Security firm BlockSec said that the root cause of the attack was price manipulation caused by “read-only reentrancy.”
Merkezi olmayan finans (DeFi) protokolü Conic Finance Cuma günü yaptığı açıklamada, bir saldırganın Omnipool’larından birini etkileyen cari fiyatlarla 3,6 milyon doların üzerinde değere sahip 1.700’den fazla eteri (ETH) ele geçirmesine izin veren bir istismara maruz kaldığını söyledi.
Güvenlik firması BlockSec, saldırının temel nedeninin “salt okunur yeniden giriş” nedeniyle fiyat manipülasyonu olduğunu söyledi. Yeniden giriş, saldırganların varlıkları çalmak için bir protokole tekrar tekrar çağrılar yaparak akıllı bir sözleşmeyi kandırmasına olanak tanıyan yaygın bir hatadır. Arama, akıllı sözleşme adresinin bir kullanıcının cüzdan adresiyle etkileşime girmesi için yetkilendirmedir.
Conic Finance, which went live on March 1, allows users to deposit tokens into its Omnipools, a new product that diversifies exposure across the Curve ecosystem while increasing rewards. The protocol attracted millions of dollars in capital shortly after going live, suggesting huge demand for such a product.
Each Omnipool allocates liquidity of a single asset into different Curve pools. All Curve liquidity provider (LP) tokens get staked on Convex to boost Curve (CRV) rewards earnings. Convex (CNX), another Curve ecosystem token, is also rewarded, as is Conic (CNC), Conic’s native token.
Meanwhile, Conic Finance developers tweeted that they were continuing to investigate the root cause of the exploit and were consulting with relevant parties.
Geliştiriciler, görünüşe göre hack’in gerçekleşmesine izin veren hatalı havuzu kapattıklarını eklediler. “Conic ön ucunda ETH Omnipool mevduatlarını devre dışı bıraktık” diye yazdılar.
The hedge fund included a surveillance-sharing agreement in its proposal, which could eliminate the risk of market manipulation related to bitcoin.
Blackrock’s (BLK) iShares Bitcoin Trust application to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this week might stand a better chance than previous attempts by other fund managers thanks to the promise of a “surveillance-sharing agreement” between exchanges.
Buried on page 36 of Blackrock’s 19b-4 filing with the SEC, the company states that to mitigate against market manipulation, it will bring in Nasdaq (NDAQ) to enter into a surveillance-sharing agreement with an operator of a spot trading platform for Bitcoin (BTC).
Surveillance-sharing agreements allow for the sharing of information about market trading activity, clearing activity, and customer identification, allowing for little possibility of market manipulation.
BlackRock’s proposed surveillance-sharing agreement, dubbed the “Spot BTC SSA,” is what makes this application different, and not simply the company’s size as the largest asset manager in the world, said Graeme Moore, Head of Tokenization, Polymesh Association.
“The SEC is very concerned with market manipulation related to Bitcoin prices, and has cited this in almost, if not all, previous rejections,” Moore said in an emailed statement. “This is because the SEC’s view is that Coinbase and others are not regulated as exchanges and therefore cannot be trusted to ‘prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices’.”
However, industry veteran Dave Weisberger, CEO & Co-Founder of CoinRoutes, countered that any such surveillance-sharing agreement is superfluous.
“Why should it be necessary?” Weisberger said in an interview with CoinDesk.” Because Kraken, Coinbase, ItBit, Lmax and Bitstamp — all of their data feeds are public,” he added. “The SEC could clearly get all this data or hire someone to feed it to them. You can know every trade in every order, and that will give the SEC the ability to say, ‘Hey, this looks like a manipulative trade. So who did it?'”
The SEC has previously highlighted the importance of a surveillance-sharing agreements. In a notice in January regarding Cboe Digital’s request to list and trade shares of the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF, agency officials said that “an exchange that lists bitcoin-based ETPs can meet its obligations under Exchange Act Section by demonstrating that the exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to the underlying or reference bitcoin assets.”
Blackrock’s iShares filed paperwork with the SEC on Thursday afternoon for the formation of a spot bitcoin ETF. The move comes after several other ETF proposals, including those of Grayscale, VanEck, and WisdomTree have previously been rejected.
A complaint filed in San Francisco alleges Egorov defrauded ParaFi Capital, Framework Ventures and 1kx.
Michael Egorov, the CEO of decentralized finance (DeFi) firm Curve Finance, is being sued for fraud by venture capital firms ParaFi Capital, Framework Ventures and 1kx in the U.S.
A complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco, alleges Egorov misappropriated trade secrets of the three VC firms, and defrauded the firms out of close to $1 million in funds while dangling the false promise of a possible stake in Curve to gain the investors’ trust and support.
The lawsuit, filed in April, also alleges that Egorov moved to Switzerland to insulate himself from the inevitable legal fallout. The three firms have been pursuing a breach-of-contract case in Switzerland against Egorov and his company Swiss Stake since 2020.
Curve Finance, a decentralized exchange built on the Ethereum blockchain, ranks among the biggest DeFi trading platforms, with some $4.07 billion in total locked value, according to DeFi Llama. Curve operates in the form of a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), controlled by the CRV token, which can be bought or earned by contributing to Curve’s liquidity pools.
Beginning in early 2020, Framework Ventures, ParaFi Capital and 1kx claim that Egorov “engaged in a brazen, multi-faceted scheme to defraud” them over a six-month period, according to the complaint. The VCs also allege Egorov “misappropriated” the firms’ “trade secrets,” including “information that proved to be critical to the development of Curve, such as key industry contacts, potential investors, and knowledge of how to manage an investment round – all while falsely promising that Plaintiffs would benefit from the fruits of their labor, not just Egorov.”
The VC’s also claim Egorov offered to sell shares of Swiss Stake to Plaintiffs for close to $1 million (alleging that a combined $925,233.54 worth of USDC was sent to a wallet specified by Egorov), but had no intention of transferring shares of Swiss Stake to the firms.
Egorov’s lawyers said in May 22 filing that the allegations of fraud derive from the termination of a contract between the VCs and Swiss Stake, and that the “trade secrets” in question were really the names of widely known investors. Egorov’s side also claims Swiss Stake promptly offered to return the roughly $1 million of invested funds.
“To justify their blatant forum shopping, Plaintiffs concocted a new and compelling story painting Egorov as an evil villain who duped three naïve VC firms into giving up ‘trade secrets,’” according to a May 22 filing by Egorov’s lawyers. The case against Egorov amounts to “nothing more than a clever narrative,” his attorneys said.
Law firm Latham & Watkins, representing the three VC firms provided CoinDesk with a statement via email: “It is regrettable this has reached the point of litigation, but we strongly believe the facts are on our side. In that respect, the complaint speaks for itself. Our clients are resolved to seek full accountability of Michael Egorov for his behavior.”
Egorov’s lawyers, DLA Piper, had not responded to an emailed request for comment by press time.
Somer Sivrioğlu, Danilo Zanna ve Mehmet Yalçınkaya’nın jüri üyesi oldukları MasterChef Türkiye yarışmasında All-Star sezonundan ilk fragman geldi. MasterChef Türkiye All-Star için kimlerin yarışmacı oldukları ise henüz belli değil., bahisnow, betist, Tumbet, Turkbet, Ultrabet, Vdcasino, Vegabet, Venusbet, Vforbahis, Wcasino, Wettenbet, Winxbet, Wonodds, Wsbets, Prizmabet,
Somer Sivrioğlu, Danilo Zanna ve Mehmet Yalçınkaya’nın jüri üyesi oldukları MasterChef Türkiye yarışmasında All-Star sezonundan ilk fragman geldi. MasterChef Türkiye All-Star için kimlerin yarışmacı oldukları ise henüz belli değil.
HABERE AİT VİDEO İÇİN TIKLAYIN İZLE
MasterChef All Star 2023 heyecanla bekleniyor. 14 Haziran 2023 tarihinde ilk bölümü tv8’de yayınlanacak yarışmadan ilk tanıtım geldi. Mehmet Yalçınkaya, Somer Sivrioğlu, Danilo Zanna jüri koltuğunda olacak. Yarışmacı kadrosunun merak edildiği MasterChef Türkiye All Star’da 2020 sezonu dahil birçok yıldan oyuncunun olması bekleniyor.
MasterChef Türkiye’nin Youtube hesabından yayınlanan tanıtım kısa sürede büyük ilgi gördü. Kısa sürede binlerce beğeni alan paylaşıma çok sayıda yorum da geldi.
Tanıtımı gören kullanıcılar paylaşıma ‘Masterchef tarihinde ilk defa allstar sezonu izleyeceğiz onun için çok heyecanlıyım açıkçası’, ‘Süper bi sezon geliyo şimdiden heyecanlandık’, ‘Sonunda başlıyor be bu sezon en iyi sezon olucak ‘, ‘Eğer 2019 2020 2021 karışımı çoğunluk kadro olarak bu sezon varsa harika bir sezon olabilir ‘ gibi yorumlarda bulundular.
MASTERCHEF ALL STAR KADROSU BELLİ OLDU MU?
MasterChef All Star kadrosu henüz belli olmadı. MasterChef’te son üç sezonda şampiyon olan isimler ise şu şekilde:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleged the two entities had sold unregistered securities through Gemini’s Earn program.
Bankrupt crypto lender Genesis Global Capital and exchange platform Gemini are asking a U.S. court to dismiss a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging the two sold unregistered securities, court filings from Friday show.
The SEC, in a lawsuit filed in January to a New York court, targeted Gemini’s yield-bearing product Earn, an unregistered offering through which the regulator alleged the two entities “raised billions of dollars’ worth of crypto assets from hundreds of thousands of investors.”
“As alleged in the complaint, Genesis then exercised its discretion in how to use investors’ crypto assets to generate revenue and pay interest to Gemini Earn investors,” the SEC said in its complaint. Genesis, like CoinDesk, is owned by the Digital Currency Group (DCG).
While with the Earn program “the borrower and lender could choose to engage in subsequent transactions,” Gemini said in Friday’s filings that “it did not itself require any lending or borrowing by any party, and there was no way for a lender to transfer or assign it without the affirmative consent of all parties.”
Gemini further alleged the SEC’s treatment of the tri-party Master Digital Asset Loan Agreement (MDALA) contract between Genesis, Gemini and Earn users as an unregistered security “has no basis in law or fact.”
The SEC failed to “adequately plead” MDALA was a security and failed “to make non-conclusory allegations that the MDALA was sold to anyone, or that any party offered to sell it,” the document supporting a motion to dismiss said.
In its original complaint, the SEC noted Genesis held around $900 million in assets belonging to some 340,000 Gemini Earn investors, when it froze withdrawals from the platform in November shortly before filing for bankruptcy protection in the U.S.
“We allege that Genesis and Gemini offered unregistered securities to the public, bypassing disclosure requirements designed to protect investors,” SEC Chair Gary Gensler said at the time. Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss fired back at the suit, calling it a “manufactured parking ticket.”
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are changing the way we work – especially the media. Here are the rules of the road for CoinDesk.
New tools driven by artificial intelligence (AI) have been grabbing headlines over the past several months. The basic gist of these tools is that in response to specific prompts, they can “create” content (whether text, imagery or something else) much faster than a human ever could. Once they’ve been “trained” on extensive datasets, these tools can essentially predict what a user wants, often with stunning accuracy.
With the right set of queries, chatbots such as ChatGPT can write entire articles about specific topics in mere seconds. AI-driven image generators can instantaneously produce illustrations to represent abstract topics. Still other tools can synthesize video and audio content from the “raw material” of text and images.
This obviously has massive implications for creative fields, and in particular media organizations like CoinDesk. We’ve been researching AI tools for the past few months, while simultaneously observing how other media companies have been using AI. We want to empower our staff to take advantage of these tools to work more effectively and efficiently, but with a process that safeguards our readers from the well-documented problems that can arise with AI content – as well as the rights of the original content creators on which the generative content is based.
There are several use cases for AI in the process of creating content. This article deals with the main ones that are relevant to CoinDesk’s content team. It does not cover every use case, and does not speak to workflow outside of the process of content generation.
Generative text in articles
Current AI chatbots can create text from queries very quickly. Users can also customize the text with adjustments to the query — complexity, style, and overall length can all be specified.
However, an AI cannot contact sources or triage fast-breaking information reliably. While it performs some tasks extremely well, AI lacks the experience, judgment and capabilities of a trained journalist.
AI also makes mistakes, sometimes serious ones. Generative tools have been known to “hallucinate” incorrect facts and state them with confidence that they’re correct. They have occasionally been caught plagiarizing entire passages from source material. And even when the generated text is both original and factually correct, it can still feel bland or soulless.
At the same time, an AI can synthesize, summarize and format information about a subject far faster than a human ever could. AI can almost instantaneously create detailed writing on a specific subject that can then be fact-checked and edited. This has the potential to be particularly useful for explanatory content.
Given its limitations and the potential pitfalls, the writing of an AI should be seen as an early draft from an inexperienced writer. In more illustrative terms, an AI tool is comparable to an intern who can write really fast. The analogy is apt: Typically, interns need a great deal of supervision in their work. They are often unfamiliar with the area they’re writing about and the audience they’re writing for, occasionally leading to serious errors. The editor assigned to their work needs to edit their work carefully, check the underlying facts and help tailor the article to the audience.
However, with the right editing process, the work of an intern can be made publishable relatively quickly, especially if the intern has command of the English language (something AI excels at). Similarly, with the right safeguards in place that both prioritize a robust editing process and target the specific pitfalls of AI, we believe that sometimes using generative text in articles can help writers and editors publish more information faster than a purely human-driven process.
With that in mind, CoinDesk will allow generative text to be used in some articles, subject to the following rules. The generative text must be:
Given the requirements and the inherent limitations of AI with respect to the primary ingredients of journalism (e.g., talking to sources), the number of use cases for generative text are few. However, we see an opportunity for AI to assist in explanatory content, such as in this article here. In every case where generative text is used in the body of an article – whether in whole or in part – the AI’s contribution will be clear through both a disclosure at the bottom of the article and the AI’s byline: CoinDesk Bot.
Generative images
CoinDesk will immediately discontinue the use of generative images in content. This is due to pending litigation around the use of proprietary imagery as “training” for various AI-driven image generators. We might make an exception in the case when the point of the article is to discuss generative images and the images are used in a way that constitutes fair use, but these would be on a case-by-case basis.
Using a generative image tool to help “inspire” a work of art created by a human is generally OK (this is akin to doodling on scrap paper) with the caveat that the human-created image should not be a de facto copy of the AI-generated image.
Generative voices
AI tools can generate or use human-sounding voices to read copy, effectively turning articles into audio clips or podcasts. Though CoinDesk doesn’t currently employ these tools, we see the practice as an evolution of tools that already exist for the visually impaired. If possible, the use of an AI voice generator will be disclosed in the accompanying show notes.
Social copy
Social copy typically functions as a short summary of an article, crafted for a specific platform. Because of its short length, social copy is relatively easy to fact-check and edit, and some AI text tools may be adept at crafting text in the style of specific platforms. In addition, there is less expectation among social audiences that the text accompanying a linked story is original.
For these reasons, CoinDesk allows AI-generated social copy as long as the person preparing the post edits and fact-checks the copy (which is standard), and for the same reasons we don’t think disclosure is necessary (and would lead to some very clunky tweets). As with use in articles, using generative images in social posts is forbidden.
Headlines
Like social copy, headlines are quickly fact-checked and edited. Because editors will always be directing the process, we view AI-written headlines as suggestions and are thus allowed. Disclosure isn’t necessary because this process does not add any new information, and editors will always check the headlines for accuracy and style. This also applies to subheadings and short descriptions.
Assistance with research
AI may sometimes be able to assist in summarizing long documents such as court filings, research papers and press releases, among others. As long as no part of the text generated is copied to a published article, this is generally allowed with no disclosure needed, with two important caveats:
Recommended for you:
Diana Biggs: Building Early-Stage Ventures in Web3
Crypto Derivative Volumes Saw Speedy Growth as Prices Rose in January
El Salvador Pays Back $800M Maturing Bond, President Nayib Bukele Says
Join the Most Important Conversation in Crypto and Web3 in Austin, Texas April 26-28
AI-generated story ideas
Any ideas generated by an AI will inherently need to be vetted and researched by the reporter or editor, so this is allowed. Unless actual text generated by the AI ends up in the final article, it’s not required to disclose that the idea was originally suggested via AI (although the author still may want to do so).
The future
These are the rules of the road for CoinDesk as we travel forward into an AI-driven future. That road may change direction suddenly, expand to a multi-lane divided highway or perhaps even come to a dead end, so we expect these rules to evolve in the coming months and years. Regardless, we’re determined to tread into this new frontier, but to tread carefully. We want these rules to empower our content team to work smarter, using AI for the very specific tasks that machines are best at, so humans can focus on what they’re best at: journalism.
DWF Labs made headlines with more than $200 million of investments in crypto projects such as CryptoGPT or Synthetix. A closer examination reveals that many of their deals aren’t typical venture capital investments, but packaged with market making services, pledges to boost trading volume or even selling tokens directly for a project’s treasury. Industry experts claim red flags and conflict of interest, but the firm says it’s all a misunderstanding.
The giants of crypto venture capital are mostly a well-known group of firms that’ve been around for years, companies like A16Z, Paradigm, Pantera Capital and Digital Currency Group (CoinDesk’s parent).
So the quick and loud emergence of a firm called DWF Labs as a seemingly large player in the space over the past few months caught many by surprise. They announced through press releases and media organizations like CoinDesk and The Block a slew of investments in projects including $40 million for internet alternative provider Tomi, $40 million for artificial intelligence-related token Fetch.AI and $10 million in AI-focused crypto data project CryptoGPT.
But a closer examination reveals DWF, whose founders made their money as crypto high-frequency traders, isn’t exactly a venture capital firm – not always, at least.
While the recent slew of headlines refer to DWF’s partnerships with crypto projects as ‘investments,’ DWF Labs actually functions more similarly to an over-the-counter (OTC) trading desk. The company typically approaches a crypto project with a token, and offers to buy millions worth of the token at a discount to market value, according to conversations with several crypto projects that have worked with DWF.
But DWF Labs says it’s all a misunderstanding. “There might be some questions on the use of the word investment,” said DWF Labs Partner Stefano Virgilli. “When we use the word ‘investment’ – to us the most important thing is that if we’re purchasing the tokens and they’re using the funds to further develop, that’s an investment,” he added.
The controversy
Investments in crypto projects typically follow a venture capital model. Projects tap venture firms for capital via funding rounds (i.e. pre-seed, seed, Series A, etc.) and, in turn, the investors receive a portion of the project’s equity. In most cases, particularly in early stage investments where a project has not yet launched a token, investors will receive a Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT), a contract that outlines the tokens allocated to the investor if the project launches a token in the future.
DWF Labs’ investments are more ad hoc in nature and the company primarily selects for projects that have already launched a token.
While DWF Labs refers to itself as “a global web3 venture capital and market maker” or “multi-stage web3 investment firm” in press releases, the deals are often presented as “strategic partnerships” that can include token acquisitions, market making services, pledges to boost a token’s liquidity and trading volume, and additional support with marketing and media presence.
Even helping projects’ treasuries to sell their token holdings, according to the press release the firm distributed about its launch in September.
In the post, the firm said that “DWF Labs invests in digital asset companies and supports existing markets, enabling digital asset companies to sell their tokens for up-front capital without adverse price impact,” adding that “DWF Labs buys tokens with its own funds, allowing its corporate customers to sell tokens quickly.”
It is quite common in the crypto industry for market making firms to have venture capital arms. Jump Crypto and Wintermute, two heavyweights in the crypto market-making sector, both began as trading firms. But both have since expanded into cutting venture checks for projects, and even building their own pieces of core infrastructure (Jump has backed the Wormhole cross-chain bridge and Wintermute has launched its own decentralized exchange).
However, the industry standard is that these contracts should be separated. Even though the lines between the two divisions can be blurred sometimes by the market makers, some industry observers have grown concerned about DWF’s recent activity and seemingly packaging different services under partnerships.
“It’s a massive conflict of interest,” Walter Teng, research firm Fundstrat’s vice president of digital assets, told CoinDesk. “If you invest, you want the token’s price to go up. If you market make, you can manipulate the price to go up by spoofing.”
“All of their ‘investments’ are poorly disguised agency OTC (over-the-counter) trades,” a market making firm’s executive told CoinDesk, who asked not to be named due to company policy. “They make a big announcement about ‘partnerships, investments’ or some other nonsense, but in reality it is a way for token projects to sell their treasury without announcing that they are selling their treasury.”
DWF’s managing partner Andrei Grachev defended the firm’s token maneuvers in a recent tweet, calling it “dumb” if a market maker (MM) leaves all the acquired or borrowed assets in a wallet, because an “MM should create markets, provide depth, improve order execution instead of doing nothing and waiting when the market is skyrocketing to execute its call options.”
DWF Labs’ strategy
DWF Labs launched in September, as an investment-focused arm of Digital Wave Finance, a top high-frequency trading firm that trades spot and derivatives on over 40 exchanges, according to the firm’s press release.
Grachev told CoinDesk that DWF Labs’ funding comes from the money earned from profits of the high-frequency trading business. Grachev denied that the firm has received any funding from Russia, a rumor circling within the crypto industry.
Grachev said that the firm has multiple types of investments, some with token lock-ups, others without vesting period, and focuses on projects with tokens. “We prefer to have tokens but we also have several equity deals,” said. “But frankly with equity…it is not our strong side,” he said.
While he said that DWF Labs “usually do not include market making deals in our venture side,” later, he admitted that “we have pure investments without market making, we have market making [agreements] without investment, and we have [them] combined.”
“As a market maker, of course we support our portfolio. If we invest, we will provide much more liquidity to the project compared to if we don’t invest,” Grachev said.
When asked about DWF’s investment strategy and due diligence, Grachev talked about focusing on five sectors – TradFi, DeFi, GameFi, CEXs and artificial intelligence – and aiming to “have stakes in all major chains (…) in order to have access to their ecosystems.” The firm looks for projects with “life and traction,” he said, checking social media posts and what exchanges their token is listed on.
“If a project is listed on BitFinex, Coinbase or Binance, then the project is proven and good because these exchanges have very strict due diligence and very strict policies of listing,” he added.
Grachev also said DWF doesn’t usually participate in specific venture rounds. “We just approach them,” he says.
CoinDesk viewed a series of messages between DWF Labs and a crypto project that showed a member of the DWF Labs team offering to invest in the project and provide free market-making services. DWF told the project it could invest via a direct OTC purchase of liquid tokens from the project’s treasury, or with a lock-up period and market-making services.
Messages from the market maker to another project showed that DWF offered to buy tokens in daily tranches without any lock-up period at a discount or in one installment with a one-year lock-up at a steeper discount. According to the message, DWF promised to help list the token on Korean exchanges including Binance Korea which the firm has “good relationship” with, create options trading and “build narrative” leveraging DWF’s team and media presence.
There were several past announcements when DWF mashed investments and market-making deals.
One instance was its strategic partnership announcement with derivatives trading platform Synthetix. According to a press release on March 16, the firm said it acquired $15 million of the project’s native token SNX “aimed at boosting liquidity and market making,” adding a quote from Grachev that “we are thrilled to invest in Synthetix.”
Blockchain data shows that DFW’s wallet – labeled by crypto intelligence firm Nansen – received 5.3 millions of SNX directly from Synthetix’s treasury wallet between March 14 and March 16. Then, the firm transferred all tokens to Binance in multiple transactions between March 16 and 20.
Transactions between DWF Labs and Synthetix treasury. (Nansen)
In November, DWF announced a $10 million investment in the TON ecosystem. The firm’s press release said that the “strategic partnership” with the project extends to “an investment, token development, market creation and exchange listing.” The partnership also includes “50 seed investments scheduled over the next 12 months,” doubling the TON token’s trading volume in the first three months of the partnership, and developing an OTC market “to let buyers and sellers complete large transactions.”
Another case is the firm’s investment into web3 influencer platform So-Col. According to a story by crypto-focused publication The Block and cited on DWF’s website, DWF invested $1.5 million in “a round” by purchasing So-Col’s native token SIMP in February. Irene Zhao, So-Col’s founder, said that the tokens have a one-year vesting period ending in February 2024. The post does not mention other services besides investing.
However, Nansen’s blockchain data on the Ethereum blockchain shows that DWF’s crypto wallet received 3.3 million SIMP tokens between March 6 and March 24. Within the same period, DWF sent some 2.6 million tokens to KuCoin exchange, then transferred the rest to an unknown wallet on March 30. After the announcement on March 28, SIMP almost doubled from around 1.7 cents in a week, then started to plummet on April 4 towards 1 cent, per CoinGecko data.
CoinDesk reviewed Telegram messages of a So-Col representative saying that they decided to work with DWF Labs because besides serving as a market maker DWF also invested in the project directly helping to extend the startup’s runway.
Sending tokens to exchanges
Grachev said that DWF Labs keeps most of its funds and investments on centralized exchanges (CEXs) and transferring tokens to an exchange does not indicate the company will sell.
“We keep all of our inventory, almost all of our inventory, not only our investments but our own funds on exchanges,” he said.
However, keeping supposedly long-term investments on exchanges is a worrying sign for some industry experts, hidden from savvy blockchain analysts and traders whether DWF sells tokens or uses them for market making purposes.
“It’s a red flag,” a founder, who asked to remain anonymous, of a crypto analytics firm with former market making experience told CoinDesk. “They [DWF Labs] market them as an investment, and then claim to do ‘market making’ so they can keep funds on exchanges and just dump.”
It’s hard to opine on where a firm like DWF should draw the line between VC and market making. Perhaps, a page from the TradFi banking playbook could work. In that realm, investment banking and trading/research is separated by a so-called Chinese wall. Where that line might need to be drawn for crypto investment firms is unclear.
Recommended for you:
El Salvador Grants First Digital Asset License to Bitfinex
I Made an NFT Collection to Represent My Student Loan Debt
Stepn Parent Company Launches NFT Marketplace
Join the Most Important Conversation in Crypto and Web3 in Austin, Texas April 26-28
In the interview, Grachev admits his “biggest mistake” was not properly explaining his firm’s operating philosophy and investment process. “We need to be more open. I want [the community] to know how we work and then let people decide who is right and who is not right,” he said.
