Obyte DAG

Do you want to get additional income with cryptocurrencies? Then liquidity mining could be for you. This technique has become popular among crypto investors of numerous platforms to earn passive income. Users can periodically receive monetary rewards by providing liquidity (crypto funds) to a Decentralized Finance (DeFi) market.
Our main DEX in Obyte, Oswap.io, already has incentives for those who add liquidity to the exchanging pools. Likewise, the Prophet prediction market lets anyone make their bets or earn from fees. We will show you here how to maximize your passive earnings with Obyte. Let’s go!
What is Liquidity Mining?
Liquidity mining refers to the process of providing funds (liquidity) to different DeFi products (e.g., DEX or predictions markets) in exchange for a portion of regular users’ fees or rewards. Those rewards may come from the exchange's native token (in DEXs' cases) or other cryptoassets.
Some investors choose liquidity mining over other methods of earning passive income in crypto because it can provide a somewhat predictable return. However, the earnings from liquidity mining vary by platform. They’re mostly displayed as Annual Percentage Yield (APY), easily observable on all dashboards, no matter the platform.

For example, suppose a specific pool in a DEX offers a liquidity mining APY of 13% for LPs. In that case, a user who provides $10,000 in liquidity tokens could earn around $3.5 per day and $1,300 per year, depending on the number of active traders paying fees at the time. So, it’s important to note that profits can fluctuate based on market conditions and trading volume.
As you can see, liquidity mining benefits Liquidity Providers (LP). It also benefits the DeFi products. DEXs require liquidity to support trading activities and facilitate transactions between token pairs. Prediction markets, on the other hand, require liquidity to improve the trading conditions for bettors and encourage more trading.
Usually, the liquidity in DEXs is provided in pairs. For instance, USDC-ETH or O-GBYTE-ETH. The liquidity provider (LP) should deposit two assets in the assigned pool, often in equal proportion. After that, the funds will be used by other traders, and the LPs can receive transaction fees and token emissions for the provided capital. 
Liquidity Mining in Obyte
Oswap.io and OSWAP Token
As we mentioned above, Oswap.io is our main DEX. Anyone can provide liquidity and earn from trading fees here. Besides, there are additional rewards for some pools. We currently have two main ways of getting those extra rewards: a 7-day locking of funds in an Autonomous Agent (AA) and the OSWAP emissions through farming. 
Fees + Locking
On this DEX, users can find exchange pairs (pools) like GBYTE-USDC, GBYTE-ETH, GBYTE-WBTC, or OUSD-USDC. Participating in Liquidity Mining is quite easy. The tokens to deposit must be compatible with the Obyte network. Thus, they can be native Obyte tokens (such as GBYTE or bonded stablecoins) or wrapped tokens from other chains (such as ETH, USDC, or WBTC).
You can use only native Obyte assets or import coins like ETH, USDC, or WBTC from the Ethereum blockchain using the Counterstake Bridge. Next, you need to provide liquidity on Oswap.io (deposit), and receive liquidity provider (LP) tokens in return. You can deposit both tokens or, in some cases, just one of the two tokens of the pair.  
The path to follow on the website [Oswap.io] is Pools > Add Liquidity. Then, you select the tokens involved and the amount for each token. The APY (percentage earned from fees) for each pool is available at first sight. Currently, the APYs on Oswap.io vary from 0% to 13.3%, depending on the pool. In exchange for providing liquidity, you receive LP tokens to your wallet. 

From this moment, you start earning from trading fees, and your earnings will be reflected in the value of your LP tokens – they’ll hold more underlying tokens of the pair, and you can get them when you take your liquidity back. That’s assuming the price between tokens doesn’t change a lot. If it does change substantially, there’s a risk that your loss from the changed prices (so called impermanent loss — compared with just holding the underlying tokens) exceeds the earnings from fees. 
To compensate for this risk and create additional incentives for liquidity provision, it’s common in DeFi space to pay additional rewards to LPs. On Oswap, there are currently two options.
1. Weekly rewards from Obyte
Every 7 days, 100 GBYTEs (around $1,300) are distributed among the LPs who locked their LP tokens on an AA designed for that purpose. The 100 GBYTE reward is divided among LPs in proportion to their locked value. For example, the last distribution offered 100 GBYTEs in rewards to 21 LPs, but some of them gained more than others, since they had more locked funds. 
The funds are locked for 7 days, and adding more LP tokens to the AA would extend the lock for another 7 days. Only LP tokens locked by the distribution date will be counted for rewards. 
This old way may be discontinued soon, though. The new OSWAP Token has arrived to fill that role. 
2. OSWAP Token
OSWAP is the first-ever DEX token issued on a bonding curve. It was launched on April 6, 2023, after a successful presale round. It incentivizes liquidity provision in some Oswap pools. Oswap.io liquidity providers can stake their LP tokens here and get a share of OSWAP emissions. 
You can buy and sell OSWAP tokens on its official website, using GBYTEs or any other cryptocurrency supported by the Counterstake Bridge. However, to profit from liquidity provision, you only need to have the required tokens (or the pool tokens, if you have already provided liquidity to Oswap). You need to visit the “Farming” section, choose the pool, and Add Liquidity through Oswap.io.

At the time of writing, the pools offering the highest rewards are O-OUSD-USDC (+214,500), O-OSWAP-USDC (+71,225%), and O-GBYTE-OSWAP (+11,400%). Since the farming (liquidity mining) of this token is barely starting, those values are constantly changing. As an example, the total OSWAP emissions to all pools were around $1,115 today. That’s distributed among all LPs, depending on their contributions. 

Prophet
Prophet is a bonding-curve-based prediction markets platform on Obyte. Besides betting on future events, you can also provide liquidity to the bettors and earn rewards from their fees. To become an LP on Prophet, you need to buy the tokens representing all the available options (Yes/No/Draw). 
The fees are added to the market when any of its tokens are bought or sold. This increases the total amount that will be divided among the winners after the event's outcome becomes known. Thus, every token holder is also a liquidity provider. Their tokens appreciate thanks to trading fees accrued after the tokens were purchased. And their capital improves the conditions for subsequent participants.
To minimize risks and remove the dependence on the outcome, liquidity providers would purchase all tokens in proportions that reflect the probabilities of the respective outcomes. This way, they get a piece of the trading fees every time, regardless of the results. To further reduce the risks of losses, providing liquidity to multiple markets is a good idea. 
Just like on DEXs, the APY is also available on every market (bet) in Prophet. To add liquidity, pick an open market (with “Trading” status). Finished markets (tagged as “Claiming Profits” or “Waiting for result”) won’t accept new LPs. The option to add liquidity is below the market data.

You’ll choose the amount to provide, and — if you are the first to provide liquidity to this market —  in which proportions. It’s important to check the odds to deposit good proportions. After that, you’ll just wait for the results and take the fees paid by bettors.
Mind the financial risks
Liquidity mining, like any other financial activity, involves certain risks that must be considered before participating. The risk of impermanent loss occurs when the relative token price locked in a pool changes, compared to the initial one. If the liquidity provider decides to withdraw at this point, the loss becomes permanent.
Being a victim of a crypto scam is another risk associated with liquidity mining. This occurs when the developers of a centralized protocol shut down the project abruptly and flee with the investors' money. That’s why you need to do your own research (DYOR) about the project and trust, preferably, in long-established platforms with well-known teams. 
Besides, technical threats include vulnerabilities in the code, lack of due diligence by the team, or failures in smart contracts. Fortunately, most of these risks associated with liquidity mining are mitigated on Obyte. The transparency of the Oscript language makes Dapps less prone to errors. 

__
Featured Vector Image by pch.vector / Freepik
Originally Published on Hackernoon
#liquidityprovider #PassiveIncome #ProfitPotential #LiquidityPools #Obyte

Have you ever seen a black swan? Probably not. They’re not common (unless you’re in Australia), and we’re more accustomed to white swans worldwide. That’s why, since 2001, the writer and mathematician Nassim Nicholas Taleb has used this rare animal to describe outlier events, often negative, very impactful, and almost impossible to predict. That’s the ‘Black Swan Theory’.
The term doesn’t differ that much in the cryptocurrency realm. A Black Swan Event in crypto is an unexpected and rare event that has a huge impact on the market, often causing extreme price crashes or major disruptions. As we’ve said before, these events are usually unpredictable, but they may seem obvious only in hindsight. Examples include major exchange collapses, sudden regulatory crackdowns, or yes, a global pandemic. 
Besides the price volatility, a sudden event like this can spread fear and uncertainty, causing many to sell their holdings, reducing liquidity. Governments might respond with stricter regulations, affecting businesses and users. If trust in the market weakens, adoption could slow down, making it harder for cryptocurrencies to reach widespread use. However, Black Swan Events don’t tend to repeat themselves – that’s why they are difficult to predict.

Previous Black Swans in Crypto
The COVID-19 pandemic was a major Black Swan Event that impacted global markets, including crypto. In March 2020, as fear spread, investors rushed to sell risky assets, causing $BTC and other cryptocurrencies to crash by over 50% in just a few days. However, as governments introduced stimulus measures and interest in digital assets grew, crypto markets rebounded and reached new all-time highs in the following years. This event highlighted both the volatility and resilience of cryptocurrencies.

The Mt. Gox collapse in 2014 was another major Black Swan Event. Mt. Gox was considered, by many sources, the biggest Bitcoin exchange at the time. However, due to mismanagement and hacks, it lost around 850,000 BTC, leading to its bankruptcy. The collapse shook investor confidence and caused Bitcoin’s price to drop significantly. It also exposed the need for better security and regulation in crypto exchanges, shaping the industry’s approach to risk management.
In 2022, the Terra (LUNA) crash and FTX bankruptcy were two of the most devastating Black Swan Events. Terra’s algorithmic stablecoin, UST, lost its peg (it wasn’t stable anymore), wiping out billions of dollars and collapsing the entire ecosystem. Later that year, FTX, one of the largest exchanges, went bankrupt due to fraud and mismanagement (and likely as a side effect of Terra, too), further damaging trust in the industry. Both events led to stricter regulations and made investors more cautious.
That’s the thing with Black Swan Events. They’re often devastating enough to make everyone learn from previous mistakes and make efforts (and laws) so that they don’t happen ever again. The European Union, for instance, banned algorithmic stablecoins after the Terra episode.
Future Black Swans in Crypto?
While price predictions are never fully reliable, Black Swan events are even more unpredictable. Analysts can study markets and news, forming their own theories and guesses, but nothing is certain—no one can truly see the future. However, some preventive measures are always available.

To protect themselves from Black Swan Events, crypto investors should diversify their portfolios and avoid putting all their funds into one asset. Holding a mix of cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and even traditional assets can reduce risks during market crashes. Choosing coins that have survived past crises and proven their resilience is also crucial. Long-established projects with strong fundamentals and active development are more likely to withstand unexpected downturns.
Additionally, investors should practice risk management by setting stop-loss orders while engaging in speculative trading, and only investing what they can afford to lose. Keeping funds in secure non-custodial wallets instead of exchanges can also prevent losses in case of hacks or bankruptcies. Staying informed about market trends and regulatory changes can help users react quickly and make better financial decisions.
It’s also important to remember that cryptocurrencies weren’t created just for speculation. The real value lies in their utility and autonomy. Instead of chasing price movements, users should focus on projects that offer them some real-world benefits. For example, Obyte has provided a resilient and fully decentralized crypto ecosystem since 2016. Its DAG-based platform eliminates middlemen like miners and “validators” while enabling smart contracts, conditional payments, customized tokens, self-sovereign ID, textcoins, chatbots, and more, making it a strong choice for those looking for the most resilient crypto ecosystems.

Originally Published on Hackernoon
#BlackSwan #CryptoCautions #BearishAlert #CryptoCrashAlert #Obyte

The digital world is growing, and surveillance is growing with it. Governments, companies, and even other individuals are now pretty capable of following our virtual steps —including the financial ones. That’s why a group of activists emerged in the late 20th century with a mission to safeguard individual liberties through the development of decentralized money. 
These activists, known as cypherpunks, laid the groundwork for the creation and popularization of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. The term "cypherpunk" is a blend of "cypher," referring to cryptography, and "punk," which reflects their rebellious and nonconformist nature. So, they’re mostly computer science and cryptography experts aiming to create new digital tools to foster privacy and social change.
The movement gained momentum in the 1980s and 1990s as individuals concerned about the increasing surveillance and control of digital communications and transactions sought ways to counteract these trends. We can say it started with David Chaum, an American cryptographer who is widely recognized for inventing the first forms of digital cash —no, it wasn’t Satoshi Nakamoto alone. 
A prolific mailing list
The first Cypherpunk mailing list started in 1992 as an initiative by Eric Hughes, Timothy C. May, John Gilmore, and Judith Milhon. For more references, Hughes invented the first anonymous remailer (a server to increase privacy in emails), and May discovered the Alpha Strike issue in computer chips. Gilmore is one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to defend digital rights. For her part, Milhon helped to create the first public computerized bulletin board system, besides being a writer and editor (she coined the “Cypherpunks” name). 
Hughes, Gilmore, and May were the masked individuals in the cover of Wired, Feb 1993. Image by CryptoArtCulture

In 1993, Hughes wrote and shared the Cypherpunk Manifesto, which describes the main purpose of the group and this kind of activism:
“Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age (…) We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy (…) We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any (…) Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and (…) we're going to write it.”
The number of subscribers to the list (and, likely, to the movement) reached over 2,000 individuals by 1997. But this isn’t the reason why we’re stating that the mailing list was prolific. From this mailing list and this ideal came up numerous talented people that developed a diverse set of digital tools to fight for privacy. 
To name a few of them: Julian Assange (WikiLeaks), Adam Back (Hashcash & Blockstream), Eric Blossom (GNU Radio Project), Phil Zimmermann (PGP Protocol), Bram Cohen (BitTorrent & Chia), Hal Finney (First Proof-of-Work), Nick Szabo (First Smart Contracts), Wei Dai (B-Money), Zooko Wilcox (Zcash), and, of course, Satoshi Nakamoto (Bitcoin). Most of them are still alive and active in 2023.
Before and after Bitcoin
One of the most significant contributions of cypherpunks was their role in conceptualizing and promoting the idea of decentralized digital currencies. Influenced by the works of cryptographic pioneers like David Chaum, who introduced the concept of "e-cash," and Wei Dai, who proposed the idea of "b-money," cypherpunks envisioned a system where money could be transferred electronically without the need for intermediaries.

This vision laid the foundation for the creation of Bitcoin, the first and most well-known cryptocurrency. As we mentioned above, Nakamoto didn’t do it all by themselves. The process was more like putting together puzzle pieces: Hal Finney’s PoW, some features from e-cash, Hashcash, and b-money, public-key cryptography by Ralph Merkle, and time-stamping by W.S. Stornetta and Stuart Haber. 
Finally, in 2008, Nakamoto published the Bitcoin whitepaper. It describes a peer-to-peer electronic cash system that utilized cryptographic techniques to secure transactions and maintain a public ledger. The principles of decentralization, pseudonymity, and cryptographic security closely aligned with the cypherpunk ideals, making Bitcoin the first realization of their vision.
Decentralization didn’t stop there though. Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) systems are the next step of decentralization. A DAG-based cryptosystem like Obyte doesn’t have miners or intermediaries at all. It doesn’t have blocks, either. Only Order Providers (OPs) whose transactions serve as waypoints for ordering everything else —but they don’t have other powers and aren’t needed to “accept” transactions, like Bitcoin miners. By eliminating such big power centers as miners, DAG achieves more even distribution of power than blockchains.

Cypherpunks' visionary contributions formed the puzzle of cryptocurrency evolution. Bitcoin's whitepaper, embracing decentralization and cryptographic security, materialized cypherpunk ideals. As technology advances, DAG systems like Obyte emerge, furthering decentralization without middlemen. 

---

Featured Vector Image by jcomp / Freepik
Originally Published on Hackernoon

#cypherpunks #Satoshi_Nakamoto #DecentralizedTrading $BTC #Obyte

In the world of cryptocurrencies, a “blacklist” usually means a list of addresses, accounts, or smart contracts that are banned from sending, receiving, or using tokens in centralized platforms —sometimes, even in some “decentralized” platforms, too. Governments and regulators use these lists to enforce financial laws, but they also raise hard questions about privacy and freedom in crypto. With pressure growing, many are asking: can truly decentralized systems survive blacklists?
Some distributed ledgers, like Ethereum, have had to walk a careful line between legal compliance and maintaining their open nature. Meanwhile, alternative networks like Obyte offer a different approach that could make censorship much harder. Let’s explore what’s happening, what’s at risk, and where things could go from here.
Blacklists and Ethereum — A Growing Challenge
Ethereum, the second-largest crypto network by market value, has faced several blacklist controversies. For example, after the U.S. sanctioned the privacy tool Tornado Cash in 2022, many Ethereum apps and services blocked addresses linked to it. Even stablecoins like USDC froze accounts that regulators flagged.
These moves show how central players in crypto ecosystems—like token issuers—can control access. Although distributed ledgers and smart contracts are supposed to run without middlemen, outside events can force changes that break this ideal. Developers are left caught between building open platforms and following real-world laws. For users, the consequences are even clearer: your assets could become unusable overnight if they land on a blacklist. For instance, if you, as a US citizen, mixed some funds on Tornado Cash and authorities found out.

Censorship in crypto doesn’t just block a few bad actors—it can reshape entire networks. After Ethereum switched to proof-of-stake (PoS), “validators” became the new gatekeepers (replacing mining pools), and some started filtering transactions to avoid dealing with blacklisted addresses. Tools like MEV-boost made it easier for them to choose which transactions to include.
This behavior weakens the original promise of crypto neutrality. Instead of treating every user equally, censored networks prioritize compliance over fairness. If enough “validators” cooperate with regulators, blockchains could lose their independence and start resembling traditional financial systems. Over time, this could drive away users who once turned to crypto for freedom.
Crypto's Vulnerability: Custodians and Compliance
Even though crypto itself is designed to resist censorship to a degree, centralized players like exchanges and custodians are more vulnerable. Besides token issuers in blockchains, many firms choose to comply with regulations to protect their reputation and continue operating legally.

Major exchanges like Coinbase and Binance have enhanced Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) practices, restricting transactions linked to sanctioned entities. Although this protects their legal standing, it limits cryptocurrencies even more and potentially threatens the core ethos of crypto freedom. On the other hand, governments wouldn’t allow them to operate at all without this compliance. It’s an inescapable conundrum.
The tension between maintaining decentralization and complying with regulations is a delicate balancing act. While some projects strive to uphold the original ideals of financial autonomy, many large-scale operations prioritize business sustainability over ideology.

Alternative Approaches 
At the very least, we can fix internal blockchain censorship by picking another network. Not all crypto platforms are built the same. Obyte, for example, uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) instead of a blockchain. There are no miners or “validators” deciding which transactions go through. Instead, transactions are added to the DAG directly by users themselves, removing centralized bottlenecks that can be targeted by regulators.

This structure makes censorship much harder. Since no single group controls transaction approval, it’s almost impossible to blacklist an account or address globally. In a world where blacklists are spreading, architectures like Obyte’s could offer real alternatives.
However, even the most censorship-resistant systems face practical limits. Crypto projects still need bridges, gateways, and exchanges to interact with the broader economy. In other words: you’ll need to turn your crypto into USD, EUR, or whatever fiat currency at some point. These points of contact, as we mentioned above, are often under legal pressure and can block users even if the underlying network resists.
Obyte is better protected at the protocol level, but users still risk exposure when cashing out or connecting to external services. No system is completely immune because people still live under legal systems. Designing censorship resistance is essential, but managing the risks outside the network matters just as much. But hey, good news? Crypto bans are rarely effective, even when exchanging for fiat.
Why Bans Often Fail to Stop Crypto
Despite regulatory efforts, crypto use persists in countries with bans —and platforms with sanctions are still very much used. Chainalysis' Global Crypto Adoption Index shows that 50% of the top 10 countries with the highest crypto adoption rates have either full or partial bans. China, for instance, maintains strict regulations, yet still ranks within the top 20 for crypto usage.

In nations like Bangladesh, Egypt, and Morocco, where crypto is officially forbidden, enforcement struggles to keep pace with user activity. Individuals continue to buy, sell, and trade cryptocurrencies, often using decentralized platforms or peer-to-peer (P2P) networks to evade restrictions.
This isn’t just a sense of rebellion. Economic instability plays a significant role. In places where local currencies are unstable, citizens turn to crypto to preserve their wealth. In Venezuela and Nigeria, for example, crypto provides an alternative to hyperinflation and tight government controls. The decentralized design of cryptocurrencies makes it nearly impossible for authorities to shut down networks entirely, even if individual users may face risks.
Bans often push crypto activity into underground markets, removing the protective layers that regulation could have provided. Instead of stopping usage, heavy-handed laws often make crypto ecosystems more opaque and harder to supervise.
How Decentralized Players Are Facing Restrictions

Even as centralized players increasingly comply, decentralized systems remain resistant. Protocols without central authorities—like certain DeFi platforms and decentralized exchanges (DEXs)—cannot easily enforce blacklists or freeze funds. Without a governing body, these platforms continue operating globally, regardless of local bans.
Individual users have also been adapting creatively. Although Tornado Cash was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury (until November 2024) and its domains and website were taken down, users still accessed it through decentralized interfaces like IPFS. According to Dune Analytics, users deposited variable amounts after the sanctions, up to $22 million in September 2024, despite legal hurdles.

Speaking of those legal hurdles, six users of Tornado Cash, backed financially by Coinbase, sued the U.S. Treasury Department after it sanctioned the mixer. In November 2024, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Treasury overstepped its authority because Tornado Cash’s decentralized smart contracts aren’t “property” that can be sanctioned under current law. The court sided with the users, overturning the sanctions. Individuals are fighting back and winning some battles, too.
On the other hand, data from the Atlantic Council shows that at least 27 countries have imposed full or partial crypto bans. Yet crypto adoption is still highest in regions under pressure. In Nigeria, even with restrictions, over 46% of the population reports owning or using cryptocurrencies. In China, underground networks and offshore exchanges allow continued participation in the global crypto economy.
Necessity drives innovation. In authoritarian regimes, citizens often use crypto to protect savings, send remittances abroad, or circumvent local banking restrictions. Bans, instead of halting crypto activity, push it further into decentralized, less traceable channels. Crypto’s foundational trait—censorship resistance—proves indispensable where freedom is under threat.
Toward a Freer Crypto Future
The rise of blacklists highlights a major tension in crypto: can these technologies stay open and neutral while fitting into the regulated world? Blockchains that allow easy censorship might survive in the short term, but they risk losing their core values —and users.
Systems like Obyte show that it’s possible to prioritize user freedom at the design level. Still, the bigger battle lies in how users, developers, and regulators shape the evolving crypto space. Whether people choose resilient platforms or prioritize convenience will define what crypto becomes in the next decade—and whether it stays true to its original vision.
As personal liberties continue to erode across the globe, users will likely, over time, gravitate toward more open and decentralized platforms. The future belongs to decentralization, as centralization has led to widespread surveillance, media manipulation, discrimination, financial censorship, data breaches, and countless other problems.

Featured Vector Image by pikisuperstar / Freepik

#CensorshipResistant #Blacklist #Ethereum #TornadoCash #RegulationDebate