Mexico’s second-richest man invests 10% of his liquid portfolio in Bitcoin

Mexico’s second-richest man invests 10% of his liquid portfolio in Bitcoin

Ricardo Salinas Pliego, the second-wealthiest man in Mexico, has revealed that 10% of his “liquid portfolio” is invested in Bitcoin (BTC).

The billionaire shared a video captured in “a Latin country” depicting banks throwing out garbage bags filled with paper money into a dumpster. He asserted that “paper money is worth nothing,” adding: “That is why it is always good to diversify our investment portfolio.”

The video appears to show bags of Venezuelan bolivars being thrown out, including 10,000 bolivar notes issued in 2016 and 2017 — before the country redenominated its banknotes in 2018 amid an escalating inflation crisis.

Three hours later, Pliego then tweeted a recommendation for the book The Bitcoin Pattern, asserting that “Bitcoin protects the citizen from government expropriation” and revealing his cryptocurrency investment:

Hoy les recomiendo EL PATRÓN BITCOIN, este libro es el mejor y más importante para entender #Bitcoin.

El Bitcoin protege al ciudadano de la expropiación gubernamental.

Muchas personas me preguntan si tengo bitcoins, SÍ. Tengo el 10% de mi portafolio líquido invertido en el

— Ricardo Salinas Pliego (@RicardoBSalinas) November 17, 2020

According to a translation provided by Google, the tweet stated:

“Today I recommend THE BITCOIN PATTERN, this book is the best and most important to understand #Bitcoin. Bitcoin protects the citizen from government expropriation. Many people ask me if I have bitcoins, YES. I have 10% of my liquid portfolio invested.”

Crypto Twitter reacted gleefully to the news that the world 166th-wealthiest citizen is significantly invested in Bitcoin, with Kraken’s Dan Held proclaiming that, “The institutional herd is stampeding.”

Pliego responded to Held, saying that institutional adoption had manifested gradually since the launch of Grayscale’s Bitcoin Investment Trust in 2016.

The billionaire also noted that the remaining 90% of his liquid portfolio is invested “in precious metals miners.”

Pliego was born in 1955 in Mexico City and is the founder and chairman of Grupo Salinas — which owns businesses in media, telecommunications, finance, and retail.

Salinas is also the chairman of TV Azteca, the second-largest producer of Spanish-language programming worldwide, and the second-largest media company in Mexico.


Author: admin

Best Defi Interoperability Solutions - Exploring Fusion vs Cosmos vs Polkadot | Sponsored Bitcoin News

Best Defi Interoperability Solutions – Exploring Fusion vs Cosmos vs Polkadot | Sponsored Bitcoin News

After the famous bull market of 2017, the cryptocurrency market experienced a very long and harsh bear market. Whilst this makes for a complicated period for investors, it’s not a complete tragedy; even if prices have been disappointing, fundamentals, on the other hand, have never been so strong. The blockchain universe has never been as innovative and competitive, and this article is here to prove it by comparing three innovative projects: Fusion, Cosmos and Polkadot.

These three projects were chosen because they are perfectly positioned to have a major role in the blockchain space of tomorrow. In addition to being infrastructure projects and having development platforms, they are also specialized in interoperability, a niche that will undoubtedly have an essential role as linking mechanisms not only between blockchains, but, importantly, between blockchains and traditional finance.

This article will begin by talking briefly about the three projects, their goals, and what they could bring to the blockchain space if they succeed. Then, the three projects will be compared on interoperability, technology and applications, community involvement, and defi and traditional finance. Comparing these different aspects will assistyour research and help you make the right decisions when adding Defi projects to your investment portfolio.

Fusion is an interoperability project with a primary goal of placing blockchain technology at the center of global finance. DJ Qian, CEO and founder of Fusion, is one of the pioneers in blockchain research and mining in China. He’s also the founder of BitSE, the incubator of famous blockchain projects such as Qtum and VeChain. Fusion leverages contributions from its large and dedicated community.

Fusion offers a “true” interoperability based on cryptography through its patented DCRM technology and other unique technological concepts such as the Time-Lock function.

These technological tools allow Fusion to have applications on a variety of scales:

– On a small scale: The unique way of staking using time-lock, or interoperability between different isolated blockchains allows them to communicate and exchange data and value.

– On a large scale: By enabling blockchain applications to conduct any traditional financial operation, the Fusion ecosystem could even be used in the case of Smart Cities; by allowing the different systems of a given city to communicate via network interoperability combined with Multi Triggering Mechanism technology (the next generation of smart contracts).

Cosmos is a similar project to Polkadot, specializing in interoperability, and it has a quality team. The project aims to create an ecosystem that links different siloed blockchains.

From an architectural point of view, Cosmos is composed of the Tendermint core which is common to all the blockchains of the network, and a blockchain development platform called “Cosmos SDK” which supports the programming language Golang. Regarding dApps, Cosmos allows development in Solidity, through the implementation of Ethermint, an EVM based blockchain.

Cosmos hopes to ensure the interoperability of its network through the Inter Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol. It will also allow connection to live blockchains through peg zones.

Polkadot is another promising interoperability project, its ICO one of the biggest ICOs in 2017, raising $145 million. Almost $91 million of ETH was frozen following the Parity Bug. It’s evident that Polkadot has been through some ups and downs in its time, however, the team is still committed to delivering on the project’s promises.

The Polkadot project is supported by a good technical team led by Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum. Through its interoperability feature, Polkadot will allow the transfer of data and value between the different blockchains of its ecosystem. It is a very development-oriented project and many teams have elected to build on Substrate, Polkadot’s technology for creating Blockchains.

Polkadot is therefore a serious competitor to Ethereum, with the Polkadot team putting a lot of effort into making their platform as developer-friendly as possible.

With the main idea of each project covered, let’s get straight to business and start off the comparison!

The Comparison: Fusion vs Cosmos vs Polkadot


Interoperability is the key technology at the heart of this comparison; it is the niche of all three projects so it would be impossible to compare them without drilling down on this specific aspect.

So, are there any differences between the interoperability of Fusion, Cosmos and Polkadot?

The answer is yes, there are fundamental differences. In the introduction to Fusion, it was described as having “true” interoperability. Well, this word was chosen with reason!

Fusion offers a unique cryptographic interoperability solution based on DCRM (Distributed Control Rights Management). A technology that has been designed and developed by a group of highly respected and world leading cryptographers.

DCRM technology uses the LILO (Lock In – Lock out) function to manage your assets in a decentralized way. DCRM ensures the security of your private key through two distinct cryptographic mechanisms:

-Private Key Sharding: The process of sharding the private key into several pieces, so that at no point in time is the key completely visible.

-Distributed Storage: Through sharding, the private key is never completely visible. This is ensured by the distributed storage feature (also called Threshold Secret Sharing), which allows for the distribution of the pieces of the private key between several random nodes. No transfer or assembly of private key shards can occur between these nodes.

Private key sharding diagram

By using the lock-in function, your assets will be mapped, and their private key will be secured in a decentralized way by the cryptographic mechanisms previously mentioned. You can then use your mapped assets in the Fusion ecosystem to interoperate and exchange value and data with other assets (while also benefiting from the suite offeatures offered by the Fusion platform and designed to enable any financial operation, an aspect discussed later in this article). To “Lock-Out”, the distributed control rights are dismantled and the control of your private key is returned to you, at this point you can then freely withdraw your assets.

That’s how Fusion’s interoperability works in a nutshell. Now, let’s explore Cosmos and Polkadot’s interoperability; for this part of the comparison, they will be grouped together as their concepts are quite similar.

Basically, the interoperability of both Cosmos and Polkadot is founded on the concept of a “Relay chain and sidechains”. It is probably more accurate to term this as “compatibility”, rather than interoperability. This is due to the fact that a compatibility system forces the other chains of the system to adopt a certain standard, makingcommunication and exchange less flexible and more complicated than cryptographic interoperability.

Polkadot’s compatibility model is based on a central “Relay Chain” or mother chain, and chains built on top of it called “Parachains”. The chains communicate via chain relays, each parachain can join the ecosystem simply by bonding and holding DOTs (Polkadot’s native cryptocurrency). This helps to strengthen the network and the trust between the chains. Polkadot leverages this trust by establishing a shared security model that facilitates communication and exchange of data and value ​​between the different chains.

The compatibility model of Cosmos Network also relies on a central Hub, the Cosmos Hub and Zones (the equivalent of Polkadot’s Parachains). Cosmos uses the Inter Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol to connect the central Hub to the Zones. A connection between the Cosmos Hub and a Zone does not require Atom coins (Cosmos’ native cryptocurrency), but uses governance instead, to decide whether the Cosmos Hub should connect to a Zone or not.

Cosmos relay chain/sidechains model – Source : Cosmos whitepaper

As you can see, the Cosmos and Polkadot architecture imposes its own standards, holding a certain amount of DOTs for Polkadot, and governance to decide about connections for Cosmos. This is why this model of communication between chains should be considered as a “compatibility model”. Also, Cosmos does not use a shared security model: chains have to use their own security, meaning there will be different levels of security within the ecosystem and, as a result, trust and communication will be much more complicated.

Concluding the topic on interoperability, Fusion is definitely the winner of this round. It is a project which offers real interoperability based on cryptography, and an architecture that is truly decentralized, imposing no standard to the participants of its ecosystem.

2- Technology and Applications

It’s always important to talk about the features of a Blockchain, but, in the end, if these features do not bring anything new to the blockchain space or are not likely to be widely adopted they quickly become meaningless. This section of the comparison focuses on the general approach of each project, looking at how innovative these projects are and their real world applications.

Fusion provides for true interoperability between different siloed blockchains, but it is not limited to this; the main purpose of the project is to link the blockchain space to traditional financial structures. On the other side, Cosmosand Polkadot both market themselves as the “internet of blockchains”, compared to Fusions broader vision marketing itself as “a cryptofinance platform”.

So, what do these differences really mean? Are the three projects able to achieve their goals?

Yes. Fusion, Cosmos, and Polkadot are all excellent projects, their teams are highly qualified, and they have strong and dedicated communities to support them. So, yes, they can clearly achieve their goals and keep their promises.

However, as you saw in the interoperability section, Cosmos and Polkadot are quite similar in their concepts and in their goals. Both projects are trying to attract developers and projects to build on top of their blockchains, they are trying to make their platform as developer-friendly as possible. They do not state it openly, but their objective is clear: to dethrone Ethereum by building a larger ecosystem that has fewer limits.

The goal of Fusion is even more ambitious, it is not limited to engaging with an already existing market (in the same way that Cosmos and Polkadot are engaging with Ethereum’s market). Rather, Fusion is trying to expand the blockchain market in general, and to link with the traditional financial market.

In addition to interoperability, Fusion offers an unprecedented technology called Time Lock. This protocol level functionality makes it possible for the very first time to use the blockchain to carry out time-dependent financial operations such as: loans, investments, and mortgages. These operations are facilitated by a multiple triggering mechanism (MTM) which is a kind of “next generation smart contract”.

This protocol level technology enables the easy utilization of the time dimension within smart contracts. It also makes it possible to link several smart contracts in sequence, for instance a smart contract could be triggered by an event that occurred in another smart contract. Fusion can therefore carry out complicated financial operations such as derivatives and bonds in a secure and reliable way.

Cosmos and Polkadot also stand out for their blockchain development and dApps platforms. Polkadot uses the language Rust, but also WebAssembly, a language that is supported by Google and Microsoft. Cosmos uses Golang for blockchain development and Solidity through Ethermint for dApps development.

So, when it comes to innovation and real world applications, Cosmos and Polkadot are more focused on blockchain development and replacing Ethereum, whereas Fusion undoubtedly has a larger scope. In addition to blockchain development, the project is building links between blockchain and traditional finance via the tools and the unique technology it has developed.

Therefore, the project that has the most innovative technology and wider scope is Fusion, winning the round once again!

3-Community Involvement

This aspect is very important for any project; it is essential to have a community that is passionate about the development of the project and its technology, a community that does not focus solely on price variations. By joining the three communities on Telegram, you will quickly understand how well these projects are supported by their respective communities.

The teams of Fusion, Polkadot, and Cosmos are aware of this, and work hard to accomplish project milestones, working closely with their communities to deliver on their promises. A good example of this would be Fusion’s open-source community campaign, a program that the Fusion board uses to reward project development. When it comes to community involvement, all three projects are great, therefore, this round ends in a draw.

4- Defi and traditional finance

If you’ve read this far, my guess is that you already know which project is more focused on Defi, and yes, you’re right, it’s Fusion!

Currently, it is impossible to compare different projects without mentioning Defi (or Decentralized Finance), a very hot topic in the blockchain space. Cosmos and Polkadot are not Defi-oriented projects, but, just like Ethereum, it is possible to create dApps specializing in Defi on top of their platforms.

However, when it comes to Fusion, Defi is baked in to their protocol, thereby creating many more opportunities as it is a Defi-oriented interoperability project. As explained earlier, Fusion technology (DCRM, MTM and Time-Lock) makes it possible to carry out, via the blockchain, traditional financial transactions such as: borrowing, lending, derivatives, mortgages, and more.

Fusion is once again the winner when it comes to Defi.

Market Position

The majority of people involved in blockchain are rightly convinced that this technology will change tomorrow’s world. By investing in the ICO of a project, especially knowing the risks associated with ICOs, an investor proves that they supports this particular project and believes in the honesty of the team. This is also the case when the coin is on the market and investors buy it from an exchange. It makes perfect sense to hope that this investment generates long-term profits for early participants.

Comparing the three projects that we are discussing in this article, the situation is somewhat interesting. According to Coinmarketcap Cosmos is currently amongst the top 30 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization. Polkadot is not on the market yet, but it will more than likely be in the top 20 directly after its listing on exchanges. Most surprising of all, however, is Fusion’s very low market cap – just incredible!

It should be noted that in the cryptocurrency market, everything can change overnight, and an undervalued project can quickly correct to its true market cap, meaning it is possible this situation may be temporary.

Fusion’s currently low market cap can be seen as simultaneously good and bad news. Bad news because the market seems unaware of this exceptional project, but good news in that it’s highly undervalued.

As always, please do your own due diligence, however, investment in Fusion certainly has the potential for massive returns and it can be argued that of these three projects, Fusion has the greatest potential for life changing gains.

Cosmos and Polkadot are clearly potential competitors for Ethereum, although their platforms are more developer-friendly than Ethereum’s, meaning they may take part of Ethereum’s market in the years to come. However, on the downside, their interoperability solution is not convenient for projects that would want be part of their ecosystems.

Fusion, on the other hand, is an incredibly impressive project. It offers an interoperability based on cryptography and is therefore very convenient for projects and users of its ecosystem. Fusion also has much broader ambitions than Cosmos and Polkadot; it is a Defi-oriented project and it is targeting a bigger market by trying to link blockchains to traditional finance through the unique technology of DCRM, Time-Lock, and MTM.

Finally, to an investor who has done some research and compared the current market cap of these projects and the technologies they offer, it should be clear that Fusion has much more upside potential than both Cosmos and Polkadot.



Fusion website :

Fusion whitepaper :


Polkadot website :

Polkadot whitepaper :


Introducing the Internet of Blockchains: How the Cosmos Network makes blockchain truly scalable

This is a sponsored post. Learn more on how to reach our audience here. Read disclaimer below.

Purchase Bitcoin without visiting a cryptocurrency exchange. Buy BTC and BCH here.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.


Author: by PR

Ethereum price jumps to $465 as bulls eye breakout to $500

Ethereum price jumps to $465 as bulls eye breakout to $500

If Ethereum bulls clear resistance near $485, the next barrier will be around $530

Ethereum (ETH) price is up by about 4.5% in the past 24 hours to change hands around $465 at the time of writing.

If ETH continues to rise short term, the momentum could take it above a crucial resistance line. After this, bulls are likely to aim for the psychological $500, with the breakout bringing into play the next resistance area around $530.

Ethereum remains within an ascending parallel channel on the hourly chart.

The ETH/USD pair is trading near the middle line of the channel. However, the upside continues to stall below the upper limit, which bounds action at $485.

Bulls have previously attempted to break to the boundary or higher on multiple occasions over the past few days without success.

But with price inching higher on the hourly chart, it looks like the prevailing bullish momentum will be enough to take ETH/USD over the threshold.

ETH currently trades near $465 and likely will test bear resolve at the upper boundary of the indicator. The 100 hourly simple moving average and the upward pressure means the short term target is to break above the trendline and consolidate near the $500 price line.

Once bulls clear the trendline resistance and make the 100-SMA a major support zone, the next barrier is around $530.

On the flip side, the short term view will turn negative if bulls fail to keep gains above the middle line of the channel.

More importantly, ETH needs to stay above the 100-SMA for bulls to retain their upper hand. If sellers succeed in pushing the ETH/USD pair lower, losses may extend beyond $450. A more realistic support base is near $440, which is also the base of the parallel channel.

Elsewhere in the market, Bitcoin (BTC) has touched highs of $16,750 and could soon break above $17K. Meanwhile, Litecoin (LTC) is outperforming most large cap altcoins with a 15% price jump to see bulls eye a break to $80.00.


Here’s Why Crypto Analysts Are Divided Over The Future Of Altcoins –

Here’s Why Crypto Analysts Are Divided Over The Future Of Altcoins –

Over the last few weeks, Bitcoin has been rising without pause, absorbing all of the capital out of the crypto market and causing altcoins to bleed on BTC pairs.

BTC dominance finds itself at a crucial resistance level, and some of the brightest and best crypto analysts in the community, are divided over the future of altcoins. Here’s what they are saying, and what to expect in the short-term in the always unusual relationship between Bitcoin and alts.

Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency to be created, and due to this, it enjoys all the first-mover advantage benefits that come along with it. It has the widest adoption and regulatory acceptance, and the largest chunk of the cryptocurrency market share.

bitcoin btc dominance cryptocap-btc d altcoins td9

The TD Sequential 9 sell setup works reliably on BTC dominance | Source: CRYPTOCAP-BTC.D on

Some analysts swear by charting BTC dominance to discover divergences in the relationship between Bitcoin and altcoins, while others claim it is useless. However, if it isn’t valuable for technical analysis, then it is strange it responds so well to support and resistance levels and other common chart signals, as evident in the chart above.

The TD Sequential indicator also works well on BTC.D weekly timeframes, giving the value of timing BTC pairs using the metric added credence. In the past, it acted as an almost flawless sell setup, calling nearly every top in BTC dominance except one on the weekly scale.

As for last night’s candle open, an “imperfect” 9 sell setup has appeared. A rise to over 66.5% dominance before the end of the week, would cause the indicator to light up with highlighted green, pictured above in other instances where the TD Sequential triggered.

A recent analysis of the TD Sequential on BTCUSD monthly timeframes shows that although the signal is incredibly reliable when it does fail, it leads to an even larger impulse.

9 buy or sell setups are also not nearly effective when the strength of the prior trend was particularly strong – even if the setup is perfected. If the trend leading up to the sell setup was that powerful, the signal is ignored and the asset keeps on climbing.

This sort of behavior also happened on BTC dominance, depicted by the red arrow on the left below. The prior trend reversing from the crypto bubble popping, was so strong, although a perfected 8 and 9 sell setup triggered on the weekly, Bitcoin kept climbing. From the moment the 8 sell setup appeared, dominance grew 35%.

bitcoin btc dominance cryptocap-btc d altcoins td9

But when it fails, a larger impulse ensues - what happens this time?  | Source: CRYPTOCAP-BTC.D on

After a pullback, the final height of the up-move reached as high as 58%, taking BTC dominance to a peak of 73%. The number is the highest point since prior to the 2017 crypto bubble when altcoins outpaced BTC by astronomical figures.

The other side of the argument, expects altcoins to bleed out hard into one final drop against BTC until Bitcoin clears its former all-time high, tips off the mainstream public about the new bull run, and retail investors come back into the cheaper subset of coins en masse.

Featured image from Deposit Photos, Charts from


Cryptocurrency Volumes Drop Further in October 2020

Cryptocurrency Volumes Drop Further in October 2020

Cryptocurrency exchanges went through another fall in October volumes, according to a new report by Cryptocompare.

CryptoCompare today published its monthly Exchange Review, which offers widely-quoted insights into the cryptocurrency exchange industry as well as changes to exchanges’ metrics that make up the data provider’s price indices.

Key findings from the October review show that volume on crypto derivatives exchanges fell by 2.5 percent compared to the previous month. In October, the monthly volume hit $619 billion relative to $635 billion in September, which was down by more than 17 percent from a record $712 billion set back in August 2020.

The bulk of crypto trading happened on exchanges considered by Cryptocompare as Top-Tier, having commanded $346 billion or 62 percent of total volume. However, total turnover at these exchanges decreased 19.3 percent in October.

Trading volumes at what CryptoCompare calls ‘Lower-Tier’ exchanges also dropped to $211 billion, down 15 percent on a monthly basis from $248 billion in September.

Binance was the largest derivatives exchange in October by monthly trading volume with $164.8 billion (up 0.02 percent). Huobi (down 5 percent), OKEx (down 19.16 percent) and BitMEX (up 3.41 percent) followed with $148.4 billion, $125.8 billion and $58.3 billion traded respectively.

Why Sports Sponsorships Are Showing No Signs of Slowing DownGo to article >>

At the end of October, OKEx had the highest open interest across all derivatives products at $1.56 billion. This was followed by Binance ($1.49 billion), Huobi ($1.07 billion) and BitMEX ($0.83 billion).

After having experienced a historic surge in activity, the decline may be the result of a lull in investor interest during the month in review as top platforms also experienced a notable drop in their monthly turnover.

Crypto spot volumes also dropped by 18 percent from $676 billion in September to $577 billion in October, explains the London-based data analytics firm.

Binance was the largest spot exchange by volume, leading with $75 billion (down 33 percent since September). This was followed by Huobi Global trading $41 billion (down 31.4 percent), while OKEx traded $32 billion (down 42 percent). Exchanges Coinbase, Kraken, and Liquid followed with $11.3 billion (down 17.5 percent), $6.5 billion (down 13.0 percent) and $6.1 billion (down 4.3 percent).

Continuing with the overall downtrend, trading of options contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which focuses on institutional investors, fell 23 percent in October with 3,747contracts traded within the month.

As for previous editions, CryptoCompare’s report includes exchange trade data, news highlights, a market segmentation analysis and metrics of Bitcoin trades against both fiat and stablecoins.



Mexico’s second-richest man invests 10% of his liquid portfolio in Bitcoin

Rating: 0
xc false
Slider: 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *