Tag Archives: #Digital Assets

What “wallet” it say about you?

Posted on by
Reply

Just as your e-mail domain name can say a lot about how/when you first got online, I have a theory that our choice of digital wallet will also reflect our blockchain, crypto and web3 profile. (Remember those early ISPs and e-mail services such as AOL, Lycos, Compuserve and Pacific Internet?)

Part of the challenge with early digital wallets was the UX/UI – before the advent of software, browser-based and hardware wallets, users relied on “paper wallets” to manage their private keys. The first software wallets needed to be set up very carefully, so that your seed phrase or private key was not stranded on an abandoned hard drive, and thus lost forever. I think the first BTC wallet I used was CoPay, which was an early multi-sig wallet, but which has largely been discontinued. The arrival of browser extensions such as MetaMask have made a difference when it comes to bridging between chains, and managing a wider range of assets.

Even though there is more interoperability between digital wallets (cross-chain, multi-asset), dedicated applications are still needed for BTC and other chains. Also, some use cases (iGaming, web3/DeFi) may demand more specific wallets to support particular functionality. But like many crypto users, I still maintain about 6 different applications, including exchange-based wallets.

I suppose the eventual user experience will be a seamless transition between crypto, web3, DeFi, TradFi, NFTs and RWAs. But until then, stay safe and make sure you know where your private keys are at all times!

Next week: Signing off for 2024….

 

 

Ticket scalpers? Blockchain could fix that!

Posted on by
Reply

Music fans of a certain age and demographic have been complaining loudly about the use of “dynamic pricing” when trying to buy tickets for their favourite band’s highly anticipated reunion tour. (There must be a pun in there about “Don’t book online in anger”?)

Part of the rationale given for using a demand-based pricing system is to disincentivise scalpers. The higher the cost of the ticket in the primary market (not the same as the ticket’s face value), the smaller the potential mark-up in the secondary market. Except that some tickets with a face value of $150 were priced at $450 at the box office, only to be re-advertised in the secondary market for several thousand dollars. In other words, the touts have simply increased their margins, in response to the so-called dynamic pricing mechanism.

Without offering any sort of apology or mea culpa, the said band have now announced additional tour dates, tickets for which will be allocated and sold in a form of ballot. Stop me if you think I’m being cynical, but by quickly adding dates to an existing tour itinerary, it shows that the band knew there would be excess demand, because it’s not that easy to reserve major (and highly profitable) venues, even 12 months in advance. And if they can run a ballot system now, why couldn’t they have done that in the first place?

All of which simply shows how out of touch bands like this are with technology and market dynamics. In short, ticket sales and allocations could have been achieved far more equitably if the band and their promoters had chosen to use blockchain, crypto and web3.0 solutions.

Here’s a simple list of options that could have been used:

1. Issue all tickets as NFTs (non-fungible tokens)

2. Limit the number of tickets per digital wallet and/or the number of wallets per ticket buyer

3. Ensure the use of soul-bound tokens to link wallet ownership and ID to specific individuals (to limit the number of tickets per wallet, and to limit the resale of tickets)

4. Run social media campaigns, quests and airdrops to allocate and distribute tokens that entitle holders to a place in the ticket queue – e.g., the more active a wallet holder is in the band’s fan community, the higher their chance of securing a priority place in the ticket queue

5. Pre-publish the expected ticket price ranges, and enable wallet holders to vote on the minimum/maximum price they would be willing to pay (using something like Snapshot)

6. Cap the amount an NFT-based ticket can be sold for in the secondary market or write the token smart contract to allocate a percentage of the resale value as a commission to the ticket issuer

Of course, the UK competition regulators are taking a close look at this ticketing fiasco, to see if so-called dynamic pricing breached fair trading or other consumer protection laws. If punters were not aware that they may have to pay far more than the advertised or face value of a ticket, this would appear to be unfair and unconscionable conduct. It’s potentially a form of under-quoting – advertise the ticket at a artificially low price, then force buyers to pay well over the face value at the actual point of sale (under the guise of “market demand”), knowing full well that the fans had little or no choice in the matter.

One final thought – knowing the volatile history of this band, the chances are that the concerts (or at least some of them) may be cancelled. Hopefully, the ticket agent and box office operators won’t be counting the advance ticket sales as recognised revenue, rather they are required to hold the funds in a verified escrow account until the performances are delivered and the ticket revenue actually earned….. (again, something that could be easily factored into a smart contract – no release of funds until the loud-mouth sings?).

Next week: Cooking the books?

 

 

 

Notes from Hong Kong

Posted on by
Reply

My personal relationship with Hong Kong stretches back 30 years – to the time I moved there from London in 1994. I arrived on a 1-2 year contract, and ended up living in the city for 6 years. Since then, I have continued to visit at least once a year, and my latest trip earlier this month was the fifth since hotel quarantine was lifted in October 2022, following the global pandemic.

Despite the significant political, demographic, social and economic upheavals of recent years, in many ways Hong Kong remains the same. It still acts as a fulcrum between East and West, and an important trading entrepôt for mainland China and the rest of the world. There are still the evident paradoxes represented by Hong Kong’s ancient traditions and modern values, combining spiritual beliefs with materialistic tastes, and vertiginous high-rises set against mountainous backdrops and waterfront vistas.

From an economic standpoint, Hong Kong remains in something of a lull. People I spoke to commented that the SAR government needs to find new sources of income, especially as the property market (a cornerstone of the local stock exchange) remains patchy, and visitor numbers are only about 50% of pre-pandemic levels.

As I have mentioned in a previous blog, Hong Kong is usually resilient and adept at reinventing its financial fortunes.

For these reasons, the Hong Kong administration is pursuing a fairly aggressive policy of promoting itself as an attractive global venue for the digital asset industry in part to reinvigorate the local capital markets, in part to outpace its regional neighbour and rival, Singapore. (Plus, the SAR acts as something of a test bed for the rest of the PRC.) According to people I spoke with, there is some difference of opinion as to how many digital asset exchanges are actively pursuing a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) license, given that only two licenses have been granted so far, while a number of applications have been withdrawn, refused or rejected for being incomplete.

During my visit, I was granted a 1:1 interview for Brave New Coin with Yat Siu, co-founder and Chairman of Animoca Brands, a leading player in web3.0, NFTs, the metaverse and, potentially, stablecoin issuance. A major advocate of digital property rights, Siu is a very influential figure within the fintech scene, and I expect to see many more announcements from his company leading up to, and during, major events such as Token2049 and Hong Kong Fintech Week. I also met with clients and contacts across crypto exchanges, hedge funds, VCs, brokers and tech providers. All remain suitably bullish on the digital asset sector, although some considered that there needs to be some industry consolidation, to soak up excess infrastructure and to stabilise the entry of institutional fund managers.

Finaly, I found time for some contemporary art exhibitions, confirming that Hong Kong continues to establish its profile in the arena of global culture. There was Bruce Nauman at the JC Contemporary in Tai Kwun, I.M.Pei and Henry Steiner at M+, and even Banksy and Damien Hirst at Sotheby’s Maison at Chater House. Of course, this being Hong Kong, the displays in Sotheby’s showrooms are not too dissimilar to the luxury goods on sale in the surrounding malls.

Next week: Postcript on Tarantino vs Ritchie

 

Digital Identity – Wallets are the key?

Posted on by
Reply

A few months ago, I wrote about trust and digital identity – the issue of who “owns” our identity, and why the concept of “self-sovereign digital identity” can help resolve problems of data security and data privacy.

The topic was aired at a recent presentation made by FinTech advisor, David Birch (hosted at Novatti) to an audience of Australian FinTech, Blockchain and identity experts.

David’s main thesis is that digital wallets will sit at the centre of the metaverse – linking web3 with digital assets and their owners. Wallets will not only be the “key” to transacting with digital assets (tokens), but proving “identity” will confirm “ownership” (or “control”) of wallets and their holdings.

The audience felt that in Australia, we face several challenges to the adoption of digital identity (and by extension, digital wallets):

1. Lack of common technical standards and lack of interoperability

2. Poor experience of government services (the nightmare that is myGov…)

3. Private sector complacency and the protected incumbency of oligopolies

4. Absence of incentives and overwhelming inertia (i.e., why move ahead of any government mandate?)

The example was given of a local company that has built digital identity solutions for consumer applications – but apparently, can’t attract any interest from local banks.

A logical conclusion from the discussion is that we will maintain multiple digital identities (profiles) and numerous digital wallets (applications), for different purposes. I don’t see a problem with this as long as individuals get to decide who, where, when and for how long third parties get to access our personal data, and for what specific purposes.

Next week: Defunct apps and tech projects