My target for withdrawal was min $50 per day which, with the 1% daily reward compounding, would have taken 183 days from that day, so around 150 days remain to reach my target.

Today, I have 25.627 DRIP in the faucet and I can withdraw around $36 a day. Doing the math now, at my current level, if I wish, I could withdraw $50 within 30 days. So, how could I reach my target so much sooner? First, let’s get to know about DRIP.

What is DRIP?

DRIP is a Defi project that can provide passive income through smart contracts. You purchase DRIP and deposit it into the faucet. Once your DRIP is in the faucet, it pays you 1% per day every single day in DRIP tokens. You have two options after that, either you can claim your daily earnings or deposit back in faucet(hydrate) to compound your daily earnings. On hydrating, you get 3678% APY by the end of the year.

How I am so near my target so early?

The first and most important approach I took was to hydrate daily. I just deposited the 1% daily gain back to the faucet which leads to compound interest. This one is the best approach which helps to increase the initial amount.

The second approach was to work on my team. Last time I updated you, I had 4 people in my team. Today I have 8. This approach is an add-on feature that our awesome developer thought of. It helps to increase the deposit, but is completely optional.

Another reason might be cheating a bit- I have deposited another 3.6 DRIP to my account. The performance of DRIP has been so great recently that I couldn’t miss the opportunity.

And one last reason is the great price appreciation of the DRIP token. Look into the price appreciation chart of DRIP. It is just mind-blowing.

Can anyone still expect such great performance?

Why not? Every day DRIP is performing like a beast. There is no weakness observed even after such a great run. Every day DRIP is showing its strength and with many upcoming plans, our developer Forex Shark has that there is no stopping anytime soon. So, how can anyone start this journey?

How to Start

I am part of the Cryptozoa DRIP team. We are a global community of DRIP enthusiasts who are welcoming and helpful. We converse on our private telegram group where we share DRIP tips, strategies, breaking news, and more. If you would like to join in the conversation, please join the Cryptozoa team (by getting into DRIP and using my Buddy address above), and then head over to my Personal Telegram Gateway. I can help you get going with DRIP if you need it, or answer any questions you have as well (to the best of my ability!)

Nothing in this article is to be construed as investment advice. Neither the author nor the publication takes any responsibility or liability for any investments, profits, or losses you may incur as a result of this information. The article may contain affiliate links.

Многія крытыкі крыптавалют бачаць у іх выключна інструмент ашуканцаў і злачынцаў, паколькі памылкова лічаць іх поўнасцю ананімнымі. Насамрэч паўнавартасныя блокчэйн-праекты па тыпе Біткоіна і Эфірыума з’яўляюцца псеўдаананімнымі. Гэта значыць, што па змаўчанні ўладальнік адраса невядомы, прычым іх можна стварыць у любой колькасці.

Аднак як толькі карыстальнік неяк раскрывае сваю асобу — напрыклад, выкарыстоўвае для вываду сродкі біржу, дзе ён прайшоў працэдуру верыфікацыі — за яго транзакцыямі можна сачыць. Такім жа чынам атрымаецца знайсці іншыя кашалькі, якія належаць чалавеку, бо звычайна манеты адпраўляюць паміж імі некалькі разоў.

Пры гэтым захоўваць ананімнасць усё ж рэальна. Напрыклад, тыя ж крыптавалютные біржы ўсталёўваюць ліміт вываду для акаўнтаў з неідэнтыфікаванымі ўладальнікамі ў памеры 2 BTC за суткі. Ну а гэтага большасці людзей дастаткова. Адпаведна, яны могуць гандляваць на біржы і пры неабходнасці прадаваць манеты пры дапамозе так званых p2p-сэрвісаў, прыкладам якіх з’яўляецца знаёмы нам LocalBitcoins.

Па словах экспертаў, пры належным узроўні прыватнасці паскараецца тэмп прыняцця інавацый у індустрыі. Канфідэнцыяльнасць — гэта не права, гэта прывілей, і яе варта захаваць.Такім чынам мы можам бачыць актыўнасць урадаў розных краін, якія імкнуцца забараніць выкарыстанне крыптавалют мясцовымі жыхарамі. У асноўным такія спробы заканчваюцца нічым. Больш за тое, грамадзяне звычайна толькі больш актыўна цікавяцца тэмай блокчэйн-актываў.

Аднак сутнасць прыватнасці знаходзіцца крыху ў іншым. Цяпер яна стала сімвалам бяспекі і свабоды нават самага звычайнага карыстальніка ў інтэрнэце, дзе не засталося і часткі сапраўднай канфідэнцыяльнасці.

There is a risk of a spam attack on the protocol. To counteract this, we are going to introduce a fee for creating a new pool. Fees will be determined through the governance, but we are thinking about $100 in PIE tokens.

Because there is a risk of creating a pool for a malicious token (this is how the last attack on the protocol was carried out), we have made a delay for the start of loans for new pools. Now we need to ensure the validation of new pools. Validation must be fast, therefore cannot go through governance, as governance proposals are performed with a delay of a week or more, but validation should also be decentralized so that it would be less dependent on one person. Therefore, you decided to divide the validation into a few stages:

Each user can freeze a new pool if he considers the token to be malicious, capable of harming the protocol. But for this, he will need to freeze a certain amount of PIE tokens from his account for a certain period (The term and amount are determined by the governance, but we are thinking about the amount of an equal commission for creating a pool and a period of 30 days).

Once a pool has been frozen, the community through governance has the option to revoke the freeze if it decides the freeze was in mistake. In this case, the validator’s PIE tokens are burned.

If in 30 days the governance has not made an appeal for the frozen pool, then the validator has the opportunity to call a special function of the protocol and get back both his tokens, which he froze for validation and a bonus equal to the commission for creating the pool. For example, if the commission was $100, the validator froze $100, then he will receive back $200 in PIE tokens.

All commissions for creating new pools that were not paid to the validators (if the tokens were not malicious) are sent to burning, thereby reducing the supply tokens and creating a deflation of PIE tokens.

I want you to imagine an exciting new art form that is pushing the boundaries of what’s possible through the use of ground-breaking technology. Nope, not NFTs. We’re talking about 1988, when a company called Pixar showcased a new type of 3D animation through a story about toys that come to life. I know what you’re thinking….but, no. The first Toy Story was released in 1995.

I’m talking about its predecessor, Tin Toy.

Tin Toy is a 5-minute 3D animation about a one-man-band tin toy trying to escape from a drooling baby called Billy. It caught the attention of Disney, who used it as inspiration for the films we all know and love. If you have a look at Tin Toy on Youtube, you might recognise it, even if you didn’t see it when it was first released. This could be because some of the Toy Story versions on DVD (this thing we had before streaming) and VHS (this thing we had before DVDs) included Tin Toy as bonus materials. Bonus material… one of the few things that I actually miss about the days before streaming…sigh.

However, if you work in animation, game development, robotics, AI, or are just generally a bit of a geek, you may know Tin Toy for an entirely different reason. That’s because Billy the Baby, is an absolute horror show.

For reasons I will explain, this image doesn’t do justice to the freakiness of this baby, go watch the film. Honestly, Billy is legitimately more horrifying than even the ugliest of real-life babies (#sorrynotsorry #somebabiesareugly). And this is not just my opinion. Because, behind the Academy Award that it received for Best Animated Short Film, and the praise it received for its innovation, many people (like me) felt uneasy watching Tin Toy.

They looked at the flailing libs and rendered fat rolls, and they stared into Billy’s eyes, and they felt a primal fear — a queasiness. I’m not joking. Many people have a visceral reaction to watching Billy, and this is what has become known as the Uncanny Valley.

To explain what this is, let’s first give Pixar its dues. This was an impressive piece of animation for the time. It was the most life-like 3D animation of a human anyone had ever seen up until this point in history, and that was the problem. Billy almost looks real. In a way that a 2D Mickey Mouse doesn’t. Nobody looks at Mickey and does a double-take,

“Oh god! Is that a mouse!?”

“A tiny mouse wearing baggy shorts!?”

Your brain sees Mickey and it knows immediately that he is a cartoon mouse. In fact, your brain is also generally fine with a human 2D character. It doesn’t confuse Bart Simpson for a tiny, never-aging kid with jaundice, because he’s not human enough. However, as we move into the 3D and animated/moving space, things start to get weird, as this beautiful graph shows:

Taking the more dramatic line as an example. A moving humanoid robot clearly looks more human than a moving industrial robot and thus they look more familiar to us. However, before we reach the familiarity we feel when we walk past a fellow human and say hi, we have this big valley where things begin looking less familiar to us, e.g. zombies and corpses. Billy the Baby would also fall into this valley — and I won’t be helping him out.

Fellow Final Fantasy geeks might remember the heavily-criticised 2001 CGI film The Spirits Within, which received criticism for its characters dead eyes (among many other things!). Other examples include: Polar Express (2004), Beowulf (2007), and A Christmas Carol (2009). I particularly liked the NY Times review of Beowulf which said the monster/villain Grendel “was only slight scarier than” the human hero’s animated face (a digitally -rendered Ray Winstone).

However, we needn’t look back so far for examples. this is a problem which has persisted, despite improving technology, right up until today. Both Cats (2019) and Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) had their releases marred by emergency animation corrections after audiences reacted negatively to them. Sonic was my childhood hero, but when I saw that original trailer, with its lanky, humanoid hedgehog, it just felt wrong…

The aim here is not to criticise NFTs that people have spent time creating, but to discuss the tightrope they are walking. If big budget films like Cats and Sonic can get it wrong, why not NFTs? The 3D collection I’m most familiar with is RTFKT Studios’ CloneX NFTs.

There’s something here that doesn’t quite work for me, and I’m not the only one. It doesn’t take much to end up on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from Crypto Overlord Alex Becker (Cardano holders, I’m looking at you…with sympathy), but Becker declared a new nemesis in Clones when their holders pushed back on his criticisms.

Becker has focused on the fact they look like children, (which doesn’t seem entirely unjustified…). However, as a game-nerd, he is likely no stranger to the Uncanny Valley, which is perhaps another reason why he finds them “creepy”.

Unfortunately, a quick search of “3D NFTs” on Twitter will reveal similar results. For example, I found this new project with the noble aim of supporting women in NFTs, but was slightly haunted by this winking GIF that fails the Uncanny test on account of its unsettling 3D animation…

Now, I’m aiming to neither defame or promote these collections. If you like them, and you aren’t creeped out by them, then go ahead and buy them after doing your own research.

After all, the only collection I’m promoting is my own: The Secret Artist Project (find out more via Twitter or my last article)! I’m not even saying we wouldn’t feature a 3D artist in our collection in the future… I simply think the Uncanny Valley test is a fascinating and valid concern as 3D artists develop and animate their NFTs.

In fact, if you are such an artist, and you think might be on the right side of that Uncanny Valley, then get in touch via a DM on Twitter. That goes double for all you “regular” 2D artists out there.

What about you? Are you reading this unsure what all the fuss is about? Or, does looking at these dead-eyes humanoid faulty-facsimiles give you the ick… Maybe you’d like to pick up some less creepy art from one of our Secret Artists (we have skulls in our current collection, what’s creepy about that?). Come shopping on OpenSea of follow us on Twitter…

In traditional equities, valuation is tied to equity itself — or direct fractional ownership in a company. This equity equates to practical control over a corporation, and confers certain benefits to equity holders such as a pro-rata share of profits (dividends).

In decentralized protocols, the code is the law, so practical control comes down to whatever the code says. In this sense, each DeFi application will have a different sense of ownership, as each protocol will have codified a different set of rules that define what ownership means. Some protocols were coded to have no concept of external ownership — they will simply operate according to their initial internal rules and never change! However most teams who create these protocols recognize the need to adapt, upgrade, and change, and thus code in a concept of ownership that enables select parameters to be adjusted and changed.

Enter “governance tokens.” Simply put, these are ERC-20 tokens tied to a specific project, where a quorum of votes from the token-holders are required to adjust or change selected parameters. Thus, these tokens “govern” the protocol.

But it’s important to note that:

There is clearly a lot of nuance here. In this edition, we take a quick look at what makes governance tokens valuable, but also some reasons to exercise caution.

Why should control and influence over a decentralized protocol be valuable? In short, governance tokens convey certain privileges, including:

Rights to cash flow: Protocols may charge a fee to their users. These fees are collected, and a governance vote can decide to distribute a portion of fees to token holders, akin to dividends with equities.

Rights to protocol changes: As mentioned, tokens grant their owners the right to vote on the protocol’s future. For example, most projects let token holders vote on both smart contract code changes and treasury management.

Code changes represent direct business logic of the application. In some cases, these decisions can be quite material, akin to a board of directors voting on the strategic direction of a company. Control and influence over these decisions carries weight, and some parties are willing to pay handsomely for it.

Treasury management generally concerns the percentage of tokens typically allocated to “community efforts” — a sort of budget to fund beneficial projects and feature development. Influence over these decisions is another extension of control of the future direction of the protocol.

Rights for future token distribution: Some projects enable new tokens to be minted, usually to users of the protocol via yield farming. The idea is for users of the protocol to be given a pro-rata share of governance, leading to deeper retention and engagement. Governance tokens are commonly used to set these parameters.

Below are some examples of existing DeFi projects across these dimensions:

In the end, governance tokens are the closest thing decentralized projects have to ownership, and generally carry some measure of influence over the future direction of these projects. Most projects also have some fee imposed on users, for which a portion of this value may eventually accrue to token holders.

While governance tokens provide compelling benefits, be aware of some key challenges and risks:

Plutocracy of the token cap table: The total supply of tokens usually contains significant allocations to founders / team members and investors, granting majority control to a relatively small subset of people. As a result, the protocol is effectively more of a plutocracy than democracy. As a result, some projects have eschewed both team and investor allocations entirely, opting for a “fair launch” where governance tokens are wholly distributed to the users of the platform. However in practice, this may still result in concentrated positions as whales gain outsized positions.

The St Louis Fed’s DeFi paper noted that “In many cases, the majority of governance tokens are held by a small group of people… even when a launch is perceived as being relatively “fair,” the actual distribution often remains highly concentrated.”

Upcoming investor and team vesting cliffs: The bulk of team and investor tokens are typically not immediately liquid but remain locked for a prescribed vesting schedule. The cumulative effect is that a majority of the token supply is illiquid when a token first launches and begins trading. This reduced float can inflate a project’s Fully Diluted Value to seemingly exorbitant numbers.

Compounding potential challenges, usually a portion of team and investors tokens will become liquid at once (a vesting cliff), resulting in a shock to supply which impacts influence over governance votes, and potentially market price. Be aware of the total token supply, and any lockup cliffs when participating in governance tokens.

Regulatory overhang: The SEC has issued guidance that the greater a project’s decentralization, the less likely the underlying tokens would be considered securities. It’s unclear how to define decentralization in practice, but the SEC has indicated that BTC and ETH have previously met this designation. Nevertheless, the threat of being deemed a security hangs over projects with governance tokens, as it’s largely unclear how the SEC will view some of these projects in the future.

If you squint, governance tokens bear similarities to traditional equity: they offer control over a protocol’s future, and can dictate cash flows and/or receive dividends. But there are key differences in that governance tokens are restricted in scope (can only vote on a small subset of parameters), are often offered freely to the users of a protocol, and are strictly not equity in a legal sense.

It is also helpful to be aware of the potential downsides. Every project will implement governance tokens differently, carry a unique token cap table that may include onerous vesting schedules that enables a low initial float, and will be independently evaluated by governing bodies for regulatory compliance.

There is reason to be excited about the new paradigm that governance tokens introduce, but it is also early in their evolutionary history. These are new concepts and the design space is large and subject to evolve, so be sure to do your own research and proceed accordingly.

The opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors who may be associated persons of Coinbase, Inc., or its affiliates (“Coinbase”) and who do not represent the views, opinions and positions of Coinbase. Information is provided for general educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute investment or other advice on financial products. Coinbase makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, suitability, or validity of any information on this website and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. Unless otherwise noted, all images provided herein are the property of Coinbase.

This website contains links to third-party websites or other content for information purposes only (“Third-Party Sites”). The Third-Party Sites are not under the control of Coinbase, and Coinbase is not responsible for the content of any Third-Party Site, including without limitation any link contained in a Third-Party Site, or any changes or updates to a Third-Party Site. Coinbase is not responsible for webcasting or any other form of transmission received from any Third-Party Site. Coinbase is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement, approval or recommendation by Coinbase of the site or any association with its operators.

The virtual world of Axie Infinity, where players play crypto games that pay money by winning fights, trading monsters, and staking or lending their digital assets, sparked this year’s gaming frenzy. Since many crypto enthusiasts are also keen gamers, the concept of integrating the two passions appeals to a broader set of people.

A fresh wave of games, including Splinterlands, Alien Worlds, and CryptoMines, has racked up hundreds of thousands of daily users in recent months. According to DappRadar, over 1,200 blockchain games are now, with roughly 70 new ones uploaded monthly.

How does a crypto game or crypto game rewards work?

All digital assets, such as XP, in-game cash, weapons, skins, characters, automobiles, and so on, are held by the creators in conventional gaming and development. On the other hand, in a crypto game, the user owns the objects obtained as the game progresses.

Because such games are built on blockchain networks, all linked computers have access to the same amount of data (all of it), decentralising information control and providing players and developers equal power and control. Additionally, all the crypto game rules are simple and easy to understand.

Blockchain technology may be used in crypto games for two reasons. The creators can utilise a blockchain to build the entire contest or only use it for the in-game cash. Every interaction inside the game is confirmed and saved in the form of new blocks in the blockchain in the first case. Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, can be utilised for in-game digital assets in the second situation.

Crypto gaming is based on play to earn. It is decentralised in which players may own unique in-game assets, crypto game tokens (which would be the game’s native token) and can sell them to anybody interested in fiat currency. To put it another way, digital assets may be swapped for cryptocurrency, which can then be converted into real money.

In a word, crypto games are created by storing information about unique assets held by players utilising a whole or partial blockchain system. This is how consumers can play crypto games and earn money.

Beyond understanding crypto games and how it works, there’s been a significant uprise of gaming pools, as well. CoinFantasy is one of those play-to-earn fantasy economies that has a gaming launchpad.

CoinFantasy allows high-quality early-stage businesses to collect funds by hosting a Game Pool, with the winners receiving IDO allocation. In exchange, CoinFantasy would launch NFTs of such projects for the game.

CoinFantasy is a healthy community that welcomes newer games with open arms. We also facilitate white label services for any platform interested in gamifying their community participation with CoinFantasy’s game.

And lastly, any project platform can utilise CoinFantasy to create gaming pools to engage their users/community. Users can avoid bots and receive a creamy layer of people who understand the market this way.

To sum up, Coinfantasy is truly a fantasy for a game developer, gamer, or someone who’s just a crypto enthusiast. With us, you rest assured that your crypto game investment, be it monetarily or timely, is worthwhile.