The Chinese government distributed 180 million digital yuan (The Chinese CBDC) in the form of subsidies and consumer bonds, to encourage its use.

Despite the fact that its use is still low and it is not being considered successful, the Chinese government set a tentative goal that by the end of 2023, there will have been transactions for 2 trillion (2 trillion in English) digital yuan (e-CNY).

Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two best known and most valuable cryptocurrencies on the market. However, they serve different purposes and use different technologies to achieve their goals. Let's see.

Bitcoin, the first and largest cryptocurrency by market cap, was launched in 2008/9. Its primary goal is to be a censorship-resistant, decentralized form of exchange that allows individuals to transact without the need for a central intermediary. To this day he has fulfilled it. To do this, it uses blockchain technology and a proof-of-work (PoW) system known as a consensus protocol to secure its network.

Its finite supply of 21 million BTC has been highly regarded as a safe way to store value against fiat or other cryptocurrencies whose total issuance is undefined, or infinite, i.e. inflationary rather than deflationary (as BTC is). ).

Ethereum, for its part, launched in 2015, is a decentralized platform for smart contracts and development of decentralized applications (DApps). Like Bitcoin, it also has its native currency, Ether (ETH), which is used as “gas” to pay fees for transactions that take place on the network and in smart contracts.

Starting from the freedom that Bitcoin proposes to be able to store and transmit value without the need for intermediaries, Ethereum wanted to take it a step further, offering the possibility of creating smart contracts and DApps that work on its network and do not depend on a central host for its operation. . It offers an internal scheduling tool for the creation of these contracts (the most used by blockchain developers around the world), uses a proof-of-stake (PoS) system to secure its network, and has no fixed maximum bid. All this, without neglecting blockchain technology.

Each of the currencies has its advantages and disadvantages, taking into account that they are oriented to different objectives:

Bitcoin is less versatile than Ethereum in terms of its use cases. It is designed solely to store and send value, it also has a lower transaction speed and charges (generally) higher fees than Ethereum, while, on the other hand, by having a defined maximum emission it presents greater predictability of its long-term value. term.

Ethereum, on the other hand, has a more developed ecosystem of decentralized applications and projects based on its platform. Also, the consensus system that it uses, PoS or Proof of Stake, is considered by many users to be more insecure than PoW, since it is argued that it can become more centralized in fewer users with greater economic capacity compared to PoW, and that for this reason can be much more vulnerable to attacks of the 51% type (a hotly discussed topic within the crypto community).

In summary, both blockchain networks represent the most secure projects in the entire ecosystem, since they have withstood the test of time, with different strengths and weaknesses. There will always be a debate for one or the other, but really both contribute and have contributed an unquestionable value so that this technology is a reality today.

As the world and technology advances, so do everyday items such as money. What were once commodities, salt, copper or gold, later evolved into paper money issued by a bank, and in the future will be bits in a system controlled by a central bank.

CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks of countries and are presented as a replacement for cash that, except in some countries, is used on a daily basis throughout the world. They are usually present in crypto conversations since they share the technological environment in which they operate and can even apply blockchain technology in their implementation, but beyond being digital, the reality is that they share very little with crypto technology (and philosophy). .

They will be used as we use current money, to send and receive payments, pay taxes, among other uses. Countries like China, Sweden, have been working on their CBDC since 2017.

The main advantages of this digital currency are related to:

Financial inclusion: Every person with internet and a mobile device will be able to receive and send payments from anyone, wherever they are, without the need for a bank account. This is something that we are already seeing through fintechs and financial apps, but that could not be thought of with cash.

Reduction of illegal activity: Today, cash allows you to make purchases and expenses well outside the radar of what is allowed by the authorities of each country, without anyone knowing what that money is related to. It is estimated that with the use of new technologies, these digital currencies will be able to "solve" this aspect.

Comfort in daily use: The fact that money does not occupy a physical place in our lives, but rather data that we carry on our cell phones, makes it much more comfortable on a day-to-day basis, since we will not have to think about it. situations in which today we do or do need cash.

In addition, we believe that being a gateway to the digitalization of money, it may help arouse the curiosity of some who want to know more about digital money and learn about blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, with the advantages that these offer.

However, just as it has its advantages, it has its disadvantages, which are not encouraging for the future and we believe that they should not be ignored.

Greater electronic convenience and reduced illegal activity also mean more control. The authorities that issue this digital money are going to have the possibility of tracking all the movements that are made with it, so it is very likely that financial privacy will be lost to a great extent, as long as the states set up an infrastructure and Sufficient budget to comply with that control. Also, since it is programmable money, it is possible to program various functions that harm the end user, such as, for example, that this money can only be used for certain purposes and not others, as well as its expiration, forcing users to to consume with that money, attacking the ability to save and the conservation of its value.

There are already many experts on the subject who have spoken about digital threats that can harm consumers in their autonomy regarding their money.

In addition to the aforementioned disadvantages, there are also disadvantages that money issued by central banks already has, which are related to their ability to issue unlimited money, affecting the value of the currencies held by consumers.

In conclusion, it is most likely that money through CBDCs will be raised all over the world, whether we citizens want it or not. Without actually imagining a dystopian future, with the data presented here we could think that CBDCs bring together the worst of fiat money (uncontrolled issuance and control by the authorities) with the worst of crypto money (traceability: recording of absolutely all the information that flows through there).

Facing this future, it is important to think about how we can continue to protect our privacy on a day-to-day basis, and today the best option is cryptocurrencies and the best one for this purpose is Bitcoin. Another option, a little less convenient for daily use, but which can serve to diversify our wealth based on this privacy that we are looking for, is gold, the use and spending of which is not automatically tracked by a central authority.

The information and analyzes presented in this note do not represent any type of investment recommendation. It is presented for informational and educational purposes only.

We know that the Bitcoin network regulates its difficulty according to its calculation capacity, the difficulty being low if this capacity or computational power is low and increasing as more miners and computers enter the network. If this were not the case, as the Bitcoin network grows, the ease of mining would grow and much more bitcoin would be mined faster, something that Nakamoto wanted to avoid by making sure that the difficulty was regulated according to the capacity of the network.

With the drop in prices in which we have found ourselves in this bear market since November 2021, many miners have stopped finding this activity profitable and have decided to turn off their mining rigs. Added to this, the increase in energy prices in Europe and the United States led to even more miners deciding to cease their activity completely.

When this computing capacity is lost in the network, it is regulated, so that the reward for mining is stable based on the hashrate (processing capacity) of the network.

Less miners >> Less computing power required >> More reward.

More miners >>>> More computing power required >>> Less reward.

Mining difficulty was down 7.23% on December 6th and will last for approximately two weeks before updating again. The value of a terahash, a unit in which computing power is measured, per second per day rose from $59.07 to $64.03. This refers to the return that a miner can expect for that computing power.

In November 2021, with bitcoin at all-time highs, each terahash was worth $416 because the reward to miners was much higher than now, something that greatly harms activity, and therefore the security of the network.

The measurement of this value, called hashprice, is highly related to the value of Bitcoin and to changes in the network's mining difficulty.

https://data.hashrateindex.com/chart/bitcoin-hashprice-index

This, on the one hand, is good for miners, since it increases the incentive they receive for their work certifying network transactions, but on the other, it is bad for end users, since the fewer the number of miners in the network, the greater the number of miners in the network. centralization and greater possibilities of being corrupted. Although in practice this is still very difficult, since the total computing capacity is still high, the ideal situation in the Bitcoin network is that there are as many miners as possible in it.

A DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) is a way of carrying out and structuring an organization through the blockchain, in which there is no central authority or hierarchies within it. We can see it as a company that is organized democratically through code and not through a CEO who makes the decisions.

The biggest use case of these organizations is given to organize dapps (decentralized applications) that work on the blockchain, so that the decisions that are made in them are not subject to a single central authority but are taken by the whole of the community seeking to reach a consensus, similar to the voting process in a democracy.

DAOs are programmed on the blockchain through smart contracts that make everything work. Decisions within these organizations are carried out through voting in which the community participates, in a democratic manner. They generally work with their own token that works equivalent to a company share and allows us to vote on what is being discussed in the DAO. The usual thing is that the more tokens a person has, the greater voting power they will have, although there are also DAOs that seek to be even more democratic and that the voting power is not related to the power over the tokens of the person, since this it causes decentralization to be lost and the richest to be the ones with the most power over the organization.

Its disadvantages

Being fully programmed and open source, one of the main disadvantages is through the code, since anyone can read it and find vulnerabilities in it through which to take advantage of the DAO. This was what happened with “The DAO”, one of the first decentralized organizations, in which a hacker found a bug that allowed him to get $50 million in Ether until he could be stopped.

Another disadvantage, which is related to the first one, is that all the decisions that are made in a DAO take much longer than in a centralized organization, and this is because they must be voted on by the community and until there is no consensus, they cannot be carried out. This same thing played against the DAO hack, since to change the code and stop the hacker, a vote should have been held, hindering the whole process and giving the hacker more time.

Its advantages

On the other hand, in the advantages we can list the participation that allows anyone who wants to take part and contribute ideas, the transparency and the fact that the community will support changes that benefit the DAO and the end user, since this it will end up giving its token a higher value and therefore, appreciating the capital of its members.

In conclusion, the DAOs are a revolutionary form of organization that arises thanks to the technological advance that the blockchain represents, allowing the users of a product to make decisions within it without being subject to the will of a central authority. But like everything that is related to this technology, it is very new and therefore it has many edges to fail and many points to improve for the future.

Nayib Bukele announced through his Twitter, on November 17, that the State would begin to acquire 1 BTC per day, taking advantage of the bear market and the prices of the largest cryptoactive of all.

The Caribbean country had last bought bitcoin in June 2022, before stopping. The Treasury of El Salvador has 2,381 bitcoins in its possession, purchased at an average price of $43,357, approximately 170% above the current price, causing approximately 62% loss to the Salvadoran treasury.

Buying 1 btc per day at these prices can be a great strategy to average the purchase prices, and therefore the losses of previous purchases, with a well-known and very simple yet effective strategy: the DCA.

The Dollar Cost Average consists of buying the same amount of a certain asset on a regular basis, regardless of its value. In this way, in bearish markets, our average price will be lower and lower and we do not risk wanting to estimate the times of the rises and falls of the market, which is extremely difficult.

If we had bought 1 BTC per day from the beginning of the year to November 21, we would have a total of 325 bitcoins and our purchase price for each one would be $25,594, a total investment of $8,318,050.

This is undoubtedly a higher purchase price than the current one of $15,970, and it means a loss of 37.55%, but this price is much lower than the January 1 price of $47,686. If on that date we had wanted to buy our 325 bitcoins, our investment would be $15,497,950, almost double the case and our loss would be 66%.

With these two situations we can see that the DCA is one of the best strategies to apply in moments of uncertainty and bear markets. This makes us think that Bukele can assume that the bear market in cryptocurrencies seems to continue.

What do you think about Bukele's strategy? Would you buy a bitcoin per day? Do you use the DCA strategy to make your purchases?

When we enter crypto, the first thing that is taught (or at least should be taught) is the famous phrase “Not your keys, not your coins” in relation to whether another person or entity - such as a centralized exchange is the one that has access to your assets, your assets are not really yours but that person's, even though you have paid for them. And this week, with the fall of FTX and FTT, it was more than demonstrated.

The problem appears with the mass investment in crypto, in which many users enter merely for speculative purposes and without fully understanding the technology or philosophy from which this technology arises, as well as the lack of regulation that accompanies this. market.

It is important to highlight the difference with the traditional market, in which if a broker goes bankrupt, our assets are backed by the CNV in the case of Argentina or by the SEC in the United States, so they will simply be transferred to another broker, without harm us seriously. In the crypto market, on the other hand, if an exchange goes bankrupt, there is no authority to regulate our holding of those assets and they simply disappear with the exchange, bringing our holdings in it to 0.

Today when we think of crypto, we think of an exchange as the most representative figure of the ecosystem, but if we take a bit of perspective and go back years, the exchange was not the most important nor the most remarkable thing about crypto. Quite the opposite. The most iconic thing was the wallet in which we can store our assets and own them. Thinking of an analogy in this regard, an exchange is a supermarket where we buy what we need, which we will then store in our refrigerators or pantries (The wallets) and not in the supermarket itself.

Faced with this, many users may argue that they are tempted to leave their assets in exchanges that offer income for our assets, against a wallet that does not offer any of these advantages, and they have a point in favor. Faced with this situation, users must determine if they prefer profitability accompanied by the risk of losing their assets or custody of their assets. In addition to having the possibility of approaching the possibilities that Defi offers, protected from the human risk of centralized exchanges, also being aware that they are exposed to risks related to ignorance of blockchain technology, and all the necessary maneuvers to be able to transit it.

In conclusion, movements like those of FTX the week of November 7, force us to rethink our relationship with crypto, investigate even more to continue to be sure that we trust the growth of this ecosystem and finish learning how to get the most out of it. the technology, whose premise is to be “A peer to peer electronic cash system”, according to the Bitcoin Whitepaper, the document that started it all. Remember: “Not your keys, not your coins”.

With the arrival of The Merge, the discussion about the two most popular consensus protocols in crypto networks so far surfaced on the networks: Proof of Work, which is used by Bitcoin and other crypto projects (and was used by Ethereum ) and Proof of Stake, which is currently used by Ethereum and most new altcoins. Today we are going to review both protocols, defining their pros and cons and trying to determine if one is better than the other.

Proof of work, or proof of work is the first consensus protocol used in cryptocurrencies, this protocol is based on the brute force of processing of the computers that support the network.

In this type of protocol, the network participants make the processing of their PCs available to the network to try to be the first to decipher a mathematical operation, this process is called mining. The first miner who manages to solve this operation will be the one who validates the new transactions and in exchange will receive a reward in the currency of the network. This system is based on the competition of all participating computers in the network to be the first to decipher this challenge, and it protects itself from possible malicious attacks through the energy cost of solving the mathematical problem and the economic cost of the equipment used. For this end. These costs make the risk:benefit ratio of attacking the network very high, discouraging possible attackers. Proof of Work is then based on the conversion of these resources (time and energy) to new currencies issued as rewards.

Proof of Stake, or proof of participation, on the other hand, is a protocol that is based on the participation of holders of the network's currency, so that anyone can put their "frozen" assets in nodes and participate in the network. In this type of consensus, a node is randomly selected that will be the one that will validate the new transactions in exchange for a reward in the currency of the network. If, instead, you wanted to maliciously alter the network, you could lose a part of your frozen assets, because these are available to the network. In addition, in this type of protocol there is a wide variety of consensus mechanisms to guarantee the transparency of the network.

Today Ethereum works through this protocol in which any user can participate as a node by placing 32 Ether as collateral for the network, which will be used by the network to ensure that this user will act in a beneficial way for the network.

In this way, just as Proof of Work converts energy into new coins, Proof of Stake is based on the opportunity cost of having those coins “locked”.

Now, what are the pros and cons of each?

One of the pros that stands out most about Proof of Work is its robustness, being a protocol that makes hacking it extremely impractical and expensive, but on the other hand that same robustness makes networks like Bitcoin, for example, slow and not very scalable, with a very limited ability to create new blocks. On the other hand, another of its cons is the centralization that exists in Bitcoin mining, since most of the nodes that watch over the network belong to private companies, and starting a new node independently is extremely expensive to be made by private persons.

In addition, another of the great controversies of Proof of Work is the environmental impact it has, which derives first of all from the energy expenditure that the entire Bitcoin network represents (remember that this system is mainly based on exchanging energy for bitcoin), which is equal to that of a small country, and secondly, the impact of electronic waste that involves keeping the hardware updated in order to continue mining. It is estimated that an ASIC (The specialized computer for bitcoin mining) is renewed every approximately one and a half years.

The change from Ethereum to Proof of Stake has to do mainly with this point, since it does not require more computing power than an ordinary home PC, having a great advantage over Bitcoin in terms of environmental impact. On the other hand, Proof of Stake also has the problem of centralization with respect to validator nodes, since starting one in a particular way is also very expensive, forcing users to resort to stake pools of private companies. There is also another factor in this centralization and that is that the largest nodes generally belong to the creators of the network and the first investors, since they are the ones who have the most tokens in the network. Tokens that were created in a “pre-mined” way, before the operation of the main network.

Another disadvantage of Proof of Stake networks has to do with the incentives to stake that are given to users, that is, the rewards for having their assets “locked up”. These incentives increase inflation in the native currency of the network, compared to the PoW incentives in Bitcoin, forcing all users to stake and punishing those who are not.

In conclusion, neither of the two protocols is objectively better than the other. Both have their pros and cons, they pursue different objectives and respond to different technologies and needs, however it is important to know the problems involved in each of these protocols if we want to participate in the crypto ecosystem to opt for the network that best matches our needs. interests and our long-term goals.

Yesterday, October 31, marked the 14th anniversary of the publication of the Bitcoin white paper for a list of crypto enthusiasts by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Throughout these 14 years, the newly created Bitcoin grew and gained popularity in the market to the point of becoming one of the most appreciated assets in history.

The premise of this white-paper is simple: Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer (p2p) digital cash system and it also outlines how it will work. Although at first it was an invention adopted by the community of programmers dedicated to cryptography, over time it earned a place as a highly speculative financial asset due to its rapid growth in a very short time, putting blockchain technology on the rise and witnessing thousands of networks that appeared after its creation.

In its origins, being simply a digitally interchangeable technology (such as a common and current item in a video game) and being known and used by only a few users, it did not have a market price as such, the first coins were They were given away between miner and miner or could be mined from any normal desktop computer. One of the first established prices for Bitcoin was $0.0008, which was the calculated cost of mining each one. From that moment on, it ceased to be just an interchangeable technology to have a monetary market value. The first transaction in history carried out with btc, which you have surely heard of due to its iconicity in crypto culture, was the purchase of two pizzas in exchange for 10,000 Bitcoins in May 2010, a day that is celebrated today. such as Bitcoin Pizza Day, through the forum in which all interactions related to cryptocurrency took place. At that time, Bitcoin began to be used according to the purpose established in its white paper: to be a digital cash system.

Today, 14 years later, it is important to remember why Bitcoin emerged as a technology and its importance, beyond its market value and the speculative halo that surrounds it. Bitcoin is the first technology, after gold, that allows us to be completely owners of our money, sheltering us from the oscillations and manipulations that are carried out on fiat money. In addition, all this is done digitally, completely portable and liquid, being a better option in this regard than gold. It is the closest thing to having cash, but in a digital way, which until then depended on an entity such as Visa or Paypal that certifies the transaction carried out. From this technology, many people have had the opportunity to question and critically look at fiduciary money and the agents that watch over it, choosing this cryptocurrency as money over conventional money. Beyond its dollar value, it is important to understand the freedoms and advantages that this technology provides us, knowing that the appreciation of Bitcoin is the consequence of this and of the code on which it is based.

The company Tether joins forces with SmartPay to enable, as of November 3, 24,000 ATMs where USDT can be bought and sold in exchange for reais, the Brazilian fiduciary currency.

These ATMs work in a similar way to a conventional ATM in which we withdraw cash, only that we must connect our wallet to them and generally we also need to have an account with the company that provides the ATM.

Brazil already has ATMs, but for Bitcoin, since 2020 in various cities such as Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.

As the trend grows, more and more countries see the arrival of ATMs that allow the purchase of crypto assets on the spot. Although in Argentina, the use of them is not as popular as exchange applications, there are also some ATMs distributed mostly in the capital of the country.

Have you ever used a cryptocurrency ATM?

Lex Fridman, a researcher at MIT and host of his own podcast, argued that Satoshi Nakamoto should receive the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences after the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced the prize's winners. Among them is Ben Bernanke, who was chairman of the Fed from 2006 to 2014.

The response to this award committee announcement by crypto-twitter was that an award is being given to whoever in 2008 printed money to save banks from the crisis they themselves caused, and that the award should definitely be for Satoshi Nakamoto for his contribution to humanity by creating a tool like Bitcoin.

This discussion was joined by users who argue that Nakamoto should not receive the award, since it is not the way to honor him since the Nobel Prizes are a "fiduciary construction used to perpetuate the current financial system."

Users also appeared who not only nominated Satoshi for the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, but also for the Nobel Peace Prize, for his contribution to humanity.

Undoubtedly, the invention of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin, is a tool driven by a completely revolutionary technology that offers us the possibility of owning our money digitally, without intermediaries and without the possibility of being censored. It is also money that does not depend on a state or economic policy, which makes it different from managing and owning our money only in cash.

Faced with this revolution, it is completely to be expected that the economic establishment will resist encouraging its use and much more, to reward its creator. In any case, we see how little by little, the retail public is increasingly incorporating this technology into their lives, gradually forcing large companies to change their focus, such as Google for example, which will soon accept some of their payments in crypto.

Do you think Satoshi should be a candidate for a Nobel Prize, even though his real identity is not known? Or is receiving a Nobel prize not the way to honor it?

At the end of August, as a result of what happened with Tornado Cash, also involving USDC, which "blacklisted" some addresses, Rune Christensen, co-founder of Maker Dao, published some ideas and thoughts regarding a possible future of DAI - the decentralized stablecoin that works from digital assets used as a guarantee of its value - in which it was not linked 1 to 1 with the US dollar but instead maintained a floating value, not a stable one.

The reason for this de-peg with respect to the dollar is to reduce the regulatory risk due to exposure to so-called Real World Assets, as is the case of USDC, which, although it is a cryptocurrency, is collateralized in real dollars. , therefore it ends up being a representation of the real dollar in the digital world (at least, that is the intention of companies like Circle or Tether). It is important to know that USDC is, today, the most collateralized asset in the DAI protocol.

DAI works in a completely decentralized way, it does not have a company behind it, but a DAO in which the community can vote, therefore it cannot be functional to the needs of governments such as exchanges or other stablecoins that can block addresses or freeze the movements of their tokens. Rune concludes that the only way to get around regulations is full decentralization, while thinking aloud how to achieve it.

DAI is the only stablecoin in the top 100 by market cap that does not have “USD” in its name.

But… Is this total decentralization possible? We may think that by using a decentralized asset in a centralized exchange, we are losing its advantages since we depend on what the exchange decides to let us or not do with our asset. Let's remember what happened with Celsius not allowing its clients to make withdrawals.

As always: Not your keys, not your coins.

On the other hand, in the case of stablecoins, we can ask ourselves how they would work if they were not tied to an asset that is the world reference such as the US dollar.

Would they be tied to another asset like the euro or would they simply seek stability that is not necessarily tied to a real currency? What asset would that be?

Decentralization as a premise involves many points to consider. The first and foremost is“Should I invest in X cryptocurrency?” There is no central bank, country or entity to trust that X currency has value and our money will be safe. Let's remember what happened with Terra and UST, a stablecoin that worked in a logarithmic way and in which a lot of people lost money - despite the fact that a lot of other people understood that it was a ticking time bomb - and when we are talking about decentralization, obviously there is no who to complain to Our money only depends on us.

In conclusion, as participants in the crypto ecosystem, we can ask ourselves to what extent the decentralization that this ecosystem pursues so much goes or not, and also ask ourselves in what cases is it necessary and in what cases are we willing to sacrifice decentralization for convenience, because it is infinitely more comfortable. have our Ether or DAIs in a CEX and be able to exchange them in a practical way for fiat money for immediate use. At the same time, by doing this we have to know that we are doing it in exchange for our information, our privacy and the possibility that regulatory entities can access our information.

After Elon Musk expressed that Twitter is not transparent about spam bots, fake accounts and the company's financial health, the Tesla CEO and billionaire brings a tempting deal.

The latter, has an original price of 44 billion dollars and Twitter seems ready to continue with the agreement for Elon Musk to buy the company. Yesterday it was announced, through a publication, that they intend to close the transaction at 54.20 dollars per share.

Musk's proposed deal is made on the condition that there be "an immediate stay of action," a postponement of the trial, and receipt of pending funding. Musk, however, has yet to announce what the proposed multipurpose X app will be, but in a tweet yesterday, he mentioned, "Twitter probably revs up X in 3-5 years, but I could be wrong."

The CEO considered using blockchain technology to combat spam bots, making Twitter users pay 0.1 Dogecoin (DOGE) to tweet or retweet.

“You have to pay a small amount to register your message in the chain, which will eliminate the vast majority of spam and bots. There is no throat to choke, so freedom of expression is guaranteed," Musk says in the phone transcript. He then concludes that blockchain-based Twitter might not be feasible at the moment.

The news that Musk could be the new owner of the social media platform has sparked a controversy within the Twitter community. Among the different opinions that have been made known, one is that of the creator of Dogecoin, Bill Markus -also known as Shibetoshi Nakamoto on Twitter- told his 1.7 million followers that "if elon musk improves Twitter, then Twitter will be better," adding, "If Elon Musk screws up Twitter, then we don't have to listen to all the stupid things people say on Twitter anymore. that's win-win."

However, other users did not show much optimism in the face of the circumstance. One noted that he couldn't believe that "anyone who values ​​@Twitter would want @elonmusk to have anything to do with it."

Beyond the circumstances, the commotion and the controversial opinions of the public that this news caused, the price of Twitter shares rose 22.24% with a total of 52 dollars per share, according to Nasdaq data.