GARI Burn Keeps Going Strong! 💪🔥 Even though the crypto market is bleeding, we’re still moving forward! We’ve just burned 500,000 GARI tokens, bringing our total supply down to 979,444,315.55 and achieving a permanent burn of 2.06%. 🚀🫡 Burn Transaction | Updated Total Supply Detailed burn details on our 👉 Medium Article Like & Repost 👉 ‘X’ Post

📢 Join our @Telegram discussion tomorrow with @sasendish & @iam_Furst (👉http://t.me/OntologyNetwork) 🎉 A great opportunity to join the Ontology Loyalty Program and unlock #Web3 Rewards with #NFTs & $ONG! 🌐💎 Loyal Member NFT details 👇 https://theontologyteam.medium.com/introducing-the-new-ontology-loyalty-program-a1c21e0f5062

Coming soon: 👉 CREATE YOUR UNIQUE SPACESHIP 👈 | FAQ | Frequently asked questions 📨 Support account @mmpro_support1 ❓ When is the new voucher mint? When are the new activities? 💬 There are no exact dates at this time. Stay tuned for announcements ❓ I was charged a mint fee, but I haven't received the voucher 💬 You need to go to this post (click) ❓ Where can I buy or sell Ledger NFTs? 💬 Now on the GetGems secondary market (only this link is valid - click on the word GetGems) ❓ Where can I buy or sell a voucher? 💬 Now on the secondary market GetGems (only links specified in the post are valid - click on the word GetGems) Voucher Tier 1 = Voucher Tier 1. Batch 2 (in functionality and value) ❓ What will the NFT give me? 💬 You will be able to resell it, making money on the difference, or you will be able to activate it in our trust fund, waiting for the company's IPO ❓ What will the voucher give me? 💬 The voucher gives +10% to the Ledger NFT. If you do not have a Ledger NFT, you can sell your voucher on GetGems ❓ How do NFT and voucher go together? 💬 Only a voucher tier 1 is suitable for NFT tier 1, only a voucher tier 2 is suitable for NFT tier 2 ... and so on by analogy. One NFT - one voucher ❓ How does NFT activation work? 💬 NFT activation (at the moment) occurs through the personal account of the Trust Fund and is the receipt of shares in exchange for this NFT or for NFT + voucher ❓ Why do NFTs cost differently on different blockchains? 💬 BSC indicates the allocation amount for which shares can be purchased. TON indicates the number of shares that will be exchanged for the asset in the future ❓ When is the IPO? When is the listing? When can game points be exchanged? 💬 We are not disclosing this information at the moment. The game is in beta testing. The roadmap with our plans is on the bot loading screen ❓ I have a problem with the game (it doesn't load, it doesn't work correctly, something isn't credited) 💬 Send a message to the support account @mmpro_support1 with a description of the problem — 🕹️ Full game guide HERE 📚 Rules for this chat HERE 🔗 Links to our social networks HERE (only links specified in this post are valid)

Understanding Crypto Bridges under MiCA Regulation This article is part of our ongoing series about crypto bridges, building on our previous discussion about custodial risks and various other attack vectors: https://x.com/defichain/status/1813492033534706023 Crypto bridges are crucial for interoperability between blockchains. However, under MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) and similar regulations, these bridges may fall under various regulatory obligations depending on their structure. Let's explore the key considerations. In standard bridge implementations, crypto-assets on the source blockchain are often held in custody, even through smart contracts. This custody may qualify as a crypto-asset service under MiCA if it involves safekeeping or controlling assets on behalf of third parties. Key question: Is the custody function a service by a crypto-asset service provider (CASP)? If yes, it meets MiCA's criteria for regulatory oversight. This aspect has been widely debated and needs careful assessment. When bridging, new crypto-assets are often issued on the destination chain, representing assets on the source chain. This issuance typically doesn't carry major obligations unless it involves public offerings or certain token types like asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and E-Money Tokens (EMTs). Issuing EMTs that reference official currencies of EU Member States is deemed a public offering under MiCA, triggering specific regulatory requirements. This will be a key area to watch in the evolving DeFi landscape. If issuance is automated via smart contracts without identifiable control, MiCA's Titles II, III, or IV might not apply. This hinges on the interpretation of what constitutes a non-identifiable issuer. Bridges often facilitate transfers between different blockchains. If these transfers are done on behalf of another party, they may be considered a transfer service under MiCA, which has specific regulatory implications. If bridging involves a swap or exchange, and a third party is involved in order execution, this may constitute reception and transmission of orders under MiCA. This adds another layer of regulatory scrutiny. Known as brokerage, if a CASP executes buy/sell orders on behalf of clients during bridging, this could be a regulated activity. It combines order reception and execution, requiring careful regulatory compliance. If bridging results in a different crypto-asset, and involves the conclusion of purchase/sale contracts using CASP’s proprietary capital, it falls under the exchange of crypto-assets service. This is another critical regulatory aspect. Navigating MiCA regulation is complex for crypto bridges, requiring thorough analysis of custody, issuance, transfer, and exchange activities. It is anticipated that an increasing number of crypto bridges will need to adapt their business models in the near future to remain compliant with MiCA regulations.

Understanding Crypto Bridges under MiCA Regulation This article is part of our ongoing series about crypto bridges, building on our previous discussion about custodial risks and various other attack vectors: https://x.com/defichain/status/1813492033534706023 Crypto bridges are crucial for interoperability between blockchains. However, under MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) and similar regulations, these bridges may fall under various regulatory obligations depending on their structure. Let's explore the key considerations. In standard bridge implementations, crypto-assets on the source blockchain are often held in custody, even through smart contracts. This custody may qualify as a crypto-asset service under MiCA if it involves safekeeping or controlling assets on behalf of third parties. Key question: Is the custody function a service by a crypto-asset service provider (CASP)? If yes, it meets MiCA's criteria for regulatory oversight. This aspect has been widely debated and needs careful assessment. When bridging, new crypto-assets are often issued on the destination chain, representing assets on the source chain. This issuance typically doesn't carry major obligations unless it involves public offerings or certain token types like asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and E-Money Tokens (EMTs). Issuing EMTs that reference official currencies of EU Member States is deemed a public offering under MiCA, triggering specific regulatory requirements. This will be a key area to watch in the evolving DeFi landscape. If issuance is automated via smart contracts without identifiable control, MiCA's Titles II, III, or IV might not apply. This hinges on the interpretation of what constitutes a non-identifiable issuer. Bridges often facilitate transfers between different blockchains. If these transfers are done on behalf of another party, they may be considered a transfer service under MiCA, which has specific regulatory implications. If bridging involves a swap or exchange, and a third party is involved in order execution, this may constitute reception and transmission of orders under MiCA. This adds another layer of regulatory scrutiny. Known as brokerage, if a CASP executes buy/sell orders on behalf of clients during bridging, this could be a regulated activity. It combines order reception and execution, requiring careful regulatory compliance. If bridging results in a different crypto-asset, and involves the conclusion of purchase/sale contracts using CASP’s proprietary capital, it falls under the exchange of crypto-assets service. This is another critical regulatory aspect. Navigating MiCA regulation is complex for crypto bridges, requiring thorough analysis of custody, issuance, transfer, and exchange activities. It is anticipated that an increasing number of crypto bridges will need to adapt their business models in the near future to remain compliant with MiCA regulations.

Understanding Crypto Bridges under MiCA Regulation This article is part of our ongoing series about crypto bridges, building on our previous discussion about custodial risks and various other attack vectors: https://x.com/defichain/status/1813492033534706023 Crypto bridges are crucial for interoperability between blockchains. However, under MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) and similar regulations, these bridges may fall under various regulatory obligations depending on their structure. Let's explore the key considerations. In standard bridge implementations, crypto-assets on the source blockchain are often held in custody, even through smart contracts. This custody may qualify as a crypto-asset service under MiCA if it involves safekeeping or controlling assets on behalf of third parties. Key question: Is the custody function a service by a crypto-asset service provider (CASP)? If yes, it meets MiCA's criteria for regulatory oversight. This aspect has been widely debated and needs careful assessment. When bridging, new crypto-assets are often issued on the destination chain, representing assets on the source chain. This issuance typically doesn't carry major obligations unless it involves public offerings or certain token types like asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and E-Money Tokens (EMTs). Issuing EMTs that reference official currencies of EU Member States is deemed a public offering under MiCA, triggering specific regulatory requirements. This will be a key area to watch in the evolving DeFi landscape. If issuance is automated via smart contracts without identifiable control, MiCA's Titles II, III, or IV might not apply. This hinges on the interpretation of what constitutes a non-identifiable issuer. Bridges often facilitate transfers between different blockchains. If these transfers are done on behalf of another party, they may be considered a transfer service under MiCA, which has specific regulatory implications. If bridging involves a swap or exchange, and a third party is involved in order execution, this may constitute reception and transmission of orders under MiCA. This adds another layer of regulatory scrutiny. Known as brokerage, if a CASP executes buy/sell orders on behalf of clients during bridging, this could be a regulated activity. It combines order reception and execution, requiring careful regulatory compliance. If bridging results in a different crypto-asset, and involves the conclusion of purchase/sale contracts using CASP’s proprietary capital, it falls under the exchange of crypto-assets service. This is another critical regulatory aspect. Navigating MiCA regulation is complex for crypto bridges, requiring thorough analysis of custody, issuance, transfer, and exchange activities. It is anticipated that an increasing number of crypto bridges will need to adapt their business models in the near future to remain compliant with MiCA regulations.

📣 Get Ready! The Origin Community Call starts today at 4 PM UTC in our Discord! Don't miss this exciting event filled with valuable insights, updates, and exclusive content. 🔍 Agenda: - Founder’s Update - Fyde Treasury OGN Governance Proposal with a guest from their team - DeFi Opportunities walkthrough and demo - PrimeStaked migration - OETH design updates - Upcoming community initiatives - Special guest speaker: Renna from Offchain Labs, a core contributor to the Arbitrum Foundation. 👂 Exclusive Alpha Awaits: Be the first to get the latest updates and insights. See you there! 🫶

📣 Get Ready! The Origin Community Call starts today at 4 PM UTC in our Discord! Don't miss this exciting event filled with valuable insights, updates, and exclusive content. 🔍 Agenda: - Founder’s Update - Fyde Treasury OGN Governance Proposal with a guest from their team - DeFi Opportunities walkthrough and demo - PrimeStaked migration - OETH design updates - Upcoming community initiatives - Special guest speaker: Renna from Offchain Labs, a core contributor to the Arbitrum Foundation. 👂 Exclusive Alpha Awaits: Be the first to get the latest updates and insights. See you there! 🫶