Bitwise White Paper: Fake Trading Volumes By Exchanges Do Not Impact BTC Prices (#GotBitcoin?)
American crypto investment manager Bitwise released a paper claiming that fake trading volumes by crypto exchanges do not impact bitcoin’s (BTC) price. Bitwise White Paper: Fake Trading Volumes By Exchanges Do Not Impact BTC Prices (#GotBitcoin?)
Released on May 24, the white paper is an extended version of Bitwise’s March presentation alleging that 95% of volume on unregulated exchanges is fake.
Published on the official website of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the new white paper is based upon the research that Bitwise Asset Management presented to the SEC on March 17, 2019, as specified in the document.
In the white paper, Bitwise reiterated the main points from the presentation released in March, including evidence that almost 95% of reported trading volumes in bitcoin by exchanges are fake or non-economic in nature.
However, the new report also proves that those fake volumes do not affect price discovery in the real bitcoin spot market. The white paper demonstrates that effective arbitrage systems keep accurate prices on real global bitcoin spot exchanges, eliminating sufficient pricing discrepancies “in a matter of seconds.”
As part of the research, the new white paper also reiterates the fact that a great number of advances and tools in the bitcoin market, such as the launch of regulated bitcoin futures, the entry of large algorithmic market makers and bitcoin custody improvements, “dramatically improve the efficiency” of BTC markets.
The research also cites data from popular crypto analytics website CoinMarketCap, arguing that the volume numbers reported by the website and other data aggregators in the industry are “surprising because they are wrong.” Bitwise state that CoinMarketCap data are “wildly inflated” by a mix of fake volume and wash trading that “dramatically skews the public’s view of the bitcoin market in a negative way.”
Earlier today, crypto media outlet The Block published its own research stating that up to 86% of total reported crypto trading volume is “likely fake,” based on correlation with exchanges’ websites traffic.
Following Bitwise’s fake volumes report in March, CoinMarketCap promised to rearrange rankings of member exchanges.
On May 1, CoinMarketCap announced an alliance called the Data Accountability & Transparency Alliance to provide “greater transparency, accountability, and disclosure from projects in the crypto space.” At the time, the firm warned that it will remove crypto exchanges from its calculations if they fail to provide obligatory data by June. Cointelegraph has recently released a follow up on the matter.
Telling The Truth? How Crypto Data Aggregators Fight Fake Exchange Volumes
Crypto data aggregator websites are stepping up their game to fight fake exchange volumes — but it’s not all smooth sailing.
Today, cryptocurrency data aggregators are tasked with being the first point-of-contact for newbies entering the space and also providing up-to-date information to experienced users. While the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global economic downturn, the crypto industry is booming.
Previously skeptical investors have started to test the waters, and data providers are dying to make a lasting impression.
Market data aggregators, or data providers, are platforms that collect inputs from various exchanges to present users with data on trade volume, historical asset prices and market capitalization. These platforms usually offer their own APIs for data distribution to blockchain projects and financial media outlets, alongside their standard web interface and mobile application.
From exit-scams to pump-and-dump schemes, the cryptocurrency community is no stranger to fraudulent activity. However, what may seem like an obvious scam to veteran crypto investors might not appear as such to a newcomer. Smart investments require smart data, so data aggregators are doing everything they can to provide users with the best data possible.
Volumes Of Fake Volumes
Though methodologies varied across different data sources, daily trade volume had been the primary metric used to rank exchanges for the last few years. For the time, it was reasonably intuitive: Exchanges with higher volumes have more active traders, and more active trade creates greater liquidity.
The problem became apparent when in March 2019, Bitwise Asset Management published an analysis detailing how 95% of volumes reported by Bitcoin exchanges on CoinMarketCap were purportedly fake. After developing an infrastructure to read data directly from the trading interface of 81 exchanges, Bitwise noted inconsistencies with the volumes reported by many exchange APIs.
According to the report, exchanges had been misreporting their volumes to CMC, giving the public a false impression of the Bitcoin market’s size. Exchanges were inflating their volumes to rank higher on the listings and entice users onto their platforms.
The report also argued that Bitcoin’s (BTC) actual market was far more organized and regulated than previously estimated.
According to Gerald Chee, head of research at CoinMarketCap told Cointelegraph that exchanges appeared to take advantage of CMC. Since the Bitwise report’s publication, CMC has launched its Data Accountability & Transparency Alliance to foster an ethical and open environment among exchanges, and it has also released several new ranking algorithms that aim to provide accurate data regardless of exchanges misreporting volumes.
While the Bitwise report covered BTC/USD and BTC/USDT exchange pairs, it did not scrutinize other markets in the space. However, data analytics firms were already getting busy.
An investigation conducted by data analytics firm The Tie in March 2019 claimed that 86.57% of reported cryptocurrency trading volume appeared suspicious and that 75% of exchanges presented unusual volumes and questionable activity.
Additionally, in the same year, Alameda Research published a report stating that exchanges were falsifying 70% of all cryptocurrency volume data on aggregator platforms.
When exchange-ranking sites rely on volumes, trading platforms are incentivized to inflate volumes. When new project listings have both trade volume prerequisites, it incentivizes teams to overreport their numbers to get on the list at all.
It’s crucial for a project to be listed on a top-tier market aggregator, as it helps with growing the userbase, and provides greater exposure and access to investors with more capital. Therefore, some projects succumb to the requirements of top data providers and fake volumes to secure listings.
New Metrics, Same Mistakes?
Several data aggregators were under fire this year. Most data providers were using exchange volumes in their ranking calculations and swiftly shifted to more accurate models. CoinGecko implemented a Trust Score to combat fake volumes by including web traffic, bid/ask spreads and depth cost metrics into the equation.
Nomics added an Exchange Transparency Rating to its ranking system in April, later adding the Transparent Market Cap and Transparent Volume metrics in May, which composites the market capitalization and volume of all coins listed on exchanges given an A+ transparency rating on the platform.
By November, CoinMarketCap had announced its new Liquidity Metric, a system designed from the ground-up to scan exchange data for both the volume spread and order book depth. Bitwise’s report had detailed some of the practices used by exchanges to fake their reported volumes, and CMC’s solution appeared to take these factors into account.
In response to the evidence of fake volumes, Messari also implemented changes to its OnChainFX ranking algorithm. While its Real 10 Volume metric attempts to list exchanges in order of reliability and trustworthiness, the Liquid Market Cap uses volume-weighted prices along with Liquid Supply estimates to rank trading platforms by liquidity.
“Crypto data aggregators will have to evolve and track the various new data sources coming on board to the market,” said Bobby Ong, co-founder of CoinGecko, in a conversation with Cointelegraph. Since May 2019, the platform has consistently added variables to its Trust Score calculations, the latest one evaluating exchange security.
While these metrics were developed to ensure that exchanges couldn’t fake their volumes to improve their rankings, strict parents raise sneaky children. It wouldn’t be long before exchanges and blockchain projects alike would find new ways around these systems, too.
The Road Forward
Cryptocurrency market surveillance firm BTI Verified published a detailed report in September on data accuracy of aggregator platforms, suggesting that among the top 50 exchanges ranked by CMC, only 32% presented unreasonably bloated volumes.
Previous reports had pinned this ratio at 75%, which reveals a marked improvement in overall data quality.
When asked about the future of crypto data aggregators, Ong said that it would be interesting due to the “explosion of data being generated” in both centralized and decentralized spaces across various blockchains.
Like CoinGecko, Nomics and Messari, CMC eventually diversified and built on its initial Liquidity metric. The Liquidity Score, introduced in May 2020, incorporates additional information into its ranking algorithm, like the exchange’s web traffic, to estimate its user base.
Though things seem to have improved, aggregator platforms still have a long way to go. In its report, BTI Verified explained how exchanges have multiple avenues to trick the systems used by data providers and game their ranking algorithms.
“Each aggregator has a target market that they cater to, and they prepare guidelines according to that.
With regards to differences in reported volume across these aggregators, what we have come across is each one has different requirements,” said Sumit Gupta, CEO of CoinDCX — an India-based crypto exchange.
A quick search on the web can reveal how easily an exchange can buy web traffic, and it’s far more straightforward than implementing wash trades. Liquidity measurements can be tricked using ghost orders: trades that appear on order books but disappear when engaged.
Exchanges that score poorly on one platform appear in the top rankings of others, indicating that some exchanges have found ways to adjust the data required to boost their rankings. Unless better methodologies are implemented, exchanges will soon find increasingly advanced ways to climb the ranks without any actual activity on their platforms.
Projects are still heavily incentivized to find ways to cheat these systems, be it through fake volumes, liquidity or web traffic. Data platforms with strict requirements, such as the need to be listed on a certain number of exchanges, hinder the growth of projects by pushing them to potentially illiquid exchanges and possibly exposing the token to needless volatility.
However, listing on fewer, more recognized exchanges is not conducive to ranking higher, as honest exchanges will always report lower volumes than those that mark up their trade numbers. “We don’t actually have a solution for the fake volume issue, at least not one that we’re able to implement anytime soon,” Nate Tsang, co-founder of crypto data aggregator website CoinFi, told Cointelegraph.
He noted that the solution was to collect all trade data from each exchange and use algorithms to detect wash trading patterns. “Of course, it becomes a cat and mouse game where the sufficiently motivated will find new ways to trick the algo,” Tsang added.
Instead of creating metrics to reduce the amount of misreported information, data providers should strive to create better incentive models for projects and exchanges. Guidelines that are more rewarding to blockchain-based projects will help to accelerate the industry’s growth.
Using real-world statistics, such as developer engagement, the number of employees and social media following, along with the metrics already in use, can help present more robust and accurate data for users.
Due to the nature of decentralized networks, price data manipulation in one market can have overarching consequences on the overall prices, volatility and market sentiment.
Modern solutions that can combat fake volumes include decentralized oracles, which gather data from multiple sources and incentivizes data providers with tokens for reporting the truth. Using decentralized oracles could be the way forward, but until the technology can provide reliable service to integrate with enough platforms, how big of an impact they will make is still uncertain.
The current incentives that allow exchanges, data providers and tokens to take advantage of listing algorithms will be unsustainable in the long run. Today’s listing requirements and ranking mechanisms are detrimental to the growth of small projects and open avenues for manipulation from more influential players.
This isn’t a problem that can be attributed to just one component of the system. Unless aggregators attempt to create more sophisticated ways of ensuring data integrity, the cryptocurrency industry will only ever be remembered for its false presentation of a technological marvel.
Bitwise Launches DeFi Crypto Index Fund
The fund bets on 10 Ethereum-based protocols angling to shape the future of finance.
Bitwise Asset Management on Wednesday launched a decentralized finance (DeFi) index fund, hoping to capture deep-pocketed investors’ bets on the corner of the crypto markets challenging traditional financial rails.
At launch, the fund’s top holdings include tokens backing an Ethereum-based lending protocol and a decentralized exchange – AAVE and UNI – which each carry an initial weighting of around 25%. Lending protocol token MKR (+3.99%) and derivatives protocol token SNX come in around 10%.
Indeed, Ethereum-based tokens comprise all 10 of the Bitwise DeFi Crypto Index Fund’s positions at launch. Ethereum remains the dominant chain for DeFi with $39 billion in total value locked up, according to DeFi Pulse, despite sky-high transaction fees that can cost users $30 a pop.
For comparison, DeFi protocols had around $1.2 billion in total value locked up around one year ago. Aave alone has over $5 billion locked up now, per DeFi Pulse.
“You’re seeing the initial flicker of a new technology that could significantly disrupt a lot of what traditional Wall Street makes money on, making it more efficient, more open, more accessible and more functional. And we’re at the early stages of that,” Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan told CoinDesk.
The fund’s long-Ethereum-based protocol weighting is a function of the Ethereum blockchain’s dominance in the DeFi space, Hougan said.
The fund, which also includes COMP, UMA, YFI, ZRX (+5.15%) and LRC (+11.01%), is the first such offering for accredited investors, according to Hougan. Its assets will be securely stored by California-headquartered Anchorage.
According to Hougan, the fund will be guided by Bitwise’s public methodology, as well as a five-member advisory council representing a broad swath of venture funds active in DeFi.
Hougan declined to comment on the fund’s current subscription base, but said it launches with seed funding ready.
Bitwise’s Flagship Fund Seeks SEC Reporting Status
If it succeeds, Bitwise would join Grayscale as the only crypto fund issuers to register their products as a public reporting company.
Investment firm Bitwise Asset Management is filing to register its flagship crypto fund as a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting company.
If the U.S. regulator deems the Form 10 filing effective, shares of the Bitwise 10 Crypto Index Fund would be registered under the Exchange Act of 1934, meaning it would have to regularly file public updates on its holdings and quarterly reports with the SEC.
That could help woo investors who prefer the clockwork disclosures of public companies like Apple over the tight-lipped mystery of many crypto products. Investors who do buy in can also sell their shares within six months, rather than the 12 months accredited investors must hold shares.
Shares in Bitwise 10 already trade on the over-the-counter market under the ticker BITW. But reporting company status would improve transparency and liquidity for shareholders.
Bitwise 10 Crypto Index Fund would become the first non-Grayscale-owned crypto product with that distinction and the first reporting company to offer investors broad exposure to coins. (Grayscale is owned by CoinDesk parent company Digital Currency Group.)
Grayscale’s bitcoin and ethereum trust products, which passively invest in their namesake coins, secured reporting company status in January and October 2020, respectively.
Matt Hougan, Bitwise’s chief investments officer, previously told CoinDesk that BITW is meant to offer a crypto investments vehicle to financial advisers. He did not immediately respond to emails Friday morning.
BITW reported $1 billion in assets under management at market close Thursday, after dropping 11% on $7.6 million in volume amid the broad crypto market sell-off.
Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,Bitwise White Paper: Fake,