Investors Info

There are a lot of interest in Amazon and Cryptocurrency words together. People are wondering what will be the move of Amazon with buying domains. Is Amazon (AMZN) Gearing Up for a Cryptocurrency Exchange? In an article, ValueWalk.com reporter Maj Soueidan suggests Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) could be “gearing up for cryptocurrency exchanges” following reports the company has registered names related to cryptocurrencies.

The domans include: amazonethereum.com, amazoncryptocurrency.com, amazoncryptocurrencies.com.

Domain registrations in November 2017

CNBC reported the domain registrations in November, following up on an original report from trade publication, DomainNameWire, prompting immediate speculation across social and online publications, that AMZN was preparing to accept cyptopayments on it’s platform.

However, Souejdan provides a different take, writing, “when I took one look at these domain names, that is how they read to me. What would be the point of going out in registering a domain name like these if you were simply going to use one of the digital currencies on the website as a method of payment?

A domain name is a placeholder for a bigger project than that and, the thought of Amazon exchanges was literally the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the domain names. I literally said out loud ‘they’re going to set up exchanges’. ”

A potential Amazon cryptocurrency exchange

Souejdan follows up the ‘exchange’ premise with a speculative breakdown of how the company would monetize a potential Amazon cryptocurrency exchange, commenting that, “the notion of being able to take a fee off of every transaction in the future is, I believe, a promising runway for new revenue growth.

 In addition, the managing of exchanges is would be an extremely synergistic enterprise for Amazon as not only do they already have the massive computing power necessary to run their own exchanges and potentially mine for cryptocurrency themselves, but they are already one of the world’s largest marketplaces and the addition of cryptocurrencies to their arsenal would likely be a self-fulfilling prophecy that helps bolster the value of the cryptos that they would be transacting in.

Using all of their resources to run a cryptocurrency exchange could be one of the best new runways for revenue
growth that Amazon could possibly enter into at this stage in the game.”

SEE ALSO:   Mega Glassware Plant To Mine Bitcoin In Siberia

The article concludes with the ValueWalk.com reporter also speculating on the potential for AMZN to acquire Coinbase, eventually competing with Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK), while potentially allocating resources to mining cryptocurrencies, all resulting in increased “credibility of digital currency” space.

An Amazon Blockchain Does Not Look Imminent

Anyone waiting for an Amazon blockchain or any other blockchain tools will have to wait. Amazon Web Services (AWS) CEO Andy Jassy stated at the AWS re:Invent conference that the absence of blockchain technology was deliberate. According to the CEO, the company does not want to focus on a technology which is surrounded by so much hype.

While many of the other companies are jumping the blockchain bandwagon but Amazon Web Services is planning to stay away from the blockchain technology for the time being.

Other than this Jassy announced over 20 new features related to AWS. Moreover, there were plenty of mentions of the Internet of Things (IoT) as well as machine learning.

The CEO revealed that the absence of blockchain from his keynote address was actually deliberate, and not a mistake as the company planned to focus on other technologies rather than blockchain. He stated that a lot of their customers were trying to integrate blockchain with the AWS platform.

He also stated that they were monitoring things closely in order to look at these developments. Also, he was of the opinion that these applications are pretty wide and niche for them to initiate.

That is why currently they are just following the adoption of technology as well as the integration of technology with their platform rather than initiating the integration or developing the platform based on the blockchain technology.


According to the CEO, the current issues which are being solved or attempted to being solved with the help of blockchain can be solved with the help of other available technologies as well. That is why using blockchain is not a necessity. However, it remains to be seen whether this prediction by the CEO actually proves to be true or not.

For the time being, the use of blockchain technology has been increasing rapidly.The number of companies which are planning to use the blockchain technology is increasing each and every day.

As newer applications based on blockchain technology are built, even more number of businesses are being attracted towards the technology.

In such a case, AWS would be hard pressed to stay away from the blockchain technology for a long period of time. It also runs the risk of missing the bus when it comes to blockchain. As long as, they are able to keep a watch on it, they would be able to jump on the bandwagon just in time.

Discover more from Smartereum here:

https://smartereum.com/3097/a-potential-amazon-cryptocurrency-exchange-everyone-is-wondering-about-t...

Are ICO's "Securities Offerings" and are Coins "Securities?"

The SEC is now saying that pretty much all ICO's are securities offerings (and therefore all coins are securities), and subject to their rules and regulations. Are they right, or is that an over-reach? Most industry participants argue that while some ICO's are indeed securities offerings, others are utility tokens and not a security.

What's a "utility token"? 

If you give people money on, say, Kickstarter or GoFundMe (as I have done several times), you don't expect stock in a company, you aren't making a loan, and you don't consider it an investment. You give money to someone, and in return they promise to give you a t-shirt, movie pass, potato salad, thank you letter or something else.

Kickstarter sends you an email confirming this promise of a reward.Now, imagine if instead of a contract or .pdf agreement they sent you a digital token (aka "Coin"). That doesn't in itself make it a security. Nor does the fact that Kickstarter charged the "issuer" fees for marketing, sales and funds processing.

And if you want to sell the right to that t-shirt to someone else who wants it, then there really isn't anything prohibiting you from doing so.Without question there are ICO's, and the coins they issue, that don't constitute "securities".

Though I think the SEC is arguably justified in over-reacting a bit as there has been a substantial amount of fraud and theft in this new, evolving market...but those problems don't directly mean that any particular ICO or token does fall under their purview.

When does a token become a security? 

In 1946 the Supreme Court set forth some rules on this, which is referred to as the "Howey Test". This essentially says that if the contract is being offered to a wide group of people, who are purchasing it as an investment, and the purchasers do so with the hope of financial returns or gains which are driven not by themselves but by the work of others (e.g. by the future work of the company raising funds and issuing the contract), then it's a security and subject to the various Acts and the SEC.


However, even if an investment contract doesn't hit on all of the aspects of the Howey Test, the laws and regulations are very broad and the SEC has tremendous latitude in its ability to designate something as a security. Additionally, each state has its own securities "Blue Sky" laws, which have to be taken into consideration.

Here's an example of how this gets dicey. Let's say a company buys a Ferrari, and they offer people the ability to buy the right to drive it 1 hour per month. It's offered to many people, who have no management control over the vehicle. It's not any type of ownership in the car, nor is it a loan that has to be repaid. It is what it is, the right to drive the car an hour a month ("utility").

Let's say that instead of giving you a paper contract for your hour, they put the contract on the blockchain and issue you a token. That doesn't in itself, in my opinion, make it a security. And let's say things change in your life, such as you moved somewhere that's too far to make it practical to drive the car every month, so you want to sell that right to someone else.

That doesn't make it a security either. You, and others, are buying it for the utility it represents.However, what if you weren't really buying it for the utility? Instead, what if you and everyone else view this as an investment and hope the value of that hour appreciates considerably so you can sell it for a profit?

And what if the issuer (or their sales & marketing representative) is promoting this not as "you get to drive my car for an hour a month" but as "you get a token/coin that is freely and easily tradable, is limited in quantity, and you have the chance to make a lot of money!

"? And what if they further take steps to reinforce this by listing the token on an exchange, and/or by their sales and marketing tactics? I think the SEC is going to say that it's now a security and not just a utility token.

Can Retail/Non-Accredited Investors Put Money in ICO's?

In utility-token ICO's? Sure, just as with Kickstarter or GoFundMe there is nothing preventing anyone from contributing money in exchange for some reward or promise of products or services.

In securities ICO's? Only if the ICO is conducted pursuant to either Reg CF or Reg A (or via a registration statement such as an S-1). Of course, this presents a problem as Reg CF is limited to just over $1M and has very low per-investor caps, Reg A costs around $100,000 in upfront costs to get through legal, accounting and regulatory review and has a $50M cap, and a full registration statement can easily cost $500,000 or more.

Can People Buy Coins in an ICO and Then Sell Them on an Exchange for a Profit (Or Loss)?

Sure. There are no federal restrictions on anyone's ability to resell their non-securities utility tokens. However, if the coin is a security, then its subject to securities rules on both the initial sale AND the secondary markets. For Reg D securities, investors must be accredited and are subject to Rule 144, so they can't sell for at least a year.

For Reg CF securities, non-accredited investors can't sell for a year except to an accredited investor.

For Reg A and other types of registered securities then yes, they can sell those whenever they want.Keep in mind that if the coin represents equity in a company then the issuer is subject to restrictions on total number of shareholders they can have, which can represent an insurmountable problem given the anonymity of the blockchain (and no, the blockchain does not count as a single "shareholder of record" in my opinion, as its not a "person", though I expect some people will passionately argue this point).

Are Exchanges Legal?

I think the problem here is the word "exchange". When regulators hear that, they feel it's subject to regulation. But Craigs List, eBay, Amazon, StubHub and other "marketplaces" exist to make it easy for people to sell stuff that isn't subject to SEC regulations.

I think some crypto exchanges, if they exist only to make it easy for holders of utility tokens to list and buy/sell, and they aren't fostering market-making, are doing themselves a disservice to use the word "exchange"; not that it's illegal or wrong to use that word, but because it raises regulatory red flags and puts the marketplace/exchange directly in the crosshairs.


Now, if the coins are securities then exchanges located or operating in this country are required to be registered with the SEC. Period. To my knowledge, only tZero and Templum are on top of this, and I've read that some other exchanges are also working on filing or have filed as either an ATS or a securities exchange (e.g. Bittrex, Coinbase).


Non-registered securities exchanges are conducting business illegally. Check out Howard Mark's (StartEngine CEO) article about this by clicking here.State Blue Sky: If the exchange is operating as an ATS, the securities listed on it are not exempt from state blue sky regulations.


This means that issuers have to apply and get approval in order for a states residents to buy their securities on the ATS. Mergent is recommended extensively by OTC Markets to help clear state blue sky in 39 states, but doesn't include many big ones such as NY or CA. Thus issuers will need to have their lawyers file for Mergent as well as all the other states; that is, providing Mergent supports crypto (I have no idea).


On the other hand, if the exchange is just that, a full-fledged registered US securities exchange and not just an ATS (like NASDAQ or NYSE vs OTC), then the securities listed on it are exempt from state blue sky restrictions. For more detail, though a little dated at 5 years old, see the SecondMarket Blue Sky Report on the SEC's website.

So, Then What's the Difference Between a Securities ICO and a Stock or Bond Offering?

Nothing. A company ("issuer") wants to raise money. They create an offering pursuant to securities regulations (A, D, CF, S, etc) and carefully prepare required & compliant disclosures.

They convince investors, who hope for financial gain, to sign subscription agreements and send money via ACH, wire, check, credit-card, or crypto (e.g. Bitcoin). As soon as the offering meets the minimum (if it has one), then the issuer takes the cash and gives investors a coin (aka "token") just like they would a stock certificate or bond note.

What Does This Mean?

It means that securities ICO's are no different than any other securities offering. No different than selling shares of stock or selling debt/bonds. They have the exact same regulations, the exact same processes, the exact same limitations on who can buy (and how much), and the exact same secondary trading restrictions. Welcome to the securities industry everyone.

Investor Bonus - SAR's and the IRS!

Anyone buying securities using coins (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc) instead of sending $, unless those coins are coming from an account at a regulated financial institution, gets named in a "Suspicious Activity Alert" (SAR), which is sent to the US Treasury. Guess who the Treasury has tasked with reviewing SAR's? Yep, the IRS.


Why is this? Imagine if you walked in with a bag full of cash. The person receiving it has no idea where you got it, it's untraceable. For all they know, you might have gotten it from a terrorist, from a money-launderer, or from unreported income streams.

So, government regulations require a SAR to be filed on the person who brought the cash. It doesn't mean it's illegal, it's just a flag to the IRS that they may want to investigate or audit that person. Currently, every type of crypto-coin is, like cash, untraceable. Thus, a SAR has to be filed on everyone using it in investing or in commerce.

Except and unless the coins come from an account at a regulated financial institution, then just as with cash sent via wire, check, ACH or credit card, the receiving party can rely on the fact that the sending financial institution has met its KYC and AML obligations and thus a SAR doesn't need to be filed.

So this is fairly easy to avoid by holding your crypto in an account/wallet at a financial institution (which includes brokerage firms and trust company's) where they are responsible for all regulatory and other aspects of custody.

Naturally, Prime Trust, just like all financial institutions, has to file SAR's on people who send crypto into escrow or custody, unless it's sent to us from another financial institution. 

And guess what, so should issuers. 


If a company takes the stance of "screw that, I'll just have crypto sent to us directly instead of through the escrow agent, bank custodian, money transmitter or (now-regulated) exchange" and it turns out that some of the funds were from the aforementioned bad persons, the fallout (and penalties) from regulators will be significant and certainly not worth the effort to avoid (or evade) the issue.

Conclusion

I remain optimistic about the future for the next generation of crypto, as well as for businesses doing innovative things with blockchain technology. Prime Trust and FundAmerica will continue to take cautious steps to support this industry.

But we must all proceed with a heightened awareness of regulatory obligations, both for investor protection and for the very survival of this nascent industry.

DISCLOSURE: 

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of equities.com. Readers should not consider statements made by the author as formal recommendations and should consult their financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

To read our full disclosure, please go to: http://www.equities.com/disclaimer

Summary

The empirical truth is that Central Banks love blockchain.Governments are uncertain about Bitcoin as a currency, but Central Banks have made it clear that blockchain technology is a huge opportunity.Several Bitcoin and blockchain investment opportunities are provided with this backdrop, with due respect to investor risk/reward tolerance.

I've already explained why Bitcoin cannot go to zero. Now investors need to understand that even if Bitcoin is pushed to the side, blockchain isn't going away because Central Banks love it. Therefore, you will want to consider your bets in Bitcoin and blockchain. Mitigate the risks, maximize the return.

Does The Government Accept Bitcoin?

I've received a lot of feedback in public and private about my articles on cryptocurrencies. In one recent article, Bitcoin Vs. PayPal (NASDAQ:PYPL), one reader expressed what many people have been thinking:

...my gut feeling is that it is a candidate to be one of the biggest financial asset/value destrction [sic] at some time in the future, I imagine that Global reserve currecny [sic] Central banks will not allow their most valuable power to be taken away by digital tech nerds, so they can easly [sic] out law it once they see the threat getting big enough or it becomes de facto currecy [sic] of crime cartels...

In short, the idea is that the government will never allow Bitcoin to survive. It will crush Bitcoin before it gets too big. It hates Bitcoin.Indeed, as Fortune tells us:

Big governments cannot tolerate Bitcoin, the digital currency that threatens to break their monopoly on printing money, and to manipulate the economy to accommodate the interests of powerful elites.

At the same time, we know there is activity on top of Bitcoin, in the form of Grayscale Bitcoin Investment Trust (OTCQX:GBTC) and the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust ETF (COIN). Bitcoin hasn't been crushed like a cockroach under the boot.But there are cracks. For example, with GBTC:

Both the Bitcoin Investment Trust and the Ethereum Classic Investment Trust are private investment vehicles, not registered with any regulatory agency of any jurisdiction, and are NOT subject to the same regulatory requirements as SEC-registered exchange traded funds or mutual funds [emphasis added], including the requirement to provide certain periodic and standardized pricing and valuation information to investors.

And

The BIT’s shares are publicly quoted on OTCQX® market under the OTC Market’s Alternative Reporting Standards, which do not require the same level of public disclosure as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[emphasis added] standards applicable to SEC-registered investment vehicles.

Therefore, we know that we can get GBTC into an IRA, and get "skin in the game" with Bitcoin quite easily. But it's not like there is an extra layer of safety from the government for investors.The government is neither for nor against GBTC, and investors might feel safe because GBTC is so easily bought and sold via brokers, and put in IRAs for example.

There are mixed messages.Keep in mind there is an extra price to pay with GBTC. I've previously explained that Grayscale Bitcoin Investment Trust has indicated that the normal premium over investing directly in Bitcoin is 42%. Well, let's do the math today:

For every share of GBTC, you get 0.09258535 Bitcoin.One share of GBTC today would cost you $719The market value of 0.09258535 Bitcoin is $392.56 todayTherefore, the premium is about 83% above the underlying Bitcoin
To summarize, the government is mostly in a holding pattern on Bitcoin. Obviously, Bitcoin hasn't been killed by the U.S. government. But it hasn't approved and endorsed it either.Now, let's shift gears. What if the government cracks down on Bitcoin? I will prove that even if the government crushes Bitcoin, you can still do well because of blockchain.

Bitcoin In Government and Central Banks

We return to the idea that Bitcoin could die through government and politics. But we know that the technology powering Bitcoin is blockchain, and the genie is out of the bottle. More important? Central banks love it.

The central bankers do not want their institutions to own or use Bitcoin itself. Instead, they hope they can use the decentralized method of record-keeping introduced by Bitcoin [emphasis added] - known as the blockchain or distributed ledger - to complete and record transactions in the real economy more efficiently, quickly and transparently.

Plus this tidbit:

If the central banks succeed, it would be one of the greatest unexpected twists in new technology: An invention aimed at dethroning central banks and making it harder for money to be tracked instead ends up empowering those central banks and making money more easily traceable.

Indeed, the Bank of England has even said blockchain could...

...permanently raise GDP by as much as 3% [emphasis added], due to reductions in real interest rates, distortionary taxes, and monetary transaction costs.

The truth is that Central Banks love blockchain and they are aggressively investigating it. Of course that doesn't mean they love and embrace Bitcoin.Then again, beyond the U.S., some governments are directly embracing Bitcoin not just blockchain:

• Japan accepts Bitcoin as legal form of payment
• South Korea: Bitcoin can coexist with fiat currencies
• Australia will treat Bitcoin just like money

So, pressure is mounting in this space from multiple angles. There's great uncertainty about Bitcoin but clarity on blockchain. Again, we're going to have to look at options for investing, and moderating your risks.Digital currencies and blockchain are here to stay. Some governments around the world are directly embracing Bitcoin. They are embracing cryptocurrencies and certainly the technology that powers the infrastructure.

The Central Banks' Safety Net

Make no mistake about any of this. Central Banks are on top of this right now. Indeed, according to the IMF, 15% of big banks will be using blockchain by the end of this year.

Furthermore, Dong He, who has lead research into digital currencies at the IMF, believes that the switch to digital currencies, by central banks could happen in the next five to ten years But this depends on the speed at which the banking system moves to using the blockchain for financial transactions.

The biggest reason is that Central Banks cannot leave blockchain to chance. They need to maintain control. So, while Bitcoin is a nuisance right now, blockchain is a new set of handcuffs and they want the keys. The tracking and accountability using blockchain is happening today.

Play the Bitcoin and Blockchain Investment Game?

With the "Central Banks Safety Net" in your mind, what are your options for investing in Bitcoin and blockchain? It's important to get a bit creative here.First, you can simply invest directly in Bitcoin (e.g., using Coinbase). That gives you direct access but the highest risk.Second, you can invest in Grayscale Bitcoin Investment Trust.

The NAV tracks the Bitcoin market price, less fees and expenses. You'll pay a 2% annual fee for that privilege. There are reasons why GBTC is superior to directly holding Bitcoin, so wrap your head around that. This is also a very high risk, noting especially the premium to NAV mentioned above.Third, you can invest in Bitcoin mining via a company like MGT Capital Investments (OTCPK:MGTI).

There's a bit less risk because MGTI isn't "all in" on Bitcoin. It's also into cybersecurity and privacy hardware.Fourth, you can also invest in the hardware that powers Bitcoin mining, such as Nvidia (NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).

Obviously, NVDA and AMD are not "all in" on Bitcoin but instead have diverse product portfolios.Fifth, you can invest in companies that provide Bitcoin services like Bitcoin Services, Inc. (OTCPK:BTSC).

They mine Bitcoins but also offer escrow services, for example. If Bitcoin gets killed, BTSC is highly exposed.Sixth, you can invest in companies that focus on Bitcoin technologies like IBM(IBM). If you go big, like IBM, your risks are dramatically smaller because of moderate Bitcoin exposure. I've talked about this in several ways. Here are two recent examples of IBM's blockchain exposure:

• IBM Food Chain Takeover
• The IBM Bitcoin Puzzle

It's likely that other companies will enjoy the benefits of Bitcoin acceptance. For example, a natural extension would be e-commerce players, but that starts to stretch the investment thesis.If you're worried about a crash in Bitcoin, the highest risks are obviously going to be direct Bitcoin investment, GBTC, MGTI, and probably BTSC.

The lower risks are likely going to be NVDA, AMD and IBM. Obviously this risk spread is all about size and focus, and not having all your eggs in one basket.If you're concerned about investing in Bitcoin but you still want to ride the technology shift, including Central Bank support, there's a simple approach.

Moderate your bets by investing in companies like IBM that are embracing blockchain and happen to have deep roots in the financial sector. Similarly, NVDA and AMD are reasonable candidates for further due diligence:

...according to MIT Technology Review editor David Rotman, Nvidia’s explosive growth in the AI and Blockchain markets gave the firm an edge over other companies.Source

And

Semiconductor firm Advanced Micro Devices has recently launched a beta version of its new Radeon Software Crimson ReLive Edition Beta for Blockchain Compute graphics card driver.Based on the release notes from the company, the driver will boost performance for “Blockchain Compute Workloads,” thus bolstering the efficiency of digital currency mining computers that use a graphics processing unit (GPU) for mining. Source

In short, you can play the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency game and moderate your bets by looking at Central Banks for insight and support. While it's unclear where Bitcoin will head in the future, it's extremely likely blockchain will survive and even thrive. That's a conservative approach versus...continue reading: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4105691-central-banks-love-blockchain-means-investors-bitcoin-specu...

Blockchain technology has taken many industries by storm, with everyone from financial firms to charities and NGOs jumping on the bandwagon.

The technology, which works to secure data as it passes through many hands, is now slated to change the face of global trade, as shipping giants and key ports have started trialling its capabilities.

First launched in 2009, blockchain gained notoriety as the technology that makes bitcoin transactions possible. In recent years however, it has spread beyond the crypto-currency realm, to become synonymous with an effective, transparent and cyber-secure data sharing platform between companies and individuals.

Naturally, financial institutions were the earliest adopters. Last year, a study by Greenwich Associates reported that the sector was expected to invest $1bn in blockchain initiatives and projects. At the start of this year, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced plans to use blockchain to help the two billion people worldwide who lack bank accounts.

When it comes to shipping, the solution has the potential to save the industry billions of dollars, according to IBM and Danish transport and logistics firm Maersk. In June, the two companies announced their partnership to use blockchain technology to help transform the global supply chain.

The solution, expected to go into production later this year, will help manage and track the paper trail of tens of millions of shipping containers across the world, protecting the supply chain from human error, unwanted and wasteful delays, as well as cyber threats.

“We believe that this new supply chain solution will be a transformative technology with the potential to completely disrupt and change the way global trade is done,” said Bridget van Kralingen, senior vice president of industry platforms at IBM. “We’ve long understood the challenges facing the supply chain and logistics industry and quickly recognised the opportunity for blockchain to potentially provide massive savings when used broadly across the ocean shipping industry ecosystem.”

Preventing astronomical shipping costs

Today, the vast majority of the transactions in the shipping sector are paper-based. In a study carried out in 2014, Maersk found that just a simple shipment of refrigerated goods from East Africa to Europe goes through nearly 30 people and organisations, including more than 200 different communications among them.

The costs associated with the document processing and administration side of things are estimated by IBM to be up to one-fifth of the actual physical transportation costs. Not only this, but the paperwork can be delayed, misplaced and altered, causing further problems and resulting in mounting costs.

"Blockchain could save $300 per container in terms of labour and processing associated documents."

Blockchain can counteract all of these issues by acting as a permanent and transparent database, mutually accessible to all parties involved, where transactions are recorded in a way that cannot be undone or changed. This makes possible any type of operation, from the exchange of sensitive documents, such as contracts, to the transfer of money.

Marine Transport International estimates that blockchain could save $300 per container in terms of labour and processing associated documents. For one ultra large container ship, which carries up to 18,000 containers, the savings amount to $5.4m.

It can also help with cyber security. In June, Maersk was one of the victims of a global ransomware attack, which caused outages at its computer systems across the world and cost the company $300m in lost profits in the third quarter of this year.

In the wake of the attack, TrustMe managing director Antony Abell argued that blockchain could have prevented the attack from happening. Despite the recent partnership with IBM, Maersk’s blockchain capabilities are not yet fully fledged.

Testing blockchain at sea

The collaboration will see the two giants work within a network of shippers, freight forwarders, ocean carriers, ports and customs authorities to build the new global trade digitisation product, according to the companies.

Their partnership was recently revealed to reach even further, after...continue reading: http://www.ship-technology.com/features/featurecould-blockchain-technology-revolutionise-shipping-59...