Connect with us


Validator Economics of Ethereum 2.0 — Part 2…The Ether Vacuum



Collin J. Myers
Compliments of Nate Chastain and Mara Schmiedt of ConsenSys

Tl:dr: At the moment, there is a lot of chatter around the evolving role of crypto investors and how asset holders can further strengthen decentralized networks through increased participation. Currently there are multiple Ethereum based opportunities for crypto holders to put their assets to work either actively or through delegate work entities. This article will explore the theoretic profitability of a delegate work entity focused on validating the Ethereum network based on the current spec of Eth 2.0 and other various assumptions over a 5-period time window. I will provide some thoughts on the need for delegate work entities for Eth 2.0 to reach its genesis threshold of 524,288 and if the economics of Eth 2.0 at genesis provide proper incentivisation for large scale and small scale validators to participate.

A few weeks back I wrote an article on the economics of ETH 2.0 from the perspective of a small scale validator, which by definition is running one validator client staking 32 Ether either on a local machine or through a cloud provider. I promised a part 2, which is set to explore the economics of a large scale validator. If you are new to blockchain or POS protocols I would recommend reading my first article (Validator Economics of Ethereum 2.0 — Part One or Examining the Proposed Validator Economics of Ethereum 2.0) as a primer for what is to follow.

As a recap, I provided a background into Beacon Chain, thoughts on the psychology of economic risks & required rate of return, the risks associated with being a network validator and a lite competitor analysis. The article wrapped up with a validator net yield sensitivity analysis and compared the results to the risk free rate of return. After my analysis, I walked away with the conclusion that the incentive for small scale validators may be insufficient (on a pure profitability basis) given the Ethereum Foundation’s long term mission of mass distribution, unless one wants to unprofitably acquire Ether with the hope that the network succeeds (this universe of validators will certainly exist). Overall, the network ‘interest’ rate is the rate and I am not doing this to influence it — I am just here to voice my thoughts about how we get to mass distribution.

Recently, I was at a conference in London where a staking company gave a presentation on its services and the addressable market for staking. To my surprise one of the most asked questions was, “so how do you make money”? As a result, I have shifted my focus a bit for Part 2 of the validator series and will be focusing exactly on that question by providing a few different operating scenarios for a theoretical staking-as-a-service company validating based on the current spec for ETH 2.0.

There are numerous different business models that can be utilized when staking however I found that certain drivers affect profitability and cash flow more so than others.The model is a 5-period MoM analysis that includes a number of adjustable dynamic drivers. I will focus on the sensitivity of two operating drivers that I found to be the most impactful when analyzing profitability, which are:

  • Validator Clients Per Node — In essence this can be boiled down to economic risk per node. How many validator clients are you going to run on each node? This decision is based on technological limitations and/or risk tolerance. For example, the Prysm Client by Prysmatic Labs specifically allows for a single node to manage multiple (maximum still unknown) of validators if the user desires.
  • Ether Liquidation Schedule — In essence this can be boiled down to how much and how often a staking entity liquidates its token inflation to pay the bills. This could be a portion every month or never, it really all depends on the cash position of the firm and its risk tolerance.

The reason I chose to focus on these two are because they can be controlled (to some degree) and represent operating strategies that are independent of network dynamics, yes these decisions may be influenced by the network dynamics, specifically ether price. However, I tried to focus on how the machine works instead of price assumptions.

As always please shoot holes in what has been put together and challenge my analysis — if we can get a healthy debate started and discover new answers everyone wins.

A few months back, I came across a great article by Ben Sparango called Delegate Work Entities: Bridging the Gap Between Investors and Active Users. When the article was released (late 2018) the topic of new types of business models to enhance network viability and bootstrapping were only talked about and recognized in the crypto underworlds (and still really is when zooming out for a second). The majority of retail participants in crypto were/are focused on HODL’ing (which is better than increasing downward price pressure), while those in the underworlds began to think about new ways to (profitably) enhance network effects and add value to the broader ecosystem.

“At the moment, there is a gaping chasm separating speculative investment and user activity within decentralized networks and applications. The concept of delegate work entities aligns all involved party incentives through delegation of work token assets to temporarily bridge this gap until decentralized networks improve user experience. Put more simply, delegation of work allows us to bootstrap decentralized networks in a democratic fashion until a larger portion of the community is able to undertake the tasks themselves.” Ben Sparango

In June 2018, at Token Foundry we introduced the Token Foundry Standards, which is a framework for selling consumer tokens and launching decentralized networks in a way that directs the tokens offered in the sale to actual users of these networks. This was our attempt at being a hybrid delegate work entity to help empower tokenized ecosystems and decentralized projects. Below I will highlight a few of the core pillars of the standards.

  • Token Buyers Must Pass an Assessment Test
  • Tokens Must Be Priced Responsibly
  • Tokens Can’t Be Sold Until There is ‘Proof of a Network’
  • Tokens Must Be ‘Locked Until Mainnet Launch’
  • Tokens Can Only Be ‘Used’ Initially
  • Tokens Can’t Be Resold Until Initial Buyers ‘Prove Use’

Active Network Participation

Over the past year we have seen numerous different subcategories and flavors of delegate work entities, the most relevant to understanding the motivations of a staking entity follows the sub theme of active network participation.

Active network participation has gained traction as a method for asset holders to increase alpha by donating resources or by staking their assets to validate a specific network. The macro thesis of this strategy is recognizing we are entering the next chapter of blockchain, which will be driven by different POS consensus methodologies, where asset owners will be incentivized to validate and participate in the network, however many of them will not have the resources/time/risk tolerance to do so.

This will include layer 1 networks as well as numerous protocols built on top of these networks. All of which will have their own respective consensus mechanisms and infrastructure (validators and/or block producers) enabling significant value generation by producing blocks and/or generating consensus through staking and/or resource sharing.

This has resulted in staking-as-a-service companies sprouting up to fill the need for asset holders who wish to utilize their digital currency to earn more digital currency. For example, Staked recently raised $4.5MM in a seed round lead by Pantera Capital, with participation from Coinbase Ventures, Digital Currency Group, Winklevoss Capital, Global Brain, Fabric Ventures, Applied Crypto Ventures, and Blocktree Capital.

If you are interested in reading further content on the evolving landscape of network participation please reference a few of the articles below.

Network Assumptions & Averages:

To start let’s walk through the network assumptions over the projection period as the network will determine what is up for grabs. The chart below represents yearly averages and a 5 period average to keep our analysis a bit macro in nature. The primary drivers are:

  • Total at Stake (In Network) — The projection period starts at genesis, which is 524,288 Eth and ends the projection period at 3.02MM Eth, with a 5 period average of 1.43MM. A CMGR of 2.50% was utilized to yield these results.
  • Eth Price — The projection period starts at $148 and gradually climbs to $854, with a 5 period average of $404. A CMGR of 2.50% was utilized to yield these results.
  • Average Network Fees/Day (Eth) — The projection period starts at 600 Eth and gradually climbs to 1,727 Eth, with a 5 period average of 1,067. A CMGR of 1.50% was utilized to yield these results.

At the end of the day these variables are a black hole so I opted to sit on the conservative side of the table. In addition, you will find a network dynamics chart below that will provide a more digestible visual of the network over the projection period . Overall, I feel my assumptions for this piece of the model are quite realistic (please let me know your thoughts).

Node Assumptions & Averages:

Next, let’s take a look at the node dynamics over the projection period. I feel the most important driver here is the percentage of the total network staked. I wanted to build this out in a manner where the imagined entity does not exceed 4% market share over the projection period. To clarify this means that the other 96% of the total at stake is made up of a mix of small and large scale validators. Imagine the entity in this model is called Beacon, which has an internal diversification mandate that it cannot stake any more than 4% of the networks it chooses to validate.

  • % of Network Staked — The model remains flat at 4% throughout the projection period.
  • Customer Eth Staked — The projection period starts at ~21K Eth and ends the projection period at 121K Eth, with a 5 period average of 57K Eth.

It is my hope that staking enables increased decentralization vs what we see in mining today (please see the graphic below). For a deep dive into the dynamics of Ethereum mining check out, Are Miners Centralized?, which was recently published by the Alethio Team. However, as we work our way through the results of the analysis you will see that economies of scale prevails. No matter the ethos of the chain or the social movement, human behavior will result in staking at scale to earn rents.

However, as the staking ecosystem evolves and becomes more accessible than mining, staking firms will diversify risk by validating on multiple chains & protocols. In addition, it is also my belief that due to other Defi yield opportunities those who believe in Eth enough to validate will also utilize other yield opportunities such as Uniswap, Compound Finance, and Dharma. As a result, I believe that the concentration of stakers will be less centralized than mining (especially in the long term) with chain diversification becoming an asset allocation strategy in staking as different chains mature and find their specific use cases. However, I will leave you with a quote from Jonny Rhea who is developing the Artemis client on the Eth 2.0 team at PegaSys.

“Your argument that POS will not be as centralized bc staking firms will diversify is weak. I like to think of this in terms of physics. If centralization is a force, then centralized is displacement. Any amount of centralizing force will result in the same outcome. The only difference is the amount of time it takes. I want to believe that we can do better”.

Operating Assumptions:

There are a few business models that can be run when competing in this space. The largest factor that will determine the business model is whether or not you are the asset holder or you are the asset borrower (hybrid approaches are also possible). Once you get past that first determination there are a series of smaller drivers both qualitative and quantitative that determine profitability.

However, exploring the nuances of each approach is outside the scope of this article, but hopefully the community builds on this article/model in the coming weeks/months. Below you can find the primary qualitative & quantitative operating assumptions that drive the output of this model.

Node Cost Assumptions:

The model offers a cloud and a hardware toggle to help determine cost structure. For this analysis I have selected what you could call a “premium” server option, again to stay conservative on the profitability side. For the base model it is assumed that the firm is running 100 validator clients per node (3,200 Eth). It would be great to get feedback on the cost structure of this analysis from individuals in the staking or mining industry that have proper experience validating blockchain networks.

In this section we will look at the financial results of the model based on the assumptions laid out above. It is important to focus on the Firm based financial metrics as it represents the value accrual of the service provider net of the value passed to token holders. As seen in the chart below by charging a 12.5% fee and staking 4.00% of the Ethereum Network on the behalf of others, the operating model yields strong results over the projection period with revenues generating a 5 period CAGR of ~60%, while total assets grow by a CAGR of 67%.

Revenue: Revenue generation over the projection period starts at ~$1.6MM and steadily grows to ~$17.8MM, with a 5 period CAGR of 60.60%.

EBITDA: EBITDA generation over the projection period starts at -$325K and steadily grows to $5.8MM, with a 5 period CAGR of 77.75%. EBITDA remains negative until April Y1 (16 months).

Free Cash Flow: FCF generation over the projection period starts at -$325K and steadily grows to $4.6MM, with a 5 period CAGR of 69%. Similar to EBITDA, FCF remains negative until April Y1 (16 months).

Cash: The firm is capitalized with $1MM of cash at the beginning of the projection period and bottoms out at a low of ~$680MM in Y2 before building to $9.2MM by Y5, resulting from the ability of the firm to scale as more Ether is staked on its infrastructure. The consistent cash balances of this analysis signals that the firm could sell less than 40% of its monthly take and still remain solvent (I will leave it up to you to find the breakeven.

Total Assets: Total assets over the projection period start at $791K and steadily grow to $10.3MM, with a 5 period CAGR of 67%.

Validator Operating Results:

In this section we will sensitize our two key drivers and take a look at possible outcomes. We will be stressing EBITDA, FCF, and Total Assets given changes in our two key drivers. Below you can find a recap on our primary drivers.

  • Validator Clients Per Node — In essence this can be boiled down to economic risk per node. How many validator clients are you going to run on each node? This decision is based on technological limitations and/or risk tolerance.
  • Ether Liquidation Schedule — In essence this can be boiled down to how much and how often a staking entity liquidates its token inflation to pay the bills. This could be a portion every month or never, it really all depends on the cash position of the firm and its risk tolerance.

Y5 EBITDA Sensitivity Analysis

Y5 Free Cash Flow Sensitivity Analysis

Y5 Total Assets Sensitivity Analysis

Before we close this out let’s take a look at the consumer yield at the Genesis spec. As you can see below, the yield at the Genesis spec to a small scale validator is far better than the yield generated in my Part 1 Article. However, this does not mean that your average Eth holder will stake on their own. To reach Genesis, there will need to be 16,384 validators (genesis/32), which is more than double the total Ethereum node count of 7,580. IMO even if an incredible UX were developed, this is a tall order to fill relying on small scale validators.

So what did we learn?

  1. A large scale validator is able to create economies of scale that lead to greater profitability than a small scale validator, especially as the total at stake in the network increases over time.
  2. Staking 4.00% of the network results in strong profitability with conservative network dynamic assumptions
  3. An initial investment of $1MM results in a 5-period CAGR of 67.14%, yielding an ending cash position of $9.2MM and Eth position of $1.1MM (total assets of $10.33MM).
  4. EBITDA & FCF are only negative for the first 16 months of operations and end the projection period at $5.8MM & $4.6MM respectively.
  5. The return profile for small scale validators in the early days of Eth 2.0 in theory is sufficient enough to attract participants.

The model presented in this article is proof that the current spec offers solid incentives to motivate those in the crypto community with the knowledge and resources to build much needed delegate work entities. Going through this process showed me that despite the ‘lowish’ interest rate of Eth 2.0, validating the network can still be quite profitable. However, it does run the risk of centralization over time given the unprofitable return profile explored in my last article for small scale validators at the 10 million total at stake level.

I personally believe to reach the Genesis Eth threshold of 524,288 we will need large scale validators serving as delegate work entities to make this a reality. However, the USD value of Eth that needs to be staked at current market prices is $72.35MM, which is 25% of the total amount currently locked in CDP’s. This gives me a bit of encouragement knowing that by the time Eth 2.0 becomes a reality blockchain UI/UX and participation will be more mature.

I hope that you walk away from this piece with a better understanding of Eth 2.0, the importance of delegate work entities in making Eth 2.0 a reality and how the machine works for a network validator.

The economics of Ethereum 2.0 is a topic we are very interested in at ConsenSys and will continue to do our part adding value to its reality through different outlets. Please use this as an opportunity to challenge what has been presented if you disagree with it and we can get a healthy debate started.

Special thanks to Tanner Hoban, Jon Stevens, Raul Jordan, Jonny Rhea, the Alpine team, and the Alethio team for providing suggestions/feedback for this piece. Huge shoutout to Ross Canavan & Andrew Meller for providing some unreleased tracks to get me through the number crunching.

What A Time To Be Alive!


Nothing in this piece should be considered investment advice.



The Digital Age Is Here: Crypto And Fintech Companies Soar, While Bank Stocks Tank



2020 has been so far a challenging year. Issues such as the Australian wildfires and the global COVID-19 pandemic have harmed the planet and its inhabitants. The financial world has also suffered, especially during the first several months.

The effects are evident within different sectors of the financial industry. While some have felt adverse consequences during these uncertain times, others have thrived and reached for the stars.

BNN Bloomberg’s senior anchor, Jon Erlichman, recently published some stocks’ price performances for banks and fintech companies and the two largest cryptocurrencies – Ethereum and Bitcoin.

CryptoPotato exemplified it with the graph below. It concludes that innovative fintech companies such as Square and PayPal have massively outperformed the old dogs – the banking sector. Bitcoin has also experienced a notable YTD price surge, while Ethereum has trumped them all with a substantial triple-digit surge.

YTD Price Performance Of Crypto, Fintech Companies, And Bank Stocks. Source: CryptoPotato
YTD Price Performance Of Crypto, Fintech Companies, And Bank Stocks. Source: CryptoPotato

YTD: Bank Stocks Haven’t Enjoyed 2020

The stocks of some of the world’s largest banks were on a roll since the previous financial crisis over a decade ago. Bank of America shares had increased approximately ten-fold since 2009 to their highs in February 2020 of about $35.

You Might Also Like:

In the same period, Citigroup stocks went from $15 to $80, JP Morgan Chase & Co (JPM) from $20 to $140, and Wells Fargo (WFC) surged from $11 to above $50.

However, the COVID-19-prompted crisis took the world by storm this year. March alone saw price slumps not seen in decades. Most of the aforementioned bank stocks lost about 50% of its value in merely days.

Although their shares have picked up from the March bottoms, the graph above demonstrates that their year-to-date performance is still in the red. JPM is down by 30%, Bank of America by 33%, Citigroup by 46%, and Wells Fargo has it the worst – 58% YTD dump.

Other financial service corporations, such as Western Union (-17%) and American Express (-19%), have also lost significant chunks of value since the start of the year.

It’s worth noting that one of the most old-school investors and biggest supporters of the banking sector, Warren Buffet, sold the majority of his bank stocks this year.

Financial Companies In The Green

Although the crisis reached all companies on the graph above, some have not only recovered but actually increased in the following months. MasterCard stocks plummeted from $345 to $203, while Visa’s nosedive started from $213 and ended at $135. Nevertheless, both companies’ shares are slightly in the green on a year-to-date basis.

Two other financial service companies, but primarily focusing on online endeavors, have marked substantially more impressive YTD results.

PayPal’s stocks (PYPL) started 2020 at $110 and have increased by 94% since then, despite the mid-March slump to $85. Jack Dorsey’s Square’s yearly gains have even seen triple-digit percentages. The 55% dump in March was only a brief obstacle in SQ’s way towards a 178% surge since January 2020.

Interestingly, both firms have embarked on cryptocurrency-related activities in recent months. Square purchased $50 million worth of Bitcoin, while PayPal announced that it will enable its US-based customers to buy, sell, and store several digital assets.

What About Bitcoin And Ethereum?

The cryptocurrency market was not exempt from the mid-March madness. Some alternative coins lost up to 80% of value in hours. The two most well-known representatives, namely Bitcoin and Ethereum, dipped to $3,700 and below $100, respectively.

Percentage-wise, those developments equaled about 50% of losses. However, the rest of the year has been significantly more positive for both. Bitcoin, regarded by some as a safe haven tool with similarities to gold, has overcome its massive slump.

Whether it’s the growing interest from institutional investors, the third halving, or giant companies buying BTC for its store of value characteristics, Bitcoin has surged by more than 80% YTD. Just a few days ago, the primary cryptocurrency charted a new yearly high of over $13,000.

Ethereum, on the other hand, has been widely utilized this year in the ongoing decentralized finance trend. Its blockchain operates as the underlying technology behind most DeFi projects.

This increased utilization led to some unfavorable consequences such as slow transactions and high fees and highlighted a few of the network’s weak points. Price-wise, though, none of that matter as ETH has been on a roll during most of the year, especially since the summer.

As a result, the second-largest cryptocurrency has become the best-performing asset from the ones mentioned above, with an increase of over 200%.

What Could All Of This Mean?

The world is undoubtedly going through changes, primarily prompted by the COVID-19 reality. Social distancing and people working from home have driven society into becoming even more digitally-focused.

The financial world won’t be left behind. People seek more online ventures, and digitally transferred funds will eventually become the new normal.

As such, the decline of traditional financial institutions like banks, and the rise of innovative technologies, including cryptocurrencies, could be just the start of the mass transition to the online world.


Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).


Continue Reading


These Are Ripple’s Relocation Options if it Moves Out of the United States



Ripple has expressed dissatisfaction over the regulatory uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrencies in the United States. Apart from this, the San Francisco-based firm has also decided to act. By moving out of its home turf. But where will Ripple move next? Here are the relocation options.

Ripple’s Asia Options: Japan, Singapore & the United Arab Emirates

When Ripple’s co-founder and Executive Chairman Chris Larsen threatened to move out of the United States over the federal government’s anachronistic attitude towards cryptocurrency regulation, the message was clear.

During a virtual interview with Fortune at the LA Blockchain Summit, Larsen dropped the ‘relocation bomb.’ The Ripple co-founder also added that the US is far behind in the cryptocurrency regulation game compared to its counterparts. To the point that it actually risks losing its financial innovation edge to China (in particular).

Continuing his commentary, Larsen said that the U.K. and Singapore are the most probable destinations for the company to relocate if it moves base out of the country.

However, yesterday, in an interview with Bloomberg, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse added Japan and the United Arab Emirates too to the list of Asia options. Elucidating the reason for extending the list, he said:

You Might Also Like:

The common denominator between all of them is that their governments have created a clarity about how they would regulate different digital assets, different cryptocurrencies.

He reiterated Chirs Larsen’s stance about the United States’ uncertain regulatory roadmap. He also referred specifically to the conundrum of categorizing cryptocurrencies into a commodity, a currency, a property, or security.

Moving out of the US is more of a compulsion than a desire, Mr. Garlinghouse explained. Ripple would have continued to operate from their home turf if the cryptocurrency regulation scenario was not colloidal.

Ripple is definitely a proud US company and we’d like to stay in the US if that was possible, but we also need regulatory clarity in order for us to invest and grow the business.

Love For London And The United Kingdom

Apart from Asia, Ripple is also strongly considering the UK as an option. This became clear when in an interview with CNBC, the CEO applauded the clarity regarding XRP’s regulatory status in the country.

“What you see in the U.K. is a clear taxonomy, and the U.K.’s FCA took a leadership role in characterizing how we should think about these different assets and their use cases,” Garlinghouse said.

The outcome of that was clarity that XRP is not a security and is used as a currency. With that clarity, it would be advantageous for Ripple to operate in the U.K.”

This is clearly where the US is failing, Mr. Garlinghouse remarked. Although the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is clear on Bitcoin and Ethereum not being securities, when it comes to XRP, the authority has mostly stayed mum, which in turn has left the cryptocurrency’s status ‘shrouded in uncertainty.’

The clarification regarding XRP’s ‘security status’ is crucial for Ripple. Even though the company claims total disassociation from the XRP ledger and the token, it still owns 55 billion of the total 100 billion XRP supply.

Apart from the United Kingdom and the aforementioned countries in the Asian continent, Ripple has also shown interest in Switzerland for setting up its headquarters.

Ripple (XRP) price climbed up higher but not necessarily in response to Ripple’s decision to leave the US. The rally can be mostly attributed to bitcoin rushing for the stars with its explosive break past the $13,000 mark.

Will the cryptocurrency-based fintech firm be able to operate with total and unequivocal regulatory clarity in the above countries? It still remains to be seen.


Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).


Continue Reading


ETH Cools Off After 13% Weekly Gains, What’s Next? (Ethereum Price Analysis)



ETH/USD – Bulls Retest Bearish .618 Fib Resistance

Key Support Levels: $410, $400, $387.
Key Resistance Levels: $416, $421, $439.

Ethereum saw a strong 13% price surge this past week as it reached as high as $421 (1.414 Fib Extension). More specifically, the buyers could not close a daily candle above the resistance at the bearish .618 Fib Retracement at $416.

After heading back into $400 yesterday, the bulls have rebounded and are now retesting the aforementioned level.

ETH/USD Daily Chart. Source: TradingView

ETH-USD Short Term Price Prediction

Looking ahead, once the buyers break $416, the first level of resistance lies at $421.50 (1.414 Fib Extension). This is followed by resistance at $434, $439 (August 2018 Highs), and $445 (bearish .786 Fib). $450, added resistance lies at $462 and $475.

On the other side, the first level of support lies at $410. Beneath this, support is found at $400, $387 (.382 Fib), and $377 (.5 Fib).

The RSI is approaching overbought conditions but still has room to push higher before becoming truly overbought.

ETH/BTC – Bulls Testing 100-days EMA Resistance

Key Support Levels: 0.0311 BTC, 0.0305 BTC, 0.03 BTC.
Key Resistance Levels: 0.0327 BTC, 0.0337 BTC, 0.0341 BTC.

Against Bitcoin, Ethereum struggled this week as it dropped as low as 0.0305 BTC. It has since bounced higher to climb back above 0.031 BTC to trade at the current 0.0318 BTC level. It is now testing resistance at a 100-days EMA and must overcome this to head back toward the October highs at 0.0337 BTC.

ETH/BTC Daily Chart. Source: TradingView

ETH-BTC Short Term Price Prediction

Looking ahead, if the bulls can break the 100-days EMA, the first level of resistance lies at 0.0327 BTC (bearish .236 Fib Retracement). This is followed by resistance at 0.0337 BTC (March 2019 Support – now resistance), 0.0341 BTC (bearish .382 Fib), and 0.035 BTC.

On the other side, the first level of support lies at 0.0311 BTC (.618 Fib). Beneath this, support lies at 0.0305 BTC, 0.03 BTC, and 0.0295 BTC (200-days EMA).

The Stochastic RSI recently rebounded, which put an end to the downward pressure. For a bullish recovery above the 100-days EMA, the RSI must pass the mid-line to indicate bullish momentum within the market.


Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

Disclaimer: Information found on CryptoPotato is those of writers quoted. It does not represent the opinions of CryptoPotato on whether to buy, sell, or hold any investments. You are advised to conduct your own research before making any investment decisions. Use provided information at your own risk. See Disclaimer for more information.

Cryptocurrency charts by TradingView.


Continue Reading