relictumblockchain #Blockchaintechnology https://relictum.pro/
I bought at 3k, sold at 15k and bought back in at 3.9k. AMA
History: - Put in 5k a month for 3 months between May 2017 - July 2017 evenly distributed between Ethereum and Bitcoin, total buy in $15k for about 1.7 Bitcoin at around $3500 and 30 Ethereum around $300 (all prices are averages of all my purcahses) - Sold in late January of 2018 at Around Mid $14k bitcoin and $900 ether for about $50k grossing about $35k and $25k after taxes - Reinvested all of the earnings + another $5kusd Between Dec 2018 - Feb 2019. I bought 3.8001 btc at an average price of $3947.26 and 119.586 ethereum at an average price of $125.48. I'm now in only $5k lifetime net fiat for those holdings. How did I know to sell at the top? I was sitting in a cafe right around new years 2018 and at one point I noticed that literally 4 out of the 5 tables around me were talking about Bitcoin. They were talking about it as if it were some magical money fountain. They clearly knew very little about cryptography, blockchain, or how this might be useful to the world. They sounded more like Bitconnect hawkers than people dicsussing technology. I knew at that point things were way overhyped and that it could not go on much further. Those people were dumb money and the smart money is going to cash out when things get over heated like that. So I wanted to share my philosophy because I see a lot of talk on here that makes me worry that people are going to lose a lot of money even in what I think likely is going to be a bull market coming up. Everything here is just my opinion and I don't claim to be any type of guru. I certainly don't have any kind of magic ball for price movements but what I do have is an extremely simple underlying compass for my decisions that has led me well. My main underlying philosophy: YOU CANNOT KNOW PRICE MOVEMENTS IN THE SHORT TERM. You don't know. The guy writing for CCN or CoinTelegraph doesn't know, Mike Novogratz doesn't know, Vitalik doesn't know. That guys on youtube doing technical analysis on might as well be posting about astrological charts, it's total nonsense. For every rule there is an exception but I believe this to be true 98% of the time and if you aren't some seasoned expert who has some extremely specialized reason why you are the exception, you are the dumb money. This philosophy basically says never swing trade and never trade short term price movements. It's a losing battle for all but the most savvy people and we aren't in that group (and a lot of them lose their shirts anyway). So if you can't trade on technical analysis wizardry, what can you trade on? Two things: 1) Based on the real world use value of bitcoin, is it undervalued or overvalued? That means you have to decide for yourself what is the real world value of bitcoin, ideally by comparing its current market cap to to what you think the market cap might be if it saw widescale adoption. In my mind, bitcoin is just like gold but better in almost every way. So look at the current value of gold used as a store of value. This should be a pretty good proxy for a potential value of bitcoin. The actual marketcap of bitcoin doesn't represent that value right now so it seems like a good buy. 2) Is it overhyped? Just because something is undervalued doesn't mean it's not overhyped. When people talk about crypto, are they talking about how it could provide real value to the world or are they talking about it like it's a magic money tree that sprouts lambos. When there are more people talking about lambos than scaling and custodial solutions it's likely that a lot of dumb money is pouring into the space. This is when things are getting over valued and when it might be smart to temporarily pull out. So am I saying not to HODL? Kinda. HODL but HODL with your intellect as opposed to treating it like a religion. If things feel dumb it's ok to get out for while. If you make the right call you stand to be able to buy back in at a much stronger position and in the end the game is to be holding as much crypto as possible right? No one ever lost their shirt selling at a profit. And for fucks sakes, don't invest in crypto if you don't know where rent and food are coming from. Gambling your last dollars is never smart money and will just cause you to make dumb trades when you need quick cash anyway. I've never thrown more then 20% of my networth into crypto, when things blow up that 20% will quickly be more than what you initially had anyway. AMA if you'd like
I think an interesting way to speculate on the potential value of bitcoin is comparing it to other global asset classes. Currently it's $16 billion. In terms of "store of value" purposes, global precious metals are valued at $800 billion for silver, and $7 trillion for gold. If Bitcoin establishes itself as a "money" which is accepted by many vendors, then I suggest we compare it to the M2 measures of currency: USD at $13.2T, EUR at $10.1T (USD), CNY at $23T (USD), JPY at $8.4T, etc. Throwing darts, let's say its ends up being somewhere between the two, and says $5T-15T. I think this is reasonable, even if it is as high as any one major currency, because it spans globally and is open to a larger total pool of buyers. Also, as emerging markets become richer Bitcoin will increasingly become an asset that many millions/billions of people are interested and able to join in on. These forecasts estimate a $315k-950k price of bitcoin.
Crypto Analyst Finds Bull Signal On Bitcoin Chart Indicating Potential Rebound The value of Bitcoin has severely depreciated, hovering at around $8,000 from its previous high of $10,000. With an uncertain market trend, some analysts
Bitcoin represents 70% of crypto asset value, accounting for the majority of users & trading volume. Yet, #DeFi has yet to tap into Bitcoin's potential. Ever wonder why? Stop by DeFi Summit in London tomorrow and learn how RSK and RIF are bringing DeFi to Bitcoin.
Crypto Analyst Finds Bull Signal On Bitcoin Chart Indicating Potential Rebound The value of Bitcoin has severely depreciated, hovering at around $8,000 from its previous high of $10,000. With an uncertain market trend, some analysts
Bitcoin was ALWAYS about getting rich: It has the potential for a positive feedback loop; as users increase, the value goes up, which could attract more users to take advantage of the increasing value.
[Long ramble] My take on bitcoin, bitcoin cash, hard forks and altcoins in general
So first of all, I should point out that I don't claim to know everything, I am very aware that I don't, and although I do feel quite confident about my current perspective, I also know that I'm still regularly learning new things about blockchain technology and I therefore try to keep an open mind and a vivid interest in diverging opinions. This post is not meant to be an attack on any single person or community, much to the contrary, I have the utmost respect for everyone who is passionate about this emerging technology, no matter which side they take. Now that's out of the way, I should also mention that what I'm about to expose isn't really anything unique or out of the ordinary, and in fact I had considered naming this thread "The mechanics of anti-fragility" quite simply because as I see it, that's all I am describing here. Anti-fragility is a term that gets thrown around quite a lot, and it has often been described as one of the core properties of bitcoin, but I feel like somewhere along the way its meaning might have been lost, or simply understated, not given the importance that it is due, not considered important enough to even consider, or maybe if one were to take a more pessimistic point of view, deliberately brushed away in order to exploit an extremely over-hyped market. To understand what I mean, it is important to consider the governance system of bitcoin. The word "Bitcoin" is not a copyrighted term, it is not an incorporated entity, it is simply the label given to an idea, that is to say, it is the product of a wide consensus of tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals, it comes out of the spontaneous collective imagination of many more independent actors than could ever be centrally coordinated. That's powerful stuff right there. As it turns out, this incredible collective consensus (save for part of the Bitcoin Cash community, but I'll get to that in a minute) applies this label to the first ever blockchain, that which was started by Satoshi Nakamoto, and more specifically, to the branch of this blockchain that has continued under the development of what is known as the "Bitcoin Core developers". This means that currently, whatever the "Bitcoin Core developers" release is Bitcoin. But that is not intrinsically true, it is only currently true. This can change, and although so far attempts to change this have not been successful, it remains a very real possibility that the majority opinion will change as to what Bitcoin is. Now some of you might hate me for saying this, but insofar as Bitcoin Cash was an attempt to change this consensus, Bitcoin Cash has completely, without a doubt and permanently/irrevocably failed, and this was clear hours, if not minutes, after the hard fork - Bitcoin Cash will never be "Bitcoin". But that isn't to say that the vision of Bitcoin Cash was a failure, it doesn't mean that the Bitcoin Cash community's interpretation of Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper (especially vis-a-vis block size) is a failure, it doesn't mean that Bitcoin Cash doesn't have a raison d'etre and can not still have an enormous impact on the future of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency as a whole. It doesn't mean any of those things, and in fact, I fully believe that another hardfork with the same intent and approach as Bitcoin Cash could change the collective perception of what "Bitcoin" is and who its main developers are. But it would need much, much more than miner consensus - it would need user and service provider consensus (the latter being determined by the former), in other words, it would need a clear market consensus before a hardfork is enacted. But that isn't to say that Bitcoin Cash should just cease to exist and try to organise a new hardfork straight away. And it also isn't to say that the price of Bitcoin Cash can not rise a lot higher than it currently is. On the contrary, I am glad that the Bitcoin Cash hardfork happened even though it failed in one specific aspect, because this is how the anti-fragility of Bitcoin works; Bitcoin needs competitors in order to indicate to its market what the main development goals should be, and the closer the value of its competitors gets to its own value, the higher the pressure and the stronger the incentives to the market to decide to "change Bitcoin". And I take this position regarding every other competing cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin Cash as well; remember, Bitcoin is not a company, and it therefore can't be "the myspace of cryptocurrency", it can never cede its position as the most valued cryptocurrency to a competitor - I firmly believe that before anything like that could ever happen, the collective consensus of what the label "Bitcoin" means will simply switch over to the technology of a competitor, and it will bring the ledger of the highest valued version of bitcoin with it. There are those who criticise Roger Ver for fracturing the Bitcoin community, causing confusion on the markets and lowering the potential value of Bitcoin. To me that is stupid, short-sighted, high time preference rubbish. Yes, Bitcoin Cash disrupted Bitcoin, and we should be celebrating that fact. Anti-fragility doesn't work without disruption, and that is why I'm glad about the stupidly high TX fees and I have my fingers are crossed for the price of BTC to crash (relative to other cryptos, not necessarily the USD) and for that of its most disruptive competitors to rise, because Bitcoin will survive and adapt no matter what, but its current market dominance is simply unearned, it is luring Bitcoin developers into complacency and it is slowing the growth of this currency which I truly believe is going to change the world eventually - I just rather it happen sooner rather than later. So I don't usually give investment advice, but if you ask me, buy innovative cryptos for short-medium term investment, only buy BTC as a very long-term (i.e. retirement) option, because the Bitcoin you buy today will be worth millions some day, but in the meantime there are a lot of other currencies that have much to teach Bitcoin. Short word about the Lightning Network: There are arguments for and against; second layer settlement networks may have an essential role in a functioning cryptocurrency, or they might not, but one thing is for sure: If they do, then LN won't kill Bitcoin, and if they don't, then LN won't kill Bitcoin either - in the big picture, more options never hurt, they may simply also not help. More short term, sure, it might put off the due attention that the blocksize problem deserves, but it won't eliminate it completely, and we are bound to go back to it eventually, assuming it is a real problem (and I think it is). Regarding censorship on /bitcoin and what subreddit to list in the side bar: I don't think any of that petty bullshit has any real effect to be honest. The internet is a big place, trying to eliminate a conversation just creates a streisand effect, amplifying said conversation. I don't think this stuff deserves my attention, and yours neither. EDIT for clarification: What I mean by that last statement is that this kind of problem has a way of regulating itself whether or not I or anyone else complains about it in long essays. I don't see it having a strong enough impact on the future of crypto-currency to devote any of my time to the issue. -Andreas Kohl "Mr. Liechtenstein" www.mrliechtenstein.com
Early Bitcoin visionary Amir Taaki is saying that turning Bitcoin into a store of value as a commodity rather than using it as its intended purpose as a currency will be its own failure as it loses all its potential.
I made a video using some simple math trying to figure out potential value of Bitcoin. Please view my video and let me know what you think? What other factors should be considered? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBda-hZim8k
Three Methods Valuing Bitcoin - A Mathematical Approach to BTC Valuation
Primer: As an intro, I see Bitcoin evolving as a payment network that sits on top of fiat and is generally not held en masse, rather than being used as a store of value. There are a few reasons I hold this belief, but this is a topic for another day. For the sake of argument, consider that I am attempting to find a fair value (ie total market cap) for the currency of Bitcoin by solely examining its potential utility as a payment network. Why you should listen to me: I have worked for a payments-focused investment bank, raising capital and executing M&A transactions for payments-focused companies. I have worked for a private equity fund on acquiring a kiosk bill payment network focused on the unbanked. I have a “top tier” MBA and currently work for a large asset manager in Financial Services. My expertise lies in payments and financial services, but my knowledge of Bitcoin extends to that of a relatively novice hobbyist. I am happy to take criticism / advice on these valuation methods, and hope others find it useful to frame up the potential value of Bitcoin. Method 1: 15 minutes of the annual money remittance market Logic: I first looked at the applicability of Bitcoin in the money remittance market. My theory here is that all money remittance payments will be sent via the Bitcoin network. At the beginning of the transaction, a user would convert fiat into Bitcoin. That Bitcoin would then be transferred to the destination/end user, and converted back into the local fiat. Therefore, Bitcoin would only be needed for roughly 15 minutes (long enough to confirm a transaction over one block on the blockchain). Essentially, Bitcoin is only being used as a store of value for long enough to confirm a transaction and ensure its delivery to the end user. Under this model, we can split up all the global money remittance volume into 15 minute increments (the maximum amount of time someone needs to own Bitcoin). The combined value of the Bitcoin floating in those 15 minutes is a bare minimum value that Bitcoin must have as a market cap. According to the WSJ and the World Bank, the global annual money remittance market was estimated at $513bn in 2011 and growing at 7% per year. That amounts to a $628bn market in 2014. Chopping the year up in to 15 minute blocks, what is the value of Bitcoin that would need to exist to process this volume of transfers over a year? $628bn / 365 days = $1.72bn per day $1.72bn / 24 hours per day = $71.7m per hour $71.7m per hour / 4 fifteen minute “blocks” = $17.9m Strengths: This analysis is conservative as it assumes a completely flat level of demand, ie no spikes where more Bitcoin would be needed to flow through the pipes. It also assumes that the entire transaction would only last 15 minutes, or one Bitcoin block. Essentially, this is the bare minimum required amount of Bitcoin to service this level of money remittance demand. Weaknesses: This analysis is aggressive since it assumes capturing the FULL money remittance market – clearly a stretch. Additionally this assumes that money remittance users, typically underbanked or unbanked, have internet access and the technical knowledge (or support from companies that provide this knowledge) to sent payments to their loved ones via Bitcoin. That day is many years out. Conclusions: Clearly this valuation is well below the current Bitcoin market cap of ~$10bn. Getting a valuation to reach current market cap of $10bn for Bitcoin would probably be impossible for this particular valuation method, even given the conservative features of the analysis. Method 2: 20% of the market cap of the largest payment networks Visa, MasterCard and Amex are the rails for a large portion of the C2B payment processing done today (could use some stats here). Assuming an average fee of 2.5% on all payments they process (again conservative with respect to Amex), and that the Bitcoin could essentially “charge” 0.5% of the payments they process, they would have 20% of the earnings power of these companies combined, thus, 20% of the market cap Company: Market Cap: Visa: 136.6 MasterCard: 87.7 Amex: 89.1 Total: 313.4 20% of 313.4bn = $62.68bn *Strengths: * This method is conservative in that there are other payment networks (closed-loop, ACH, cash, etc) that Bitcoin could replace. Not many areas of conservative strength here as this is a fairly aggressive valuation assessment. Weaknesses: Capturing 100% of the payments of these three companies would be difficult and take some revolutionary changes in consumer and merchant behavior. Amex also arguably provides other, non-payment related services such as travel bookings, etc that contribute to its market cap. I have not attempted to extract those from the analysis, making the Amex market cap number aggressive. The market is also close to all-time highs, making these market caps similarly inflated. This method also raises another interesting question. The market cap of these companies is what it is because they have the ability and infrastructure to process the payments. In the Bitcoin network, the inherent “ability” to process the payments truly lies both with the miners and with companies like CoinBase that enable merchant processing of Bitcoin. Should some of that value be ascribed to companies like CoinBase rather than the underlying currency? For example, the value of the US dollar today does not fluctuate based on the projections of transactions processed by Visa and MC, and possibly neither should Bitcoin. Conclusions: With a valuation greater than Bitcoin’s current market cap, we can start making some haircuts to our assumptions to justify its current price. For example, if Bitcoin is able to capture just 1/6th of the payments processed by Visa, MC and AMEX combined, today’s market value is justified. Is that reasonable? That’s your call. From here, someone more familiar than me with Bitcoin’s infrastructure can figure out how many payments these companies process and if the existing Bitcoin network can handle that volume of transactions. Method 3: 25% of PayPal and Square PayPal is arguably used by early adopters that would be more inclined to use Bitcoin. PayPal also represents a more peer-to-peer subset of payments. Adoption by these users would likely require less infrastructure changes and disrupt fewer powerful players in the payment processing space. Square has worked on onboarding merchants that didn’t take credit card payments without Square’s dongle, so these merchants are clearly early adopters and most likely would be happy to reduce their credit card processing fees by accepting Bitcoin. Instead of taking 20% of the total market cap like Visa and MC, I took 25%. This implies that Square and PayPal charge 2% on average (and Bitcoin costs 0.5%). I did this assuming that Square and PayPal are putting downward pressure on processing fees (Square recently announced its long-term intention to use big data and payment information to reduce payment processing fees to zero). Square Valuation: $5bn PayPal Valuation (assuming ½ of eBay) = $35bn Total valuation: $40bn 25% of $40bn = $10bn Strengths: This is conservative in the sense that there are other p2p payment networks out there beyond PayPal and Square. Additionally, these two companies are almost entirely US-based and Bitcoin already has substantial traction globally. Weaknesses: PayPal is more regulator friendly than Bitcoin due to being centrally processed. Given Square’s intention to drive payment processing fees to zero, there is serious competiton to Bitcoin as a payment network. As a merchant, 0% fees using the existing infrastructure of credit cards and card readers is more attractive than a new technology requiring substantial adoption and (today) technical knowledge. This could pose a SERIOUS threat to the adoption of Bitcoin – IF Square can get there. Conclusions: To me, this is the most realistic approach to valuing Bitcoin as a payment platform. PayPal is ripe for disruption and Square is not yet sizeable enough to squash Bitcoin. This method also focuses on a subset of early adopters using primarily peer-to-peer payments – possibly the most analogous subset of potential Bitcoin users. I welcome thoughts, criticisms, and advice on my approach to valuation here. Additionally, I am actively looking to get more involved in Bitcoin, and would welcome the opportunity to work together with other smart folks in the space. Please contact me. :) EDIT: Formatting.
Meet the scaling solution of theymos and co. : litecoin
Whether inadvertently or on purpose, they are helping litecoin because it's the only scaling solution that isn't vaporware. Granted, some infrastructure on exchanges and payment processors would need to be modified to accept litecoin, but that probably isn't so difficult. While the small block proponents are over in the other sub celebrating the overt bragging of the Chinese miners that they already have a monopoly and can decide the scaling solution, I'm not sure if they realize that it lowers the potential value of bitcoin.
The true value of Bitcoin isn't the currency. The idea of the blockchain has the potential to run the institutions of an entire society...
I am not the best writer and I'm afraid this probably isn't the best tone, elaboration, or written for the proper audience, but this idea is taking a life of its own and I know that it has to be shared and developed by this community. I haven't included the specific examples of what an implementation of this might look like so I can see what others come up with. Here is part 1: I’d like to try to explain a vision for the true potential of Bitcoin. The value is not simply in currency, but rather the concept of the blockchain. Keep in mind that this is akin to trying to explain the internet to someone just ten years ago in terms that they would understand, and attempt to give them a true idea of the scale of social, economic, political, and cultural changes made feasible by such a technology. The blockchain is essentially a platform whereby information can be gathered, stored, and manipulated in a distributed manner where everything is as transparent or as anonymous as agreed by the nodes that decide to run a particular protocol. The difference in what bitcoin is now compared to what it can be is simply the operations and usefulness of the data architecture and logical functions computed by the nodes. So far, the uses are limited to mostly computing for the sake of computing, using massive amounts of processing just to run a simple function such as limiting the number of bitcoins generated. Though it may seem far-fetched at this point, the inevitable result of blockchain-based distributed information processing will be entire cultural foundations with protocols that democratically and transparently provide the foundation of currency, laws and regulation, politics, media, communication, and the most novel and efficient forms of these aspects of society. The next segment will elaborate specific examples of how these systems might be implemented. Imagine a blockchain structure that inherently acts like a computer. In its simplest form it begins with a system for updating the protocol, the ability to gather and store data in nodes, permissions for storing, viewing, and manipulated data from nodes. If such a system will ever function as the basis for a governing system, the operating system is essentially a constitution with each node (person) in agreement with the underlying architecture. Nodes will no longer be generalized into “miners” but rather there will be a distinction between nodes that distinguishes individual people from the “miners” or computational workhorses of the system. As new iterations and functions are implemented, the decisions for changes to the blockchain protocol will be made by people rather than the computers that provide the raw computational capacity. Trust and transparency in the system is of the greatest importance for the platform to run efficiently and drive the kind of innovation that is theoretically possible. History has shown us that the breakdown of our current social and economic systems is due to the lack of trust and balance between the interests of the greater good and the institutions that we implemented to handle the transfer of value and resources. There must be an assumption that the vast majority of humans are inherently good and will make the best decision based on their knowledge, with all confounding factors aside. Many of our cultural institutions are depersonalized and no longer represent the interests of those governed by them. The confounding factors in our society today are institutions that no longer serve their original purpose and are like viruses that are difficult to change due to their self perpetuating habitual nature.
Pierre Rochard on the potential long-run value of Bitcoin
• I think we are wildly underestimating the long run purchasing power of bitcoins. Everyone is using comps like global M2 money supply or gold. • Bitcoin inherently enjoys a much higher marginal propensity to hold it as a cash balance, even at post-hyper-bitcoinization equilibrium. • Fiat money supplies are artificially low because everyone wants to hold as little as possible-- they’re too conservative comparison for Bitcoin. • Gold has a supply problem: every time the price goes up, miners can increase their cost and create more. They need a difficulty adjustment ;) • So gold is a too conservative comp as well. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s anybody’s guess how valuable bitcoins get. • My intuition is that even the most bullish predictions ($1 million, or $10 million) are too low by an order of magnitude or three. Source
Wedbush Equity research paper on Bitcoin: "We believe that Bitcoin and its associated technology represent a potentially game-changing disruption to our covered payment companies. We see the intrisic value of bitcoin as the conduit in a new global crowd-funded open source network."
"We also believe that scenarios exist by which bitcoin could be worth 10x-100x its current price." And my favorite: "We think of bitcoins as the equivalent of a biotech that had a molecule that may cure the common cold." LINK to the research paper. I believe this should be a good answer to the argument about bitcoin's intrinsic value. What do you guys think? How will this affect the market?
Getty. While the Bitcoin price was on the decline for the second half of 2019, the reality is the crypto asset still roughly doubled in value over the course of the entire year. Potential Value of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is limited – Demand meets supply. The bitcoin is based on blockchain which limits its supply to 21 million. The algorithm works such that the total number of bitcoins that can be mined (created) halves every four years. The demand of bitcoins is going to increase as more people join the bandwagon. At 21 million bitcoins, there is not enough bitcoins for ... Ver’s estimate is based on the principles of supply and demand, which he believes creates great potential for Bitcoin as a store of value. Anthony Pompliano – $100,000 (by 2021) @APompliano. Anthony Pompliano is a well-known Bitcoin personality. He’s a founder and partner at Morgan Creek Digital, a crypto-friendly asset management firm for institutional investors. He has previously ... Bitcoin started off its life virtually worthless, with a value of far less than a penny when the Bitcoin Core client code was released into the wild. Years later, it began trading at over $1,000 and started to be considered as a serious financial asset with long term potential. Here is our list of cryptocurrencies that show huge potential in 2020 based on current use cases and value addition to the ecosystem: Bitcoin (BTC) In 2019, Bitcoin has seen a 100% plus in performance. Throughout the decade, the picture is even brighter. Currently, the crypto commands about 70% of the cryptocurrency market dominance.
Mark Cuban Reveals TRUE POTENTIAL of Cryptocurrency in ...