Ethereum, Litecoin, and Ripple’s XRP – Daily Tech Analysis – February 27th, 2021
Ethereum
Ethereum fell by 2.49% on Friday. Following on from an 8.78% slide on Thursday, Ethereum ended the day at $1,445.18.
A mixed start to the day saw Ethereum rise to an early morning high $1,530.00 before hitting reverse.
Falling well short of the major resistance levels and 23.6% FIB of $1,579, Ethereum fell to a mid-morning intraday low $1,400.01.
Finding support at the first major support level at $1,403, Ethereum struck a late afternoon intraday high $1,564.11.
Falling short of the 23.6% FIB and the first major resistance level at $1,617, Ethereum slid back to $1,411 levels before steadying.
At the time of writing, Ethereum was up by 0.82% to $1,457.03. A mixed start to the day saw Ethereum fall to an early morning low $1,439.59 before rising to a high $1,466.67
Ethereum left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.
For the day ahead
Ethereum would need to move through the pivot level at $1,470 to support a run at the first major resistance level at $1,540.
Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Ethereum to break back through to $1,500 levels.
Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and 23.6% FIB of $1,579 would likely cap any upside.
In the event of a breakout, Ethereum could test resistance at $1,700 before any pullback. The second major resistance level sits at $1,634.
Failure to move through the $1,470 pivot would bring the first major support level at $1,375 into play.
Barring another extended sell-off, however, Ethereum should steer clear of the 38.2% FIB of $1,292. The second major support level at $1,306 should limit the downside.
Looking at the Technical Indicators
First Major Support Level: $1,375
Pivot Level: $1,470
First Major Resistance Level: $1,540
23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $1,579
38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $1,292
62% FIB Retracement Level: $830
Litecoin
Litecoin slid by 5.07% on Friday. Following on from a 1.17% decline on Thursday, Litecoin ended the day at $170.30.
Story continues
It was a mixed start to the day. Litecoin rose to an early morning intraday high $182.90 before hitting reverse.
Falling short of the 23.6% FIB of $195 and the first major resistance level at $198.04 Litecoin fell to a late morning intraday low $162.23.
The sell-off saw Litecoin fall through the first major support level at $168.05 and the 38.2% FIB of $163.
Finding late morning support, Litecoin revisited $181 levels before falling back to end the day at $170 levels.
At the time of writing, Litecoin was up by 1.65% to $173.11. A mixed start to the day saw Litecoin fall to an early morning low $169.50 before rising to a high $174.24.
Litecoin left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.
For the day ahead
Litecoin would need to avoid a fall through the $171.81 pivot level to support a run at the first major resistance level at $181.39.
Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Litecoin to break back through to $180 levels.
Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and Friday’s high $182.90 would likely cap any upside.
In the event of an extended breakout, Litecoin could test the second major resistance level at $192.48 and 23.6% FIB of $195.
Failure to avoid a fall through the $171.81 pivot level would bring the 38.2% FIB of $163 and the first major support level at $160.72 into play.
Barring another extended sell-off, Litecoin should steer clear of the second major support level at $151.14.
Looking at the Technical Indicators
First Major Support Level: $160.72
Pivot Level: $171.81
First Major Resistance Level: $181.39
23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $195
38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $163
62% FIB Retracement Level: $110
Ripple’s XRP
Ripple’s XRP fell by 1.54% on Friday. Following on from a 6.93% slide on Thursday, Ripple’s XRP ended the day at $0.42821.
A bearish start to the day saw Ripple’s XRP slide to an early morning intraday low $0.41137.
Finding support at the first major support level at $0.4133, Ripple’s XRP rose to a late afternoon intraday high $0.45030.
Falling well short of the first major resistance level at $0.4700, however, Ripple’s XRP fell back to sub-$0.42 levels before finding support.
A late move back through to $0.42 levels reduced the deficit on the day.
At the time of writing, Ripple’s XRP was up by 1.45% to $0.43443. A mixed start to the day saw Ripple’s XRP fall to an early morning low $0.42843 before rising to a high $0.43699.
Ripple’s XRP left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.
For the day ahead
Ripple’s XRP will need to avoid a fall back through the $0.4300 pivot level to bring the first major resistance level at $0.4486 into play.
Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Ripple’s XRP to break out from $0.4500 levels.
Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and Friday’s high $0.4503 should cap any upside.
In the event of an extended rally, Ripple’s XRP could test resistance at the 38.2% FIB of $0.4632 and the second major resistance level at $0.4689.
Failure to avoid a fall through the $0.4300 pivot would bring the first major support level at $0.4096 into play.
Barring another extended sell-off, however, Ripple’s XRP should steer clear of sub-$0.40 levels. The second major support level sits at $0.3910.
Looking at the Technical Indicators
First Major Support Level: $0.4096
Pivot Level: $0.4300
First Major resistance Level: $0.4486
23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.5320
38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $0.4632
62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.3521
Please let us know what you think in the comments below.
Thanks, Bob
This article was originally posted on FX Empire
More From FXEMPIRE:
Latest Ethereum price and analysis (ETH to USD)
Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) – 2018 was a good year for Afriland First Group SA, a Switzerland-based company that oversees a network of banks across Africa.In his opening comments to the annual report for the year, Paul Fokam, the group’s chairman and one of Cameroon’s wealthiest men, highlighted the “challenge of being ethical and compliant while creating value.” He asked readers to bear in mind that “we are in a battlefield where only alertness, flexibility, and perseverance can ensure sustainable victory.”Little mention was made in the report’s 83 pages of one of the group’s star performers though, its unit in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a vast central African nation rich in natural resources including diamonds, cobalt and copper. While deposits across Afriland’s subsidiaries increased 17%, a PwC audit seen by Bloomberg shows that in Congo, accounts swelled nearly fivefold that year to $279 million, accounting for more than one-tenth of the group’s total at the time.The influx transformed the bank, and would go on to wreck the lives of two employees who provided information to anti-graft organizations in Europe about where the cash was coming from. Gradi Koko Lobanga, the former head of the unit’s internal audit division, and Navy Malela Mawani, its comptroller, have since decided to go public with the allegations to combat claims they fabricated the data. Both have fled Congo and sought asylum in Europe.New files the two men shared with the Paris-based Platform for the Protection of African Whistleblowers, known as Pplaaf, and several media outlets including Bloomberg, suggest Afriland Congo had carved out a niche for itself in doing business with risky clientele, including Israeli billionaire Dan Gertler. The documents cover banking operations at Afriland between late 2017 and early 2019, and show at least seven sanctioned individuals and companies had accounts at the bank, although some with small amounts of money in them.Afriland Congo, its sister bank in Cameroon and its parent company in Switzerland didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.There were accounts held by a firm the U.S. government said it believed to be a subsidiary of a sanctioned company linked to a financier of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, and another that it blacklisted for the same reason in December 2019.Hezbollah’s media office didn’t answer two calls seeking comment on the group’s activities in Congo.North KoreaOther accounts were linked to a North Korean-owned statue-builder. Concerns that North Korea was using statue-building companies to help fund its weapons programs led the United Nations, U.S. and European Union to target the practice.The UN panel of experts on North Korea recommended this month that the Security Council sanction the Congolese company’s two owners, Pak Hwa Song and Hwang Kil Su, according to excerpts of the report shared with Bloomberg. An email and phone call to their company, Congo Aconde SARL, went unanswered.Still other records show large amounts of money transiting through the personal accounts of Congolese politicians.But the largest by far were the accounts seemingly linked to Gertler, one of Israel’s richest men, a burly billionaire in his mid-40s with a history of controversy in Congo. In December of 2017, the U.S. had sanctioned Gertler for alleged corruption in mining and oil deals. The Treasury Department accused him of acting as a middleman between multinational corporations and the state and of setting up companies on behalf of former Congolese President Joseph Kabila, all of which Gertler denies.A year after he was sanctioned, deposits by companies and individuals connected to Gertler grew to more than a third of total deposits at Afriland Congo, according to a PwC audit.“It was quite curious that a person who was just sanctioned by the United States started coming to the bank,” said Koko, one of the whistleblowers, in an interview at a lawyer’s office in Paris last week.Three emails since Feb. 22 to Afriland units in Cameroon and Congo, its Swiss headquarters as well as to the chief executive officer and deputy chief executive of Afriland Congo, have gone unanswered. The spokesman for Afriland Cameroon didn’t answer when called by Bloomberg.A person who picked up the phone at the Swiss parent company on Friday said the email address wasn’t working and asked Bloomberg to send a letter. He declined to provide any other contact information for Fokam, the group’s chairman.The Congo unit previously told Global Witness and Pplaaf that it hasn’t violated any regulations or assisted any of its customers in circumventing U.S. sanctions.First BonusesTransaction fees at Afriland soared with the new business in 2018, said Malela, the former comptroller, who began working at the bank 12 years ago. “We were never given bonuses at the end of the year” until then, he said.By that time, Koko had already sought refuge in Europe. As internal auditor, he had oversight of all the bank’s accounts and says he recognized the risks Afriland was taking. Two months after Gertler was sanctioned, Koko wrote a letter warning the Congolese subsidiary’s directors that servicing accounts for companies connected to Gertler as well others linked to Zoe Kabila, the then-president’s brother, could result in penalties or sanctions for the bank.“These irregularities are likely to expose the bank to non-compliance from both a national and international point of view,” Koko wrote. He recommended the bank block all accounts linked to the two men and report them to the relevant authorities. Zoe Kabila did not respond to four emails requesting comment.The reaction of Afriland officials to Koko’s concerns was swift, but not in the way he’d intended. Instead of investigating the accounts, he said one of the bank’s directors intimidated him.Violent Threats“He said to me, ‘These people aren’t just anyone,’ and that they could shoot me while I was leaving the bank,” Koko said. The threats then turned violent, he says, declining to give further details.In a statement provided by a Gertler spokesman on Friday in response to the latest allegations, Gertler said the claims about him were “entirely false.” He said the two bank employees were “victims” of “appalling conduct” by the anti-graft organizations, saying they’d been co-opted into illegal acts including stealing confidential bank data about him, and falsifying documents.“They are unable to return to their homeland, their lives having been destroyed by the reckless decision-making of Global Witness and Pplaaf,” Gertler said of the whistleblowers.The bankers’ earlier revelations were published by Bloomberg in July alongside a report by Global Witness and Pplaaf. That report outlined a network of individuals and companies who appeared to be using Afriland to move money on behalf of Gertler. Gertler denied any wrongdoing and contests the notion he was evading sanctions, some of which were recently eased. Lawyers for Afriland say that Koko and Malela stole and falsified data from the bank.Death PenaltyAfriland identified Koko and Malela after the initial report in July and filed a criminal complaint against them in Congo’s capital, Kinshasa.A lawyer for Afriland, Eric Moutet, said on Thursday that a court last year found the two men guilty of theft, forgery, and violating bank secrecy. It also convicted them of criminal association, a charge that can carry the death penalty. The Paris-based lawyer said the judges gave the harshest sentence possible because the defendants didn’t appear in court.The decision would set “a deplorable precedent” that would deter future whistleblowers, Nick Elebe, a lawyer and Congo director for the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, said Friday. Congolese courts should investigate the allegations, which if confirmed, “could undermine the entire banking system, while at the same time posing risks to both the country’s economy and public savings,” he said.Although the death penalty is still on Congo’s statute books, no executions have been carried out in the country since 2003.When Koko fled, Malela decided to stay behind, copying more documents and sending them to his former colleague in Europe. Eventually, he too left the country before Pplaaf and Global Witness published their joint report last year. Koko received asylum in Europe in 2019, while Malela’s application is still pending.Representatives of Gertler and one person mentioned in the Global Witness and Pplaaf report say they’ve sued the two organizations for defamation. Global Witness and Pplaaf said they haven’t seen copies of the lawsuits.“We deny these allegations, and we stand with our sources and our investigation,” the two organizations said on Friday.Sanctions ReprieveAfriland also filed a complaint against both organizations at a court in Paris in early July, the day before the report was published. Global Witness and Pplaaf said in their report that they couldn’t prove that the bank’s network of individuals and companies was used to evade U.S. sanctions and it doesn’t allege any criminal behavior.On Jan. 15, in the final days of the Trump administration, the U.S. Treasury Department eased sanctions on Gertler and his companies through January 2022 without explanation. Bloomberg has reported that the Biden administration is likely to reverse that decision. Gertler said in an emailed statement that the reprieve was based on his commitment “to comply with the terms and conditions” set by Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.Both Malela and Koko want to stay in banking and say they know of other potential whistleblowers in Congolese banks.“The things that we’re denouncing are more important than the fear we may have,” Koko said. “So we’ll keep condemning these actions that go against the public interest despite the fear.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.
The ‘Unique Opportunity’ to Upgrade Ethereum’s Virtual Stack
With Eth 2.0’s first hard fork spec mapped out, attention has turned to the planned merge of Eth 1.x and Ethereum 2.0.
And, not wanting to lose momentum around the merge, Vitalik Buterin has proposed making some additional changes to the network, given most people don’t see Ethereum changing much afterward (minus some cleanup, more shards and, of course, our new favorite Ethereum word, rollups).
In two blog posts and on Friday’s All Core Developers call, Buterin made the case for stripping less useful – or maybe even harmful – functions in Ethereum’s codebank sometime before or during the merge. Buterin mainly focused on opcodes used in Ethereum’s Virtual Machine (EVM).
Related: Planning to Short Bitcoin? Better Check China’s ‘Tether Premium’ First
“We have a unique opportunity to make some backwards-incompatible changes to the EVM that could be valuable for Ethereum in the long term,” Buterin said on GitHub Feb. 18. “The portion of applications that would need to be rewritten as a result of these changes is quite small, but it is nevertheless nonzero.”
Making changes to the EVM
Chief on that list is the SELFDESTRUCT function which rewards anyone who destroys a contract sitting idly on the Ethereum state. The intended purpose of the opcode was to incentivize Ethereum developers to practice “good hygiene” and destroy contracts when they weren’t necessary anymore. That would help reduce Ethereum’s long-term state size.
However, it hasn’t really panned out like that. Right now the function stands in the way of scaling Ethereum by making it “difficult to move to a different state storage format in the future,” among other reasons, Buterin said.
In fact, many people use the function as a discount of sorts in case Ethereum’s fees rise. Called gas tokens, these tokens can be bought when gas is cheap and spent later when gas is expensive to help lower the cost of a transaction. Ethereum developers have considered removing the opcode from the EVM a few times, most recently in September.
Story continues
Related: Craig Wright Demands Bitcoin Developers Give Him Access to Stolen Mt. Gox Coins
Making changes to the EVM or any other technical descriptions in the Ethereum Yellow Paper has not made everyone happy. Some decentralized application (dapp) creators expressed frustration that functions their projects rely on may be removed, such as the gas that enables dapps to check in on how much gwei is left in a contract execution.
It’s unclear how much support the EVM cleanup pitch will receive. Moreover, any changes to the EVM will come with ample warnings beforehand, Buterin said.
“The overwhelming majority of applications are not dependent on anything that is expected to break here,” Buterin said. “It’s a very small percentage.”
Pulse check: The CoinDesk legend of Zelda begins
The CoinDesk Ethereum 2.0 validator, officially dubbed “Zelda” by Director of Engineering Spencer Beggs, was activated on Feb. 17. Over the past six days or so, Zelda has earned 0.04 ETH, which is worth roughly $61.80 at time of writing. At this rate, the annual percentage return (APR) of our validator operations is expected to be around 7%.
If you’re new to Valid Points and the topic of Ethereum 2.0 in general, be sure to check out our 101 explainer on Eth 2.0 metrics to get up to speed about jargon and terminology used throughout this newsletter.
In the first couple of hours after Zelda was activated on Ethereum 2.0, our validator operations lost roughly $3.45 worth of ether. This was due to a file permissions issue that prevented Zelda from signing off on attestations, which is the most common responsibility required of an Eth 2.0 validator node. (The other less-common responsibility is proposing blocks.)
Updating file permissions and rebooting Zelda was a simple fix that got our validator operations back in the green within 24 hours.
Setting up a validator? Keep these points in mind
The first lesson learned from this minor mishap was this: Remember to stay awake for the activation of your validator node to ensure all operations are running smoothly from the get-go.
Most validators after they have deposited their 32 ETH to the Eth 2.0 deposit contract will be put in a pending queue before they’re activated on the network and able to earn rewards. The amount of time needed for validators to wait in the queue before activation can range from a few days to a couple weeks.
Rough estimates of the exact day and time a validator will exit the queue, based on how many other validators are also waiting in the line for activation, can be found on block explorers BeaconScan and Beaconcha.in.
Unfortunately, Zelda’s activation took place at roughly 4:00 (ET) in the morning, which is why most of the CoinDesk staff, including myself, were asleep. Had any one of us been awake for the activation of the node, any irregularities in our operations could have been noticed in advance and resolved more quickly.
Another important thing to remember is to keep validator operations as simple as possible. About 132 validators have been slashed since the network launched on Dec. 1, 2020. Being slashed on Eth 2.0 carries more consequences than missing out on a few attestations. Slashing occurs when there’s evidence of malicious behavior by a validator. The network can correctly or mistakenly view the actions of a validator as a potential attack or attempt to rewrite blockchain history and data. This results in the validator being forced to exit the network, meaning it is no longer eligible to earn rewards on Eth 2.0.
Slashing happens commonly when Eth 2.0 validator operators are trying to maximize rewards by setting up two computers to run one validator. When one of the computers goes offline, the other automatically boots up and takes over validator operations. While this sounds like a perfect idea to maximize APR by having your validator running virtually without any downtime, it can lead to mistakes where both computers are running the same validator at the same time.
As soon as the network detects instances where a single validator is proposing different blocks or signing off on attestations more than once, operations could get slashed.
“The risk is not worth it,” said the co-lead developer of Prysmatic Labs, Raul Jordan, in an interview with CoinDesk.
While it might be tempting to try and maximize rewards by complicating the node setup so that there is never any downtime, it might come at the expense of losing the ability to earn any rewards on your staked ETH.
For more information about slashing events on Eth 2.0 and more comments by Jordan, be sure to tune in tomorrow to our weekly podcast series “Mapping Out Eth 2.0.”
Validated takes
DeFi lending platforms liquidate record $115 million in loans as ETH price drops (Article, CoinDesk)
Ethereum trading bot strategy extracted $107 million in 30 days, research suggests (Article, CoinDesk)
Kraken CEO says ether flash crash was due to trading, not system glitch (Article, CoinDesk)
Nyan cat NFT sells for 300 ETH, opening the door to the ‘meme economy’ (Article, CoinDesk)
The business of art and how NFTs will change it, with Nanne Dekking (Podcast, CoinDesk)
Top auction house Christie’s to accept ether cryptocurrency for digital art sale (Article, CoinDesk)
Why Ethereum miners will accept EIP 1559 (Blog post, Deribit Insights)
Nvidia releases a new Ethereum ASIC mining chip (Blog post, Nvidia)
A list of EVM features potentially worth removing (HackMD post, Vitalik Buterin)
Factoid of the week
Open comms
Feel free to reply any time and email research@coindesk.com with your thoughts, comments or queries about today’s newsletter. Between reads, chat with us on Twitter.
Valid Points incorporates information and data directly from CoinDesk’s own Eth 2.0 validator node in weekly analysis. All profits made from this staking venture will be donated to a charity of our choosing once transfers are enabled on the network. For a full overview of the project, check out our announcement post.
You can verify the activity of the CoinDesk Eth 2.0 validator in real time through our public validator key, which is:
0xad7fef3b2350d220de3ae360c70d7f488926b6117e5f785a8995487c46d323ddad0f574fdcc50eeefec34ed9d2039ecb.
Search for it on any Eth 2.0 block explorer site!
Finally, Will Foxley and I will be continuing the conversation on Ethereum 2.0 in a CoinDesk podcast series called “Mapping Out Eth 2.0.” New episodes air every Thursday. Listen and subscribe through the CoinDesk podcast feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocketcasts, Google Podcasts, Castbox, Stitcher, RadioPublica, IHeartRadio or RSS.
Related Stories