Abstract: In our third look at the lightning network, we examine lightning channel closure scenarios and the incentives to punish dishonest parties and prevent them from stealing funds. This punishment mechanism is called a “Justice Transaction”. We explain how to arbitrarily construct a “Justice” scenario and present data on the prevalence of this type of transaction on the Bitcoin network. We have potentially identified 241 Justice transactions, representing 2.22 Bitcoin in value, since the lightning network launched at the end of 2017.

Overview

Following on from our January 2018 discussion of the motivation behind the lightning network and our March 2019 analysis of lightning network routing fee economics, this third piece on the lightning network looks at channel closures and the incentives designed to prevent dishonest lightning nodes from stealing funds, by broadcasting an earlier channel state.

It should be noted that, by design, when a thief attempts to steal funds on the lightning network, if caught, they do not only lose the money they tried to steal, they lose all the funds in the relevant channel. This “punishment” is expected to act as a deterrent and is sometimes called “justice”.

The four lightning channel closure scenarios

Opening lightning channels is, generally speaking, more simple than closing them, there is only one way to open a lightning channel, cooperatively with interactive communication between the parties. On the other hand, when evaluating channel closures, one needs to consider four different scenarios, as outlined in the decision tree below (See figure 1).

Figure 1 – Lightning network channel closure types – decision tree

(Source: BitMEX Research)

Figure 2 – The four lightning channel closure scenarios explained

Closure type	Description	Onchain technical details and example transactions
	This is the most common scenario. A cooperative closure occurs when an honest node initiates the channel closure, while the node on the other side of the channel is online and communicating. Funds are distributed to each party’s onchain wallet based on the latest channel state.	A cooperative closure requires only one onchain transaction. Inputs are redeemed using a “normal” 2 of 2 multi-signature script and sent to two outputs, each belonging to the parties involved, with the balance based on the latest channel state.  This transaction is hard to identify as lightning and therefore it is the most private of the three channel closure types. Example closure: Transaction
	A non-cooperative non-breach closure occurs when an honest node initiates the closure, without directly communicating with the node on the other side of the channel. Funds are distributed to each party’s onchain wallet based on the latest channel state.	These two different economic scenarios, are represented by one technical onchain scenario. This scenario requires two onchain transactions.  Firstly the funds are redeemed using a 2 of 2 multi-signature witness and sent to two outputs. The node which did not initiate the closure is allocated funds based on what the channel closing party says is attributable to them, while another pot of funds is sent to an output which can be redeemed by using either an OP_IF or an OP_ELSE script.  In a second transaction, the funds sent to the OP_IF script, are claimed by the party that initiated the channel closure, using the OP_ELSE branch of Bitcoin script. Example closure: Transaction 1 Transaction 2 (OP_ELSE)
	A non-cooperative breach non-justice closure occurs when a dishonest node initiates the channel closure, by broadcasting an earlier channel state, attempting to steal funds from the node on the other side of the channel. The non closing node does not check the network within the locktime period, normally 24 hours and does not broadcast a justice transaction. Therefore the theft is successful. Funds are distributed to each party’s wallet based on an earlier channel state, such that the non closing party losses funds and the dishonest channel closing party successfully steals funds.
	A non-cooperative breach justice closure occurs when a dishonest node initiates the channel closure, without directly communicating with the node on the other side of the channel. The non closing node does check the network within the locktime period, and creates a justice transaction, such that the attempted theft fails. The would-be thief is punished and all the funds go to the honest non closing party.	In the justice scenario, two onchain transactions are also required.  In the first transaction, the funds are redeemed using a 2 of 2 multi-signature witness and sent to two outputs. The node which did not initiate the closure is allocated funds based on what the channel closing party says is attributable to them, while another pot of funds is sent to an output which can be redeemed by using either an OP_IF or an OP_ELSE script. In a second transaction, the honest node, that did not initiate the closure claims all the funds sent to the OP_IF script, using the OP_IF branch. This is the most revealing of the three channel closure types and provides the lowest level of privacy. Example closure: Transaction 1 Transaction 2 (OP_IF)

How to construct a Justice transaction?

The above experiment occurred successfully, providing some assurance that Lightning does actually work and if you try to steal, you will be punished.

Network Justice transaction data

After conducting our own justice transaction, we looked at the characteristics of this transaction (Inputs redeemed using the OP_IF branch) and searched for other justice transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. We identified 241 transactions, which appear to be justice channel closures, dating back as far as December 2017. Mr. Alex Bosworth, from Lightning Labs, has created a tool to identify justice transactions, which may be more robust than our more basic search methodology.

Figure 3 – Number of justice transactions – monthly

(Source: BitMEX Research)

(Note: There is a possibility the data includes false positives)

Figure 4 – Value redeemed in justice transactions – monthly (BTC)

(Source: BitMEX Research)

(Note: There is a possibility the data includes false positives)

The justice transactions we identified had transaction inputs totaling 2.22 BTC, with the monthly total peaking at around 0.67BTC in February 2019, as figure 4 above illustrates. This does not necessarily mean thieves tried and failed to steal 2.22 BTC, as the dis-honest nodes may have punished thieves by a amount larger than the value they tried to steal (we do not know the latest channel state). The 2.22 BTC represents the total funds claimed by honest non channel closing nodes, part of this value is funds originally owned by the dis-honest nodes and part of the value will be the value they tried to steal.

It is also possible that many of the 241 justice transactions do not indicate genuine dishonestly, for instance it could be users testing the system, where the same user owns both lightning nodes in question. For example BitMEX Research is responsible for 5 of the 241 justice transactions, when there was no victim, as BitMEX owned all the nodes and funds.

241 justice transactions, with a value of just over 2 BTC is reasonably small relative to the size of the lightning network. The lightning network statistics website 1ml.com, indicates that there are currently 940 BTC locked up in 32,951 channels. The total number of justice transactions in the last 18 months is therefore only 0.7% of the current number of lightning channels.

Conclusion

In order for the lightning network to succeed as a robust, reliable and scalable payment system, the justice mechanism needs to be effective in deterring and preventing theft. As for the optimal justice rate, this is hard to determine, if it is too high and it shows that successful thefts may be too prevalent and the threat of justice may not be sufficient. If it is too low, it may mean nobody is attempting theft, thereby increasing the risk that users do not monitor their channels. This may lead to increases in the risk of large systemic channel thefts in the future.

For now, at least according to the data we have analysed, there appears to be a reasonable degree of justice on the burgeoning lightning network.

Abstract: In a bold move, social networking giant Facebook, has challenged the traditional finance and ETF industry, with its “Libra coin”, or as we call it the “Libra ETF”. We note that there are many unanswered questions about Libra, which may lack transparency, when compared to traditional ETFs. Another key disadvantage of Libra is that unlike with legacy ETFs, investment income is not distributed to unit holders. We conclude that although Libra has significant disadvantages when compared to traditional ETF products, Facebook’s wide consumer reach with platforms such as Whatsapp and Instagram could give Libra a key commercial advantage.

(Facebook vs Blackrock – The battle for the ETFs)

Overview

The structure of Libra is analogous to the popular Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) model, where unit holders are entitled to the financial returns of a basket of financial assets. The units are tradable on exchanges and a select group of authorised participants are able to create and redeem units using the underlying assets.

As we pointed out in our February 2019 piece, the ETF industry has enjoyed considerable growth in the last decade or so, in particular in the area of fixed income (See figure 1 below). In June 2019, in a bombshell moment for the ETF industry and challenge for the established players such as Blackrock and Vanguard, social media and internet conglomerate Facebook, entered the game. In a direct challenge to Blackrocks’s “iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF” (AGG), Facebook announced plans to launch a new ETF, the “Libra ETF”, also focused on fixed income and government bonds.

Figure 1 – Size of the Top Bond ETFs Targeting US Investors – US$ Billion

(Source: BitMEX Research, Bloomberg)

(Note: The chart represents the sum of the market capitalisations of the following bond ETFs: iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF, Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF, iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF, Vanguard Short-Term Corporate Bond ETF, Vanguard Short-Term Bond ETF, Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF, iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF, Vanguard Total International Bond ETF, iShares MBS Bond ETF, iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF, PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Strategy Fund, Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond ETF, iShares Short-Term Corporate Bond ETF, SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond ETF, iShares Short Maturity Bond ETF)

Comparing the new ETF structure with the traditional space

In figure 2 below, we have analysed and compared the new innovative Libra ETF to a traditional ETF, Blackrock’s iShares Core US Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG). Our analysis shows that, although the Libra product is new, much of the relevant information, such as transparency of the holdings and frequency of the  publication of the NAV, has not yet been disclosed.

The analysis also highlights that Libra may suffer from unnecessary complexity with respect to portfolio management. The fund appears to be managed by the Libra Association, which consists of many entities in multiple industries across the globe. These same entities are responsible for issuing the ETF and the list of companies is set to expand further. At the same time, the investment mandate is unclear. In contrast Blackrock’s fixed income ETF product has a clear investment mandate, to track the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, which is managed independently of the ETF issuer.

Perhaps the most significant disadvantage of the Libra product, is that unit holders do not appear to be entitled to receive the investment income. This contrasts unfavourably with Blackrock’s product, which focuses on an almost identical asset class and has an investment yield of around 2.6%. Defenders of Libra could point out that the expenses need to be covered from somewhere and that the Libra’s expense fee is not yet disclosed. However, the ETF industry is already highly competitive, with Blackrock charging an expense fee of just 0.05%. This expense fee is far lower than the expected investment yield of the product, at around 2.6% and therefore the Libra ETF may not be price competitive, a key potential disadvantage for potential investors.

Figure 2 – Libra ETF vs iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG) – Detailed Comparison

(Sources: iShares, Libra)

We have also analysed the two alternatives from a technical perspective. As figure 3 below indicates, the key difference is that control of Libra tokens may in part be managed by digital signatures. As long as no whitelist of addresses is implemented, this may provide some advantages:

• Pseudonymity
• A limited amount of censorship resistance
• Relatively easy integration with cryptocurrency exchanges

However, as we mentioned in our Tether report in February 2018, history has shown that these characteristics can cause platforms to ultimately face a choice between implementing KYC or face being shut down by the authorities. Facebook has already censored politically controversial figures on its main platform, therefore it may appear likely the extent to which Libra ETF units are managed by public private key cryptography is significantly constrained or eventually becomes phased out.

Figure 3 – Technical and cryptographic considerations

(Sources: iShares, Libra)

Conclusion

Despite the key disadvantage, namely that Libra unit holders are not entitled to the investment income, many industry analysts are carefully examining the impact Libra could have on the traditional ETF industry and existing electronic payment systems.

While our comparison to ETFs is a bit tongue and cheek, it does highlight that the structure of the product has similar attributes to existing financial products. We therefore think it is an appropriate comparison, and if Libra wants to be competitive, it should emulate some of the governance and fee characteristics of traditional ETFs.

However, Libra could attract clients due to integration with platforms such as Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram. If Libra does retain the property of allowing coins to be controlled by private keys, this is an interesting development and the coin is likely to gain share from tokens such as Tether. However, in our view, in the long run, it is likely Libra either disables this feature or makes it technically difficult, such that only a tiny minority of users have these “non-custodial” wallets. If that happens, Libra is nothing more than a high fee ETF.

Abstract: The 15 May 2019 Bitcoin Cash hardfork appears to have suffered from three significant interrelated problems. A weakness exploited by an “attack transaction”, which caused miners to produce empty blocks. The uncertainty surrounding the empty blocks may have caused concern among some miners, who may have tried to mine on the original non-hardfork chain, causing a consensus chainsplit. There appears to have been a plan by developers and miners to recover funds accidentally sent to SegWit addresses and the above weakness may have scuppered this plan. This failure may have resulted in a deliberate and coordinated 2 block chain re-organisation. Based on our calculations, around 3,392 BCH may have been successfully double spent in an orchestrated transaction reversal. However, the only victim with respect to these double spent coins could have been the original “thief”.

Illustration of the Bitcoin Cash network splits on 15 May 2019

(Source: BitMEX Research)
(Notes: Graphical illustration of the split)

The three Bitcoin Cash issues

Bitcoin Cash’s May 2019 hard fork upgrade was plagued by three significant issues, two of which may have been indirectly caused by a bug which resulted in empty blocks. The below image shows the potential relationships between these three incidents.

The relationships between the three issues faced by Bitcoin Cash during the hardfork upgrade

(Source: BitMEX Research)

The empty block problem

Bitcoin ABC, an important software implementation for Bitcoin Cash, appears to have had a bug, where the validity conditions for transactions to enter the memory pool may have been less onerous than the consensus validity conditions. This is the opposite to how Bitcoin (and presumably Bitcoin Cash) are expected to operate, consensus validity rules are supposed to be looser than memory pool ones. This is actually quite an important characteristic, since it prevents a malicious spender from creating a transaction which satisfies the conditions to be relayed across the network and get into a merchants memory pools, but fails the conditions necessary to get into valid blocks. This would make 0-confirmation double spend attacks relatively easy to pull off, without one needing to hope their original payment doesn’t make it into the blockchain. In these circumstances, an attacker can be reasonably certain that the maliciously constructed transaction never makes it into the blockchain.

An attacker appears to have spotted this bug in Bitcoin Cash ABC and then exploited it, just after the hardfork, perhaps in an attempt to cause chaos and confusion. This attack could have been executed at any time. The attacker merely had to broadcast transactions which met the mempool validity conditions but failed the consensus checks. When miners then attempted to produce blocks with these transactions, they failed. Rather than not making any blocks at all, as a fail safe, miners appear to have made empty blocks, at least in most of the cases.

Bitcoin Cash – Number of transactions per block – orange line is the hardfork

(Source: BitMEX Research)

The asymmetric chainspilt

At the height of the uncertainty surrounding the empty blocks, our pre-hardfork Bitcoin ABC 0.18.2 node received a new block, 582,680. At the time, many were concerned about the empty blocks and it is possible that some miners may have reverted back to a pre-hardfork client, thinking that the longer chain was in trouble and may revert back to before the hardfork. However, this is merely speculation on our part and the empty block bug may have had nothing to do with the chainsplit, which could have just been caused by a miner who was too slow to upgrade.

Bitcoin Cash consensus chainsplit

(Source: BitMEX Research)

The chainsplit did highlight an issue to us with respect to the structure of the hardfork. We tested whether our post hardfork client, ABC 0.19.0, would consider the non-hardfork side of the split as valid. In order for the break to be “clean”, each side of the split should consider the other as invalid.

In order to test the validity of the shorter pre-hardfork chain, from the perspective of the Bitcoin ABC 0.19.0 node, we had to invalidate the first hardfork block since the split. We then observed to see whether the node would follow the chainsplit or remain stuck at the hardfork point. To our surprise, as the below screenshot indicates, the node followed the other side of the split. Therefore the split was not clean, it was asymmetric, potentially providing further opportunities for attackers.

Screenshot of the command line from our Bitcoin ABC 0.19.0 node

(Source: BitMEX Research)

The coordinated two block re-organisation

A few blocks after the hardfork, on the hardfork side of the split, there was a block chain re-organisation of length 2. At the time, we thought this was caused by normal block propagation issues and did not think much of it. For example, Bitcoin SV experienced a re-organisation a few weeks prior to this, of 6 blocks in the length. When Bitcoin SV re-organised, all transactions in the orphaned chain eventually made it into the main winning chain (except the Coinbase transactions), based on our analysis. However, in this Bitcoin Cash re-organisation, we discovered that this what not the case.

The orphaned block, 582,698, contained 137 transactions (including the Coinbase), only 111 of which made it into the winning chain. Therefore a successful 2 block double spend appears to have occurred with respect to 25 transactions. The output value of these 25 transactions summed up to over 3,300 BCH, as the below table indicates.

List of transactions in the orphaned block (582,698) which did not make it into the main chain

(Source: BitMEX Research)

As the above table shows, the total output value of these 25 double spent transactions is 3,391.7 BCH, an economically significant sum. Therefore, one may conclude that the re-organisation was an orchestrated event, rather than it having occurred by accident. If it occurred by accident, it is possible there would be no mismatch between the transactions on each side of the split. However, assuming coordination and a deliberate re-org is speculation on our part.

We have provided two examples of outputs which were double spent below:

Example of one of the double spent UTXOs – “0014”

(Source: BitMEX Research)

The above table illustrates what happened to a 5 BCH output during the re-organisation. The 5 BCH was first sent to address qzyj4lzdjjq0unuka59776tv4e6up23uhyk4tr2anm in block 582,698. This chain was orphaned and the same output was eventually sent to a different address, qq4whmrz4xm6ey6sgsj4umvptrpfkmd2rvk36dw97y, 7 block later.

Second example of one of the double spent UTXOs – “0020”

(Source: BitMEX Research)

What happened to the above outputs shares characteristics with almost all the funds in the 25 double spent transactions. Most of the outputs appear to have been double spent around block 582,705 on the main chain, around 7 blocks after the orphaned block.

The SigScript, used to redeem the transaction inputs, starts with “0020” or “0014”, highlighted in the above examples. These may relate to Segregated Witness. According to the specification in Segregated Witness, “0014” is pushed in P2WPKH (Pay to witness public key hash) and “0020” is pushed in P2WSH (Pay to witness script hash). Therefore the redemption of these inputs may have something to do with Segregated Witness, a Bitcoin upgrade, only part of which was adopted on Bitcoin Cash.

Indeed, based on our analysis, every single input in the 25 transactions in the orphaned block 582,698 was redeemed with a Sigscript starting “0014” or “0020”. Therefore it is possible that nobody lost funds related to this chain re-organisation, other than the “attacker” or “thief” who redeemed these SegWit outputs, which may have accidentally been sent to these outputs in the first place.

As part of the Bitcoin Cash May 2019 hardfork, there was a change to allow coins which were accidentally sent to a SegWit address, to be recovered. Therefore, this may have occurred in the incident.

Allow Segwit recovery

In the last upgrade, coins accidentally sent to Segwit P2SH addresses were made unspendable by the CLEANSTACK rule. This upgrade will make an exemption for these coins and return them to the previous situation, where they are spendable. This means that once the P2SH redeem script pre-image is revealed (for example by spending coins from the corresponding BTC address), any miner can take the coins.

(Source: https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2019-05-15-upgrade.md)

It is possible that this 2 block re-organisation is unrelated to the empty block bug. However, the split appears to have occurred just one block after the resolution of the bug, therefore it may be related. Perhaps the “honest” miners were attempting to coordinate the spend of these outputs directly after the split, perhaps to return them to the original owners and the empty block bug messed up their timing, allowing the attacker to benefit and sweep the funds.

On the other hand, the attack is quite complex, therefore the attacker is likely to have a high degree of sophistication and needed to engage in extensive planning. Therefore, it is also possible this attack may have been effective even without the empty block bug.

Conclusion

There are many lessons to learn from the events surrounding the Bitcoin Cash hardfork upgrade. A hardfork appears to provide an opportunity for malicious actors to attack and create uncertainty and therefore careful planning and coordination of a hardfork is important. On the other hand, this empty block bug, which may be the root cause of the other 2 incidents, could have occurred at any time and trying to prevent bugs like this is critical whether one is attempting to harfork or not.

Another key lesson from these events is the need for transparency. During the incidents it was difficult to know what developers were planning, the nature of the bugs, or which chain the miners were supporting. Open communication in public channels about these issues could have been more helpful. In particular, many were unaware of an apparent plan developers and miners had to coordinate and recover lost funds sent to SegWit addresses. It may have been helpful if this plan was debated and discussed in the community more beforehand, as well as during the apparent deliberate and coordinated re-organisation. Assuming of course if there was time to disclose the latter. It may also be helpful if those involved disclose the details about these events after the fact.

The largest concern from all of this, in our view, is the deliberate and coordinated re-organisation. From one side of the argument, the funds were stolen, therefore the actions were justified in returning the funds to their “rightful owners”, even if it caused some short term disruption. However, the cash like transaction finality is seen by many, or perhaps by some, as the only unique characteristic of these blockchain systems. The ability to reverse transactions, and in this case economically significant transactions, undermines the whole premise of the system. Such behavior can remove incentives to appropriately secure funds and set a precedent or change expectations, making further reversals more likely.

For all those in the Bitcoin community who dislike Bitcoin Cash, this could be seen as an opportunity to laugh at the coin. However, although Bitcoin Cash has a much lower hashrate than Bitcoin, making this reversal easier, the success of this economically significant orchestrated transaction reversal on Bitcoin Cash is not positive news for Bitcoin in our view. In some ways, these incidents contribute to setting a dangerous precedent. It shows that it may be possible in Bitcoin. Alternatively, this could just illustrate the risks Bitcoin Cash faces while being the minority chain.

Abstract: In this piece we present data on a relatively new phenomenon, Initial Exchange Offerings (IEOs). The ICO market is down around 97% in Q1 2019 (YoY), based on the amount of capital raised. In this relatively challenging climate to raise funds, some projects have changed the “C” in ICO to an “E”, perhaps in an attempt to assist with raising capital. At least for now, to some extent, this appears to be working, with almost $40m having been raised so far this year. However, we remain sceptical about the prospects for long term investors.

Overview

We consider an Initial Exchange Offering (IEO) as the issuance and sale of a token based on public-private key cryptography, where participation in the issuance occurs exclusively through one trading platform or exchange. This piece provides a basic overview of the largest IEOs and tracks various IEO token metrics, including investment performance.

ICO market

First we briefly look at the ICO market. As the following chart indicates, the market has dried up following a massive boom in 2017 & 2018.

Funds raised by ICOs – US$M

Source: BitMEX Research, icodata.io
Notes: Data as at 25 April 2019

As the below chart illustrates, the investment returns of the 2018 ICOs has been poor, many of the projects are down around 80% from the ICO price, if the coin even trades at all. Peak to trough, project token prices typically declined much further than this.

Top ten ICOs by funds raised in 2018 – Investment performance data

Source: BitMEX Research, tokendata.io
Notes: Data as at 25 April 2019

Changing a “C” into an “E” – The IEO market

Perhaps in an attempt to address some of the concerns about the poor investment returns and the lower levels of enthusiasm for ICOs, IEOs appear to have gained in popularity. Below is a list of the major IEOs and the main exchange platforms involved.

List of IEO token sales

Source: BitMEX Research, IEO Launchpad websites, Coinmarketcap
Notes: Data as at 25 April 2019

The number of IEOs taking place has intensified in recent months, as the model is proving somewhat successful. Smaller exchange platforms are attempting to replicate the model, as the long list of IEOs below illustrates.

Other IEOs with limited data available

Source: BitMEX Research, IEO Launchpad websites

With respect to all but one of the tokens, investors have earned strong positive returns based on the IEO price. However, after the tokens begin trading, the investment returns have typically been poor. This is illustrated by the below chart, which rebases the token price to the IEO issuance price.

IEO Investment performance since launch (IEOs in 2019)

Source: BitMEX Research, IEO Launchpad websites, Coinmarketcap
Notes: Data as at 25 April 2019

US$38.9m has been raised so far by IEOs in 2019 (up to 25th April). Binance has been the most prolific IEO platform by a considerable margin.

Top exchange platforms by IEO funds raised – US$m

Source: BitMEX Research, IEO Launchpad websites, Coinmarketcap
Notes: Data as at 25 April 2019

The proceeds from IEOs can be relatively small, however on average only 4.4% of the total token supply is made available in the sale. Therefore, there are opportunities for project teams to make considerable profits from selling coins they granted to themselves. The 2019 IEOs were priced at a level which implies a total market capitalisation of US$907.7m, based on the disclosed total token supply.

Top exchange platforms by IEO token market capitalisation at IEO price – US$m

Source: BitMEX Research, IEO Launchpad websites, Coinmarketcap
Notes: Data as at 25 April 2019

Conclusion

While exchanges, traders & subscribers may have done very well from IEOs thus far, we are less confident on the outlook for long term investors. However, this is simply a high level analysis – we have not looked into any of the individual projects in detail.

Disclaimer

Any views expressed on BitMEX Research reports are the personal views of the authors. BitMEX (or any affiliated entity) has not been involved in producing this report and the views contained in the report may differ from the views or opinions of BitMEX.

The information and data herein have been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable. Such information has not been verified and we make no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. Any opinions or estimates herein reflect the judgment of the authors of the report at the date of this communication and are subject to change at any time without notice. BitMEX will not be liable whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from the use of this publication/communication or its contents.

If we have made any errors in relation to particular projects, we apologise and are happy to correct the data as soon as possible.