Fed Notes: Examining CBDC and Wholesale Payments

TheDinarian

News • Business • Investing & Finance

September 25, 2023

NEW FED PAPER: "...the technology associated with tokenized platforms is not incompatible with existing central bank money functioning as a settlement asset." Translation: paper concludes no need for the Fed to issue a wholesale CBDC as a new settlement asset. ~Kaytlyn Long

Abstract

This paper explores whether a new settlement asset in the form of central bank money is essential for a new platform that processes wholesale payment transactions. Central bank money currently exists for wholesale transactions in the form of depository institution balances at the Federal Reserve (Reserve Banks) used for Fedwire^®Funds Service (Fedwire).² Increasing public-sector experimentation with and private-sector usage of distributed ledger technology (DLT) for the transfer of value has led many to ask whether the existing form of central bank money can be used as a settlement asset in DLT transactions. Examining the key technological characteristics and potential arrangements of tokenized distributed platforms and comparing them with existing settlement assets, transfer mechanisms, and balance sheet entries, we argue that a new settlement asset in the form of central bank money is not essential for a tokenized wholesale payment system.

Introduction

Recently there has been a renewed interest in wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC).³ For the purposes of this paper, wCBDC is defined as a potential new form of central bank money and a digital liability of a central bank that is only accessible by eligible entities, such as depository institutions (DIs), which purportedly could allow for new technical capabilities and arrangements in interbank payments, clearing, and settlement, including use of tokenized platforms, programmability, and composability.⁴ Since CBDC implies a new form of money, using the term "wholesale CBDC" suggests that a new central bank liability is essential to achieve these purported benefits.⁵ In order to be distinct from existing central bank money, a new central bank liability would need to have a different legal structure and be recorded on the central bank balance sheet separately from the DI balances held in master accounts.⁶ However, providing a central bank liability to DIs is not itself a novel activity since DIs currently have access to central bank money in a digital form. And in payments terms, attributes like tokenization are related to the platform, or transfer mechanism, of a payment, not to the settlement asset itself.

It is therefore important to ask whether a new settlement asset, specifically new central bank money, is essential for a new transfer mechanism for wholesale payment transactions. For the purposes of this note, we limit the question to whether a new central bank liability/new settlement asset is necessary to facilitate payments on a new technology platform. Other policy questions may have different discussions about the need for a new liability to achieve those policy objectives. This paper first provides a simple framework for thinking about central bank money and wholesale payment systems. It then provides an overview of today's wholesale payment systems that settle in central bank money. Next, it provides an explanation of the technology attributes and arrangements associated with a new payments platform to determine whether these attributes and arrangements are incompatible with the existing settlement asset. Finally, the paper examines whether a new form of central bank money (a new settlement asset) may be needed for a new wholesale payment system (a new transfer mechanism).

Simple Framework for Central Bank Money and Wholesale Payment Systems

Central Bank Money
Central bank money is a liability of the central bank. It may take the form of physical currency that is widely available to the general public or the form of digital balances held by DIs and other eligible institutions at central banks.⁷ The term "reserves" is commonly used to describe these digital balances held by DIs, and footnote 4 of the H.6 Release (Money Stock Measures) defines reserves balances as "balances held by depository institutions in master accounts and excess balance accounts at Federal Reserve Banks."⁸

From a payments perspective, central bank money in master accounts is used as a settlement asset for Federal Reserve Financial Services (FRFS).⁹ A settlement asset (the "what") is used to discharge obligations as specified by the rules and regulations for a financial market infrastructure.¹⁰ Since central bank money has neither credit nor liquidity risk, it is considered the safest form of money.¹¹ The settlement asset aspect of central bank money is important when discussing CBDC because the Federal Reserve has other liabilities on its balance sheet that do not function as settlement assets, such as overnight reverse repurchase agreements. Given the expectation that it will be able to transfer value, CBDC as a new form of central bank money should be viewed as both a liability of the central bank and as a settlement asset.

Wholesale Payments
Wholesale payments are defined by certain attributes: They are typically thought of as transactions between DIs or other eligible financial institutions and as being large-value payments. Fedwire is one example of a wholesale payment system or transfer mechanism (the "how").¹² For the purpose of this analysis, any new wholesale payments system would be transferring large-value payments between eligible institutions.¹³ Any institution that currently can access and use the existing wholesale payment system would be eligible to connect to a new wholesale payment system. However, in this analysis, institutions that do not have access to the existing system would not have access to the new system, either.¹⁴

Simple Framework for Analysis
A simple way to separate the benefits of a new central bank liability that functions as a settlement asset – the what – from the benefits of transfer mechanism or payments platform – the how – is to identify the potential states that may exist for settlement assets and platforms. As seen in table 1, there are four potential states derived from whether there is a new or existing liability that is a settlement asset and a new or existing payments platform that is used as a transfer mechanism. For simplicity, we will refer to the existing liability functioning as a settlement asset as “reserves” rather than the “balances held by DIs in master accounts.” The existing centralized wholesale payments platform considered in this analysis is Fedwire. Because the potential for new technical capabilities is a motivating factor in discussing a wCBDC, this analysis considers the new theoretical platform to be a “tokenized” distributed platform that may use new technology such as distributed ledger technology (DLT).¹⁵ However, the framework could be applied to any new wholesale transaction platform and does not require transaction ledger-keeping to be distributed or decentralized.

Table 1: Simple Framework for Analyzing Central Bank Money and Wholesale Payment Systems

The top left quadrant shows the status quo for wholesale payments with central bank money: reserves transferred on an existing platform such as Fedwire. The top right quadrant shows that keeping the existing liability/settlement asset and moving to a new platform would create a system that looks like reserves on a tokenized distributed platform. However, not until a new liability is introduced on the bottom row does the concept of wCBDC, as defined in this paper, get introduced. That new row shows two possible versions of wCBDC, one version of a new liability/settlement asset that uses a new platform and one that does not. This difference serves as a reminder that simply introducing a new liability/settlement asset does not guarantee the benefits associated with a new platform. Definitionally, within this framework, for one to actually use the term wCBDC as a means for tokenization, programmability, and composability, one would need both a new liability/settlement asset and a new payments platform (bottom right quadrant).

These distinctions are important in determining what exactly is being created and where the new potential benefits are coming from. If the benefit were solely from the liability, then a comparison of existing payments platforms, one with a new settlement asset and one using reserves, should demonstrate material differences between a transfer on the two wholesale platforms (holding other policy issues like operating hours and access constant). In other words, if benefits were from the liability, a transfer that uses a new central bank liability on Fedwire should demonstrate differences from a transfer that uses reserves on Fedwire. If, instead, benefits stem from moving to a new payments platform, what benefits does the new liability contribute? Are there reasons not to use reserves on a new payments platform? These are the questions this paper seeks to address in subsequent sections.

Defining the Status Quo: Existing Wholesale Systems with Central Bank Money

Overview
To understand whether a new form of digital central bank money is essential, it is necessary to recognize how existing wholesale transactions are processed using central bank money as a settlement asset. More than twenty Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructure jurisdictions have a large-value payment system (LVPS) that is operated by the central bank.¹⁶ Generally, an LVPS is defined as a funds transfer system that handles large-value and high-priority payments using real-time gross settlement (RTGS) or an equivalent mechanism to settle in central bank money.¹⁷ For the purpose of this analysis, we use Fedwire as our example, an RTGS system that enables participants to make payments with immediate finality through credit transfers using their balances held at Reserve Banks or intraday credit provided by those Reserve Banks (that is, by using what would be considered central bank money in either case). We focus on the settlement asset (central bank money), how the transfer of value appears on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet (accounting treatment), and the transfer mechanism itself (payments platform).

Liability/Settlement Asset: Central Bank Money
Federal Reserve Operating Circular (OC) 1 sets forth the terms under which a DI is eligible for a master account (including opening, maintaining, and terminating an account) and financial services with its Reserve Bank and describes the tools that an account holder may use to segregate, report, and settle debit and credit transaction activity in the master account. OC Section 6 explains that a master account is used to settle debit and credit transactions that the DI conducts with or through any Reserve Bank. Funds in the master account, which are assets of commercial banks and liabilities of the central bank, are the payments platform's settlement asset. Every Fedwire participant must maintain a master account at the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve Balance Sheet
According to the 2023 Financial Accounting Manual for Federal Reserve Banks, each Reserve Bank sets up "a general ledger and subsidiary accounts as it requires for its own purposes to prepare the balance sheet and to maintain satisfactory internal controls."¹⁸ The line item for the deposits of depository institutions is 220-025. These deposits are balances maintained by DIs in accounts at Reserve Banks. "Depository institutions may hold balances in master accounts, excess balance accounts, and temporary transitional accounts. Depository institution balances in all of these accounts are captured in this line item."¹⁹ Since the balance sheet is organized by the holder, no distinction is currently made between types of accounts.

Transfer Mechanism (Platform)
Regulation J and OC 6 consist of rules regarding funds transfers over Fedwire.²⁰ For a DI to use a wholesale payment system like Fedwire, it must maintain a master account and hold central bank money in its account at the Federal Reserve. The payment instructions are for the delivery of "central bank money," and once the payment is processed, Reserve Banks debit the account of the sending DI and credit the account of the receiving DI. Funds are ultimately settled on the books of the Federal Reserve and thus are settled in central bank money. From an operational standpoint, many of the actions that the Reserve Banks perform as sending or receiving banks in a funds transfer are accomplished by Fedwire.²¹

New "Tokenized" Distributed Payments Platform: Technology and Arrangements

To determine whether the technology associated with tokenized platforms is incompatible with reserves as a settlement asset, it is necessary to identify key characteristics of the technology. Early permissionless crypto-asset distributed value-transfer systems, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, were conceived to create a system where anyone may participate, and participants are incentivized to act in a way that is consistent with the system operating as intended. In addition, the system is designed to minimize the impact of dishonest participation. The scholarship on decentralized and distributed value-transfer systems shows that the key characteristics of these platforms for value-transfer systems include (1) strong proofs of funds ownership through asymmetric cryptography, (2) prevention of double-spend through consensus mechanisms, and (3) ability to program money to execute specified logic.²²

Strong proofs
Foundational to these technologies is the implementation of asymmetric cryptography to support a variety of purposes, but two primary uses stand out: strong proofs of funds ownership and authorization of payments.²³ This usage of cryptography in permissionless platforms differs from practices in traditional systems that represent ownership through relational databases and tables, which consequently break up authorization (for example, username and password, secure API gateways) and ownership (for example, a ledger maintained and owned by a single entity) into discrete steps.²⁴ Theoretically, in a tokenized world, whoever holds the private key owns the asset and is the sole authorizer.

Prevention of double-spend
In any value-transfer platform, double-spend (that is, the threat of spending the same funds twice) must be prevented to ensure the validity of the payment platform. The combination of technical components and economic incentives to prevent double-spend is one of the foundational aspects of a crypto-asset system because it allows for trust to be distributed across the system's design without relying on a single, centralized actor. Consequently, the distribution of trust allows for the ownership and authorization of value transfers described above to be trusted.²⁵ This trust model differs from centralized systems that are operated by a single or set of trusted entities. These arrangements do not necessarily require solutions as complex as those described above because prevention of double-spend can be ensured by the trusted operator(s) of a system.

Programming money
The third characteristic identified is the ability to program money to execute in a specific way (colloquially termed "programmability"). While this function is not necessarily new, as product offerings like automated payments are available for traditional deposit products, the implementation of programmable features within crypto-asset systems themselves are novel. One way to think about the difference between programmability in these systems versus traditional systems is to answer the question "How does each respective system provide certain guarantees?" In traditional payment systems that decouple programmable actions (for example, automated transfers at specified days), a central system operator or a group of system operators provides the guarantee that specified logic will be executed.²⁶ In contrast, successful crypto-asset ecosystems leverage cryptographic proofs for ownership, authorization, and distribution of trust to ensure specified programming logic is executed without relying on a central or group of operators to execute. If programmability is necessary for the transfer of value, there may be arguments for ensuring that it is tethered to the settlement system.²⁷

New Technology Brings New Arrangements (and New Risks)
New technology also allows for the design of new arrangements. The decentralization often associated with these technologies allows for the removal of intermediaries, and therefore new payment arrangements often accompany new technology options. As a result, who controls the ledger for decentralized systems may be very different from who controls the ledger for centralized systems.²⁸ Additionally, centralized financial systems generally do not allow just any member of the public to be able to build new products on their technology stack. By design, decentralized systems can allow, and frequently encourage, anyone to build products on top of their settlement layer. As a result, bilateral arrangements that currently exist off the payments platform may be brought on the platform through programmability.

These differences in settlement arrangements and development of the technology stack may introduce new risks into the payment system. For example, operational risks may be introduced in settlement arrangements with a greater degree of decentralization since decentralized governance associated with decentralized platforms often makes it difficult to act quickly when there are operational issues.²⁹ Moreover, lowering barriers to entry for programmability may increase the number of bilateral credit arrangements and atomically settled transactions on the platform.³⁰ However, the existing crypto-asset ecosystem has shown how new applications built on decentralized settlement platforms can introduce liquidity risk into the system.³¹

From a central bank perspective, these risks can be both to the payment systems themselves and to the reputation of the central bank. To understand scenarios where new central bank money may be essential for a new wholesale payments platform, one must understand the potential for new arrangements to introduce new risks and the ways that such risks need to be sequestered from other central bank transactions.

New Liability/Settlement Asset: Is New Central Bank Money Essential?

Having identified key technological features and potential arrangements of tokenized platforms, we now ask whether a new form of central bank money is essential as a settlement asset in these systems. Addressing that question comprises questions both of operational feasibility and of potential new risks posed to existing settlement assets and payments platforms. We argue that neither the key technological features of a tokenized platform nor the potential arrangements associated with a tokenized platform necessitate a new central bank liability.

Does the Balance Sheet Necessitate New Money?
From a technological feasibility standpoint, reserves should be able to be used on a new "tokenized" platform and a new liability would not be required to achieve the benefits of new technical capabilities. The specifications set out in OC 1 regarding debiting and crediting master accounts held at Reserve Banks should not prohibit master accounts from being used as a central bank liability for a tokenized platform that has strong guarantees, prevents double-spend, and is programmable. DIs could still hold reserves in master accounts at the Reserve Banks, which are then debited and credited with other DI master accounts through a new tokenized platform. Since the accounting line item 220-025 currently can be used for different types of accounts, including master accounts, there is no obvious reason it could not be used for recordkeeping on the general ledger.³² It is also important to note that the language of accounts, balances, and debit/credit are not inherently incompatible with the notion of tokenization and thus the data structure for accounting does not itself suggest the need for a new liability rather than a tokenization approach.³³

Does New Technology Necessitate New Money?
The same beneficial attributes DLTs can provide to a payment system, such as strong proofs of ownership and payment authorization, double-spend prevention, and programmable money, could also create new payment system risks. For example, errors in a smart contract's programming or technical flaws in a new arrangement between DIs (for example, lending arrangements) may add to or enhance credit and liquidity risks within the payment system. More specifically, if the ability to program money lowers the barrier to entry for activities that traditionally occur outside the payment system, bringing them onto the payment system may introduce more risk to the central bank.

Nevertheless, the risks associated with new technology may not create a need for a new type of central bank money. Depending on who has certain authorities within the payment system, these new risks could be mitigated. For example, contingent on its level of control, the central bank could install a risk-management practice akin to those on its other payment systems. This approach leads to the question of not what the technology is, but who has the potential to mitigate the risks that the system design may introduce. For the purposes of new risk, it seems that the technology itself would not create a need for a new version of central bank money.

Do New Arrangements Necessitate New Money?
If it is not the risks themselves, but instead the ability to mitigate the risks that is the crux of whether there is a need for a new form of money, the arrangement of the new payment system becomes vital. Some CBDC projects, both international collaborations and private-sector initiatives, envision a world where a jurisdiction's CBDC runs on a payments platform operated by a group of central banks or a private entity. Additionally, some proponents of CBDC describe the ability for the private sector to build on top of the central bank's technology stack, specifically on top of the settlement layer, as a key potential innovation that a CBDC-based financial system could bring.³⁴

Since it is technically feasible to use reserves for a new payments platform, if the Federal Reserve operates the new payments platform and prohibits private-sector development on the technology stack, the payment system could be thought of as just another digital FRFS product or service, along with Fedwire, FedACH^®, and FedNow^®.³⁵ In this case, the Federal Reserve should be able to conduct risk management and oversight in the same way that it does with its other services. As a result, reserves should be able to be used as a settlement asset on a new payments platform, and there is no compelling reason to issue a new central bank liability.

Other arrangements that include the private sector also do not dictate the need for new central bank money. In a scenario where a private-sector entity operates the payments platform, there would need to be some sort of legal or technical connection between the settlement asset and the platform that would either confer the legal designation of being a central bank liability on a private-sector platform or technically connect central bank accounting systems to a private-sector platform. This type of connectivity does not currently exist in the United States, though other jurisdictions, such as Switzerland, allow for central bank money to operate on a private platform through legal agreements.³⁶ From a technical standpoint, allowing direct private-sector system operational connectivity into reserves introduces a variety of risks, including a new vector for operational risk. Yet, the risks associated with private-sector arrangements likely still have more to do with permitting the activity itself rather than permitting a new form of money. Furthermore, to determine necessity, one would have to identify a circumstance where it not only would be permissible for private-sector activity to access the Federal Reserve balance sheet or platform but also essential that those transactions are not settled with central bank money recorded as 220-025 on the balance sheet. While there may be reasons for wanting to avoid contagion using segregated accounts, there are alternative risk-management practices available to address spillover between systems, making a new form of central bank money unnecessary from a central bank balance sheet perspective.³⁷

More Examination Needed: Possibility of Spillover Due to Private-Sector Products and Services
While new central bank money is not essential for a new payments platform, it is possible that central banks may consider whether circumstances exist where a new central bank liability may be advantageous. One potential circumstance for future examination is when a proposed platform substantially increases risk. For example, there could be a scenario where the central bank manages the new tokenized payments platform but allows institutions to build on top of the infrastructure. Programmability built into the platform may not only create lower barriers to entry for bilateral arrangements between parties, but it may also create additional credit and liquidity risks. For example, a widely used program meant to escrow funds for a particular use case could introduce liquidity risk into the system.³⁸ New credit risk could arise from lending between institutions that would not have otherwise lent but for the programmability feature. Even though DIs, and to an extent central banks, currently manage the risks of these agreements on existing payment platforms, lower barriers to entry may increase the occurrence of these transactions associated with additional risk. If reserves held in master accounts are used for both the new tokenized payments platform and existing payment services, it is possible that liquidity and credit risks could spill over from the new platform to existing ones.

Though this example relies on several assumptions that need to be further explored, it highlights the possibility that introducing private-sector products and services to central bank money could affect the risks in existing central bank payment systems. In such a scenario, the option of a new, separate form of central bank money may be considered by some central banks (though it is certainly not the only option).

Conclusion

Simply using central bank money on a new technology platform does not necessarily make it a new form of central bank money, and the technology associated with tokenized platforms is not incompatible with existing central bank money functioning as a settlement asset. Although the technological features and potential arrangements of tokenized platforms could potentially prove useful, a new settlement asset in the form of wCBDC is not essential for these platforms to transfer central bank money. Should arrangements exist that involve private-sector participants, they may increase risk across all central bank payment services and may therefore require a different type of account. New central bank money is not the only solution, since legal agreements can designate accounts on another payment system as being legally comparable to master accounts. Thus, questions surrounding the necessity of a new settlement asset specifically for wholesale payment transactions should instead be framed as questions regarding risk appetite for how the private-sector can use central bank money.

Link

The Dinarian On Locals is a labor of love that I pour my heart and soul into during my personal time. Countless hours are dedicated to delivering you the most up-to-date, unfiltered, and authentic news and information. Your support means the world to me, and I invite you to consider making a donation or becoming a dedicated supporter of this project. Any amount of XRP donations can be sent to XRP address: rqEy1PDACRg3p9RaVEZz6jU1g9RgguP91 or by scanning the QR code below and are not only appreciated but needed...

To those of you already backing my efforts, I extend my deepest gratitude. Your generosity fuels this mission, and I genuinely thank you from the depths of my heart. Together, we can continue to bring you the best results and make a significant impact in everyones future! ~D

Join the TheDinarian Community

To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today

What else you may like…

Videos

Podcasts

Posts

Articles

thedinarian@thedinarian

August 17, 2025

Pay Attention Here...😉

These two crypto Ponzi schemes are about to collapse…

👉 Sharplink Gaming & Microstrategy

Source: @chooserich 🗣️

00:04:41

thedinarian@thedinarian

August 17, 2025

Introducing Arc, the home for stablecoin finance.

Arc is an open Layer-1 blockchain purpose-built to drive the next chapter of financial innovation powered by stablecoins.

Designed to provide an enterprise-grade foundation for payments, FX, and capital markets, Arc delivers the performance, reliability, and liquidity builders need to meet global financial demands.

Arc features:
✅ USDC as native gas
✅ Built-in FX engine
✅ Deterministic sub-second finality
✅ Opt-in privacy
✅ Full Circle platform integration

Open, composable, and EVM-compatible, Arc is designed to interoperate seamlessly with the broader multichain ecosystem.

As part of our mission to advance blockchain infrastructure, we're excited to welcome the Malachite team and IP from Informal Systems to Circle. Arc is built on Malachite’s high-performance consensus engine.

In line with our commitment to open-source development, the core software for Arc will be released under a permissive license, enabling the broader developer community to contribute, extend, and build ...

WWW.CIRCLE.COM

Introducing Arc: An Open Layer-1 Blockchain Purpose-Built for Stablecoin Finance

Introducing Arc: an open Layer-1 blockchain purpose-built for stablecoin finance that delivers the performance and trust to meet enterprise-grade demands onchain.

00:02:50

thedinarian@thedinarian

August 17, 2025

The Stellar Foundation: Trustless doesn’t mean trust-free.

This weekend at Friends with Benefits FEST, we explored how protocol design, engineering, and community work together to make “trustless” systems work — and why trust matters for blockchain adoption.

00:00:35

thedinarian@thedinarian

October 31, 2024

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚨 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

thedinarian@thedinarian

3 hours ago

The Future Of Crypto Self Custody Will Change Everyrhing...

Tomas Susanka, CTO at Trezor, joined me to discuss the latest updates with Trezor and the future of crypto self custody.
Topics:

Trezor's hardware wallets
Fighting against new scams and attacks
Crypto security
Seed Phrases innovation
Future of self custody
Trezor vs Ledger
Crypto market outlook

thedinarian@thedinarian

8 hours ago

A new partnership is born.

100 Thieves 🤝 @Theta_Network

https://100thieves.com/blogs/news/100-thieves-to-launch-new-ecommerce-ai-agent-integrated-with-shopify-powered-by-theta-network

100THIEVES.COM

100 Thieves x Theta

100 Thieves To Launch New eCommerce AI Agent Integrated with Shopify Powered By Theta Network AI-agent provides real-time insights,content integrations and more into 100 Thieves' digital

thedinarian@thedinarian

18 hours ago

Gemini Post

Prepare your bags.

https://x.com/Gemini/status/1958540596101976117

Visit the placement at the SW Corner of 29th & Broadway New York, NY.

https://x.com/Gemini/status/1958540600396992940

X.COM

Gemini (@Gemini) on X

Prepare your bags.

thedinarian@thedinarian

August 17, 2025

Pyth Network (PYTH) To Rally Higher? This Emerging Fractal Setup Saying Yes!

The cryptocurrency market is undergoing a healthy cooldown as Ethereum (ETH) eases to $4,440 from its recent peak of $4,780. The pullback has weighed on most major altcoins — including Pyth Network (PYTH) — which is down about 5% over the past week.

But while the short-term dip might look discouraging, PYTH’s chart is showing something far more interesting: a price structure that mirrors the exact same bullish breakout pattern that sent Skale (SKL) soaring by triple digits earlier this month.

PYTH Mirrors SKL’s Breakout Structure

A glance at SKL’s daily chart reveals a textbook falling wedge formation — a well-known bullish reversal pattern. Once SKL broke above the wedge and printed a higher high followed by a higher low, it flipped both the 200-day and 100-day moving averages into firm support. That technical shift triggered a 148% rally in just days.

PYTH appears to be tracing the same path.

Like SKL, PYTH has already broken out from its falling wedge and formed a higher high and higher low. It is now consolidating just beneath a critical confluence of resistance, with the 100-day MA at $0.1235 and the 200-day MA at $0.1481 — a setup eerily similar to SKL’s pre-breakout structure.

What’s Next for PYTH?

For the bullish fractal to fully play out, PYTH will need to close decisively above the $0.1235–$0.1481 zone, ideally on rising volume. A confirmed breakout could open the door to the first upside target of $0.21, representing roughly 78% potential gains from current levels.

However, confirmation is key. Until PYTH clears these moving average hurdles, it remains vulnerable to extended consolidation or even a false breakout. Still, the fractal similarity to SKL is hard to overlook — and if history repeats, PYTH bulls could be on the verge of a major move.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal:
1) Simply scan the QR code below 📲
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Read full Article

thedinarian@thedinarian

August 16, 2025

Deep Dive into Pyth Network 💎💎💎💎💎

👉From November 2024😉

What are Oracles?

Blockchains in and of themselves are useful already, for trustless and permissionless transactions without censorship. No trust or verification from the user is required because it is stored on a decentralised ledger with global consensus. What if certain transactions require reliable and real-time data from external sources that do not necessarily have a global consensus or can be stored on the same ledger? For example:

Products that rely on price feeds of assets from other blockchains or real-world markets: Many decentralized finance (DeFi) applications, like decentralized exchanges or lending platforms, need accurate and timely information about asset prices (e.g., stocks, cryptocurrencies, commodities). Since these prices are continuously changing in real-world markets, blockchains need a way to securely access this off-chain data.
Products that require verifiable and secure random numbers: Randomness is crucial for a variety of blockchain use cases, such as lotteries, gaming, and even secure cryptographic protocols. However, generating truly random numbers on-chain is challenging without introducing bias or predictability. Off-chain randomness, when provided by a reliable source, is often needed.
Products dependent on historical price data: Some DeFi platforms and financial products might need access to archived price data for risk assessment, backtesting trading strategies, or offering historical analysis. Since blockchains primarily focus on storing current state information, they need external sources to provide this historical data efficiently.

To address these challenges, Oracles were introduced. Oracles serve as bridges between blockchains and the external world, providing smart contracts with access to off-chain data. They connect external data providers—such as market data owners, web APIs, or IoT devices—to decentralized applications across multiple blockchains. Oracles enable these applications to securely and reliably obtain real-time data, execute transactions based on external events, and interact with data that cannot be directly stored on-chain.

Why can this data be trusted? Oracles provide a robust mechanism for ensuring the integrity and reliability of off-chain data before it is used on the blockchain. An oracle network verifies the:

Authenticity: To ensure that the data is genuine and comes from a legitimate source, oracle networks source data from multiple trusted providers or verifiable APIs. This process reduces the risk of malicious or false information being introduced into smart contracts.
Accuracy: Accurate data is crucial for smart contracts to function correctly. Oracles achieve this by aggregating data from several independent sources. Instead of relying on a single provider, an oracle network will query multiple data sources and compare their responses.
Reliability: Oracle networks enhance reliability by using decentralized nodes, which increases resilience against failures or malicious activity. If one data source or node fails or provides incorrect information, the other nodes in the network can continue to operate and provide valid data.

The demand for accurate and reliable off-chain data is growing as the number of real-world use-cases and adoption of blockchain increases. Users of applications are more than willing to pay for an oracle service that is accurate and reliable and covers a large variety of use-cases.

Pyth Network versus Other Oracles

Read the blog post of Battle of the Oracles to learn more about the different oracles solutions. To recap, Pyth Network is a high-frequency oracle leveraging Solana's technology, offering a robust solution for off-chain data sharing for primarily decentralized finance applications (DeFi). It provides services like real-time price feeds and benchmarks, accessible to a wide range of financial service providers. PYTH is the governance token and utility token of the Pyth Network. Supply and demand for the PYTH token is directly related to level of usage and total demand of Pyth’s services and Pyth Network’s Tokenomics.

Total Value Secured by Oracles

While Chainlink holds the lion’s share of the total value secured by oracles, Pyth has shown by far the largest growth in terms of TVS, number of protocols supported and number of DApps. Pyth is expanding rapidly, across different networks and protocols, supporting more DApps, data providers and integration partners every day. In the same time frame, Chainlink’s marketshare has decreased. Comparing the main metrics of MCAP/TVS ratio and MCAP/TTV ratio, we notice that based on market capitalization (circulating supply), Pyth is undervalued whereas the TVS ratio based on fully diluted value paints a different picture. This is because only 37% of PYTH tokens are unlocked, the next significant PYTH token unlock takes place in May of 2025 and happens yearly thereafter on the same date until the full amount of tokens has been unlocked by 2027.

Use-cases Enabled by Pyth

Products and Services:

Price Feeds: real-time market data for smart contracts, blockchains, and applications
Benchmarks: historical market data for smart contracts, blockchains, and applications
Express Relay: smart contracts or protocols that need protection against MEV (Express Relay) Express Relay is one of a kind product that offers developers to auction off valuable transactions directly to MEV searchers without validator interference
Entropy: smart contracts that require secure on-chain random numbers. Secure and verifiable random numbers are incredibly important for creating a fair and unpredictable on-chain actions (e.g., for games)
Pyth DAO Governance model

Examples:

Decentralised Exchanges (DEXs) require reliable real-time price feeds to provide users accurate trades.
Pyth’s data pull model provides data directly from the source, such as exchanges, market makers or DeFi protocols. Because data is pulled only on demand and not pushed at a given interval, it scales efficiently, and costs are offloaded to users where updates are demand-based.

Case Study: Drift (DEX)

Refresher: What is a DEX?

Decentralized Exchange (DEX) allows users to trade cryptocurrencies directly, without intermediaries, using smart contracts on a blockchain. DEXes operate peer-to-peer, providing greater privacy and control over assets compared to centralized exchanges.

There are two main types of DEXes:

Order Book DEXes: These platforms match buy and sell orders using a live order book, similar to traditional exchanges. Examples include dYdX.
Automated Market Makers (AMMs): AMMs use liquidity pools and algorithms to determine asset prices, allowing users to trade instantly without needing a counterparty. Examples include Uniswap and SushiSwap.

Context

Drift is a perpetual trading DEX built on Solana. Speed, reliability, and performance make or break a perpetual trading ecosystem. Drift is a perpetual trading platform that allows traders to create leveraged positions against the performance of synthetic assets.

Why Pyth?

Drift seeks to offer the most feature-rich, powerful perpetual DEX with lightning-fast execution. This ambition necessitates a robust Oracle solution. Legacy oracles are slow and susceptible to front and back running.

Pyth and Drift partnered to rapidly deploy a proof-of-concept. This successful relationship satisfies the ultra-fast network requirements of Drift’s execution tools and is capable of supporting thousands of users and hundreds of assets.

This is only one of many examples of an effective partnership and integration that gives Web3 users an enhanced user experience than DApps that use other Oracle solutions. There are presently over 410 integration partners supporting the transition from push to pull Oracles with Pyth Networks.

Pyth versus Chainlink

We compare Chainlink and Pyth Network with two main metrics: Total Value Secured (TVS) and Total Transaction Volume (TTV)

Total Value Secured

Pyth’s Total Value Secured (TVS) is more distributed across different blockchains and applications compared to Chainlink, offering greater resilience and diversification. Here's how the comparison breaks down:

Blockchain Distribution: Pyth’s TVS shows a broader spread across multiple blockchains. For instance, only 61.1% of Pyth’s TVS is concentrated on the Solana blockchain, which means the remaining value is distributed across other blockchains, contributing to its decentralized footprint. In contrast, 97.1% of Chainlink’s TVS is concentrated on Ethereum, creating a higher dependence on a single blockchain. This heavy reliance on Ethereum makes Chainlink more vulnerable to network-specific issues, such as scalability concerns or market downturns affecting Ethereum.
Application Distribution: Pyth also demonstrates a healthier diversification across different applications. Only 23.8% of Pyth’s TVS is tied to its top application, meaning the remaining value is distributed among various other applications. This broader application spread lowers the risk of one dominant app affecting the network’s overall performance. Chainlink, however, has 48.8% of its TVS tied to its top application, meaning nearly half of its secured value relies on a single application. This concentration creates a potential single point of failure, making Chainlink more sensitive to shifts in the usage or success of that key application.

Pyth's more balanced distribution of TVS across different blockchains and applications enhances its resilience. With a healthier spread of its value, Pyth is better positioned to withstand market fluctuations or downturns that may affect individual blockchains or applications, making it less exposed to risks associated with dependency on any single network or product. This diversified approach gives Pyth a structural advantage in terms of long-term stability and adaptability.

Total Transaction Volume

Another, perhaps better, metric to measure the true market share and usage of an Oracle network is TTV (Total Transaction Volume). TTV is strongly correlated with the frequency of oracle price updates and therefore oracle revenue and true demand for its products and services. TVS can overstate or understate an application’s demand for price updates, because an application could have a disproportionate amount of locked value relative to the amount of Oracle interactions one would expect to observe.

Chainlink, the traditional market leader of oracle networks, is losing ground after being slow to serve customers needing faster data updates, though they've recently launched a new high-speed service. Pyth has become a successful competitor by focusing on rapid data delivery across multiple platforms, making it easier for financial applications to access real-time price information. Large trading platforms are increasingly building their own internal price tracking systems rather than paying external providers, suggesting cost is a major factor in their decisions.

The key to future success in digital trading will be speed - traditional exchanges currently have an advantage with their centralized systems, but new platforms are starting to close this gap by developing faster price update capabilities.

Pyth Network Governance

The Pyth Network operates a decentralized governance system that empowers the community by allowing all PYTH token holders to have a direct say in the network's development and decision-making processes. This decentralized governance model ensures that control of the network is distributed among its users, promoting transparency and inclusion.

To participate in governance, token holders must stake their PYTH tokens through the Pyth staking program. By staking their tokens, users gain the ability to vote on community governance proposals, ensuring that they have a voice in the key decisions shaping the future of the Pyth Network.

In addition to voting, any PYTH token holder has the right to submit proposals to the Pyth DAO, provided they meet the requirement of holding and staking at least 0.25% of the total PYTH tokens staked. The proposals that can be brought to the DAO are diverse and impact many critical aspects of the network's functionality, including:

Determining the size of update fees: Proposals can influence the fees charged for updates to the network, ensuring that they remain fair and competitive.
Reward distribution mechanisms for publishers: The community can vote on how rewards are allocated to data publishers, ensuring that those contributing accurate and reliable data are fairly compensated.
Approving software updates across blockchains: The Pyth Network operates across multiple blockchains, and governance participants have the power to approve essential updates to on-chain programs, ensuring the network remains up to date and secure.
Listing price feeds and determining their reference data: Token holders can vote on which price feeds are listed on Pyth, as well as set the technical parameters for these feeds, such as the number of decimal places in the prices and the reference exchanges used to determine the data.
Selecting data publishers: The governance system allows the community to permission publishers, or select which entities are allowed to provide data for each price feed. This ensures that only trusted and verified data sources are contributing to the network.

Conclusion

The Pyth Network stands out as a disruptive force in the decentralized oracle space, rapidly growing across protocols and blockchains and setting new standards for both data speed and diversification. Leveraging Solana technology, Pyth brings high-frequency, real-time market data directly from first-party sources—including exchanges and trading firms—to an expanding universe of DeFi and TradFi applications. Compared to its primary competitors, Pyth demonstrates healthier resilience by distributing its Total Value Secured across multiple blockchains and applications, reducing dependencies and systemic risk.

Recent market trends show Pyth gaining ground in metrics like Total Transaction Volume, challenging traditional leaders like Chainlink and reflecting a broader shift toward fast, reliable, and diversified data solutions in decentralized finance. Its innovative approach—such as direct publisher sourcing, sub-second updates, and auditable aggregation—addresses the needs of financial markets with unique precision and transparency.

Ultimately, for developers, institutions, and investors seeking reliable off-chain data with speed and global reach, Pyth Network is quickly becoming a cornerstone oracle solution—and its trajectory signals a new era of dynamic, decentralized connectivity for global finance.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal:
1) Simply scan the QR code below 📲
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Read full Article

thedinarian@thedinarian

August 02, 2025

Understanding the Crypto Alt Season

The next altcoin season is poised to ignite the crypto market, promising to turn savvy investors' portfolios into goldmines. As Bitcoin's dominance wanes, a new era of blockchain innovation is dawning—are you ready to ride the wave?

Market behavior often exhibits distinct patterns and cycles. One such phenomenon that has captured the attention of traders and investors alike is the "Alt Season"—a period when alternative cryptocurrencies, or "altcoins," outperform Bitcoin and experience significant price surges.

The concept of market cycles and seasonality is not unique to crypto; it's a well-established principle in traditional financial markets. However, in volatile crypto space, these cycles can be more pronounced and occur with greater frequency.

In this article, we’ll try to cover these and other topics:

The nature and characteristics of Alt Seasons
The importance of recognizing market cycles in cryptocurrency trading
Alt Season indicators and how to interpret them
Predictions and speculatins about the next potential Alt Season

What Is Crypto Alt Season?

Crypto Alt Season, short for "Alternative Cryptocurrency Season," refers to a period in the cryptocurrency market when alternative cryptocurrencies (altcoins) significantly outperform Bitcoin in terms of price appreciation. During an Alt Season:

Many altcoins experience rapid price increases.
The market share of altcoins grows relative to Bitcoin.
Trading volume for altcoins typically increases.
Investor attention shifts from Bitcoin to various altcoin projects.

An Alt Season can last anywhere from a few weeks to several months. It's often characterized by increased risk appetite among investors, who are willing to allocate more capital to smaller, potentially higher-risk crypto projects in search of higher returns.

Is Crypto Season the Same As Crypto Alt Season?

While related, Crypto Season and Crypto Alt Season are not exactly the same:

Crypto Season:
- Refers to a broader bullish period in the entire cryptocurrency market.
- Typically includes price appreciation for both Bitcoin and altcoins.
- Can be longer in duration, sometimes lasting for many months or even a year or more.
- Often starts with a Bitcoin rally, followed by increased interest in the broader crypto market.
Crypto Alt Season:
- Specifically focuses on the outperformance of altcoins compared to Bitcoin.
- Can occur within a broader Crypto Season but is more narrowly defined.
- Generally shorter in duration than a full Crypto Season.
- May happen towards the latter part of a broader Crypto Season, as investors seek higher returns in smaller cap coins.

Key Differences:

Scope: Crypto Season encompasses the entire market, while Alt Season focuses on altcoins.
Duration: Crypto Seasons are generally longer than Alt Seasons.
Market Dynamics: In a Crypto Season, Bitcoin often leads the rally, while in an Alt Season, altcoins outperform Bitcoin.

It's important to note that these terms are not officially defined and can be subject to different interpretations within the cryptocurrency community. However, understanding the distinction can help investors and traders better analyze market trends and potential opportunities in different segments of the crypto market.

What Is Alt Season Indicator?

The Alt Season Indicator is a tool used by cryptocurrency traders and investors to gauge whether the market is entering or currently in an "Alt Season" — a period when altcoins are outperforming Bitcoin. While there isn't a single, universally accepted Alt Season Indicator, several metrics and tools are commonly used to assess the likelihood of an Alt Season. Here are some key aspects of Alt Season Indicators:

Bitcoin Dominance

One of the most widely used indicators is Bitcoin Dominance, which measures Bitcoin's market capitalization as a percentage of the total cryptocurrency market cap.

Calculation: (Bitcoin Market Cap / Total Crypto Market Cap) * 100
Interpretation: A declining Bitcoin Dominance often signals a potential Alt Season, as it indicates that capital is flowing from Bitcoin into altcoins.
Threshold: Some traders consider Bitcoin Dominance below 50% as a potential indicator of an Alt Season.

Altcoin Market Cap Ratio

This indicator compares the total market capitalization of altcoins to Bitcoin's market cap.

Calculation: Total Altcoin Market Cap / Bitcoin Market Cap
Interpretation: An increasing ratio suggests growing strength in the altcoin market relative to Bitcoin.

Top 10 Altcoins Performance

This indicator tracks the performance of the top 10 altcoins by market cap (excluding Bitcoin) compared to Bitcoin over a specific period.

Calculation: Average percentage gain of top 10 altcoins vs. Bitcoin's percentage gain
Interpretation: When a majority of top altcoins consistently outperform Bitcoin, it may indicate an Alt Season.

Alt Season Index

Some crypto data platforms offer a proprietary Alt Season Index, which combines various metrics to provide a single score indicating the likelihood of an Alt Season.

Scale: Often presented as a percentage or a 0-100 score
Interpretation: Higher scores (e.g., above 75%) suggest a higher probability of an ongoing Alt Season

Trading Volume Ratios

This indicator compares the trading volumes of altcoins to Bitcoin's trading volume.

Calculation: Total Altcoin Trading Volume / Bitcoin Trading Volume
Interpretation: An increase in this ratio may indicate growing interest in altcoins, potentially signaling an Alt Season.

Important Considerations:

No single indicator is foolproof. Traders often use a combination of indicators for a more comprehensive analysis.
Market conditions can change rapidly, and past patterns don't guarantee future results.
Different traders may use different thresholds or interpretations of these indicators.
The crypto market's evolving nature means that indicators may need to be adjusted over time to remain relevant.

Understanding and effectively using Alt Season Indicators can help traders and investors make more informed decisions about allocating their resources between Bitcoin and altcoins. However, it's crucial to combine these indicators with broader market analysis and risk management strategies.

Alt Seasons: Historical Perspective, Current Situation, and Future Predictions

Previous Altcoin Seasons

In crypto, two periods stand out as particularly significant for altcoins. These "alt seasons" saw unprecedented growth and interest in cryptocurrencies beyond Bitcoin, reshaping the landscape of digital assets.

The 2017-2018 Alt Season

Duration: December 2017 to January 2018

Context:

Bitcoin (BTC) experienced its most remarkable bull run to date, reaching nearly $20,000 in December 2017.
This surge in Bitcoin's price and public interest created a ripple effect throughout the crypto market.

Key Developments:

Proliferation of New Coins: The success of Bitcoin catalyzed the launch of numerous new cryptocurrencies.
Investor Frenzy: Buoyed by Bitcoin's success, investors eagerly sought the "next Bitcoin," pouring capital into various altcoins.
ICO Boom: This period saw a surge in Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), with many projects raising millions in a matter of hours or days.
Market Expansion: The total cryptocurrency market cap reached unprecedented levels, briefly surpassing $800 billion in January 2018.

Notable Altcoins: Ethereum (ETH), Ripple (XRP), and Litecoin (LTC) saw significant price increases during this period.

The 2020-2021 Alt Season

Duration: December 2020 to April 2021

Context:

Bitcoin broke its previous all-time high, surpassing $60,000 in March 2021.
The COVID-19 pandemic had accelerated digital adoption and increased interest in alternative investments.

Key Developments:

DeFi Explosion: Decentralized Finance (DeFi) projects gained massive traction, with many tokens seeing exponential growth.
NFT Boom: Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) entered the mainstream, driving interest in blockchain-based digital assets.
Institutional Adoption: Major companies and institutional investors began adding cryptocurrencies to their balance sheets.
Technological Advancements: Many altcoins introduced innovative features, scaling solutions, and use cases.

Notable Altcoins: Ethereum (ETH) reached new highs, while projects like Binance Coin (BNB), Cardano (ADA), and Polkadot (DOT) saw remarkable growth.

Comparative Analysis: Both alt seasons shared some common characteristics:

They were preceded by significant Bitcoin price rallies.
New projects and tokens gained rapid popularity and valuation.
Retail investor participation increased dramatically.
The overall cryptocurrency market capitalization reached new heights.

However, the 2020-2021 alt season was marked by greater institutional involvement and a broader range of technological innovations, particularly in DeFi and NFTs.

Is It Alt Season?

Based on the indicators discussed above, it's not currently an altcoin season. The Altcoin Season Index at 41 and Bitcoin's market dominance at 61.3% both suggest that Bitcoin is still the dominant force in the crypto market at this time.

When Is Alt Season?

Based on the information we could gather from various experts, we can analyze the predictions for the next altcoin season as follows:

Based on the latest analysis from experts and on-chain data, here’s what we know about the next altcoin season:

Current Status (August 2025):

The altcoin season index—a metric that signals how many altcoins outperform Bitcoin—currently sits around 37. For a “full-blown” alt season, it typically needs to rise above 75.
Bitcoin dominance is approximately 61-62%. Historically, dropping below 60% often coincides with a rapid rotation into altcoins and the start of alt season.

Key Indicators to Watch:

Altcoin Season Index (ASI): Above 75 signals a true altcoin season.
Bitcoin Dominance: A move below 60% usually marks the transition; sub-50% dominance is associated with peak alt season inflows.
Market Activity: Increasing volumes in major altcoins and Layer 1s, meme coin rallies, and spikes in DeFi activity are early warning signs.
Ethereum Outperformance: When ETH surges relative to BTC, this historically precedes broader altcoin rallies.

Expert Predictions for 2025:

Analysts point to a pivotal window for alt season starting as early as August 2025 and extending through the fall, with many expecting true acceleration of altcoin gains if Bitcoin’s price consolidates and capital rotates further into alts.
There is strong consensus that macroeconomic catalysts, such as potential U.S. interest rate cuts and ongoing Bitcoin ETF momentum, could fuel a major altcoin rally in late 2025 if positive conditions persist.

Summary Table: Key Factors & Targets

Signal	Alt Season Trigger	Status (Aug 2025)
Altcoin Season Index (ASI)	>75	~37
Bitcoin dominance	<60%	~61–62% (near trigger)
Altcoin trading volume	Sustained surge across many alts	Rising, but not explosive
Ethereum outperformance	ETH/ BTC breakout, >$3,700	Near, ETH ~$3,500
Market narratives	AI, DeFi, meme coins, new L1 inflows	Strengthening

Bottom Line:
Most analysts agree the groundwork for altcoin season in 2025 is building. We are currently in a transition phase: if Bitcoin dominance continues to fall and the Altcoin Season Index rises above 75, a full-fledged alt season could ignite during the second half of 2025. Monitor these key indicators to stay ahead as market momentum shifts from Bitcoin into a broader range of altltcoins.

Key Factors to Consider

Technology: Look for coins with innovative solutions to existing blockchain challenges.
Adoption: Consider projects with growing partnerships and real-world use cases.
Market Position: Established coins with room for growth may offer a balance of stability and potential returns.
Tokenomics: Understanding supply dynamics can help predict potential price movements.

It's crucial to conduct thorough research before investing. The cryptocurrency market is highly volatile, and past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Always invest responsibly and within your risk tolerance.

How to Win in Next Alt Season?

Capitalizing on the next altcoin season requires a strategic approach. Here's how to maximize potential gains:

Research and Diversification: Thoroughly research potential investments, analyzing both fundamentals and technical aspects to identify promising altcoins. Diversify your holdings across different projects to mitigate risk and maximize potential returns. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Strategic Timing: Utilize technical analysis tools like support/resistance levels and RSI to pinpoint optimal entry and exit points. Monitor market sentiment and price trends to make informed decisions. A clear entry and exit strategy is crucial for managing risk and maximizing profits during volatile periods.
Newer Projects: Consider participating in newer altcoin projects. This provides early access to potentially high-growth projects at discounted prices. Research upcoming defi projects with use cases, focusing on innovative projects with strong potential. Investing early can yield substantial returns as the project develops.

Conclusion

In summary, an altcoin season, marked by significant price increases in non-Bitcoin cryptocurrencies, may be on the horizon. This potential surge could be driven by investors seeking higher returns in smaller-cap cryptocurrencies, technological advancements in altcoin projects, increased blockchain adoption, and the transition of projects from speculative ventures to real-world applications.

Remember, while the potential for significant gains exists during an altcoin season, the cryptocurrency market remains highly volatile. Always invest responsibly.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal:
1) Simply scan the QR code below 📲
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Read full Article

Available on mobile and TV devices