Live data from Hacker News

The collapse of the IRON stable coin

irony-97882.medium.com

21–30 of 502 posts

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#21
Here’s an arbitrage opportunity. Since the price of TITAN is 0, it only takes a small amount of $ to buy a vast amount of TITAN coins. Buy the locked out IRONs at a discount. Keep buying TITAN at $0 until it moves beyond $0 to satisfy the greater than 0 constraint on IRON. Cash out the IRONs.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract. That's obviously the point, though. You are trading one set of risks for a completely different set of risks that might suit your use case much better; your counterparty being able to contest a contract in court could very well be a "bad" thing for you.

Some chains/coins are backed and developed by fairly well defined "legal entities" (presumably for reasons related to securities law). I am waiting with popcorn in hand for the day someone loses money via smart contract and then takes the entity behind the chain to court to overturn it. (We've seen disastrous bugs overturned by community-consensus hard fork but not to my knowledge by court order). Not yet, but it see…

> Some chains/coins are backed and developed by fairly well defined "legal entities" (presumably for reaso). I am waiting with popcorn in hand for the day someone loses money via smart contract and then takes the entity behind the chain to court to overturn it.

I would very much like to see regulators purposely engage in these activities, and then directly pursue those within their reach. There's no reason to wait for more citizen victims when the model is proven and the government has the resources to set the stage to demonstrate the failure scenario. This is simply a more elaborate sting versus putting a car on the street to be boosted.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#24
post #9

This is good for USDC right? Because it's $262 million that they don't have to pay back? >EDIT: I’ve since learned that the developer(s?) behind this are already the laughing stock of the DeFi community, having wrecked each of their 3 previous projects (now 4) — though this might be their biggest hit yet And people poured $262 million into this?

Wait so USDC is linked to existing USD in a bank somewhere, so what's stopping coinbase from just nulling the locked usdc and minting 262MM new ones? Sorry if it's a dumb question Im not sure how stablecoins work.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#26
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The financial crisis of 2008 showed us that you can say the same about the traditional finance system. Crypto is reinventing the same system as traditional finance and hitting all the same problems that we encountered in the last 100 years. At least here everybody who opens their eyes can see that it's a house of cards.

"They are doing it too" is a favorite argument of crypto-enthousiasts. I'd argue the answer here is not more madness (crypto), but a serious attempt to fix the traditional financial system.

Why bother -- it's so broken. We can just again, it makes way more sense.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#27
post #5

This has always been the problem with smart contracts. They are infact dumb contacts. To program one you need to think about all the edge cases. The programmers here likely did want >0 here. The possibility that the thing feeding price data return zero incorrectly was higher than the price legitimately being zero in their minds. There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract.

I've been saying for a very long time now to anyone who chooses to listen that a contract itself is a human construct - it is both temporal and physical and has location to be relevant and useful. Without all of those properties a contract ceases to useful to a human being under all edge cases.

So it is, in fact, a dumb contract. Humans want contracts that make them whole at the end of the day, that's the point of the contract: jurisdiction over the human realm.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract. That's obviously the point, though. You are trading one set of risks for a completely different set of risks that might suit your use case much better; your counterparty being able to contest a contract in court could very well be a "bad" thing for you.

> your counterparty being able to contest a contract in court could very well be a "bad" thing for you. Evading the law (whether the court or a regulatory body such as the SEC [civil] or DOJ [criminal]) is typically a "bad thing" for the person or people intending to or successfully doing so. https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti... (SEC Cyber Enforcement Actions, control-f "blockchain" | "cryp…

Are you saying the only time a contract is disputed is when the other party is evading the law? Nobody abuses the legal system to screw over people without enough resources to fight in court?

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#29

Interestingly Mark Cuban got taken for a small amount of money by this and is already calling for regulation around stablecoins: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-17/mark-cuba... I read about it. Decided to try it. Got out. Then got back in when the TVL start to rise back up As a percentage of my crypto portfolio it was small. But it was enough that I wasn't happy about it. But in a larger context it is…

Hypothetically, what he's suggesting may not even need to be government-backed. An independent auditor, with reputation on the line, could, for a fee, offer independent coin analysis and risk assessment. Perhaps something similar to the Underwriters Laboratories model... knowing a coin was "Coincheck-certified" or something could give similar confidence to knowing the UL sticker on a lamp means it's a bit less likely…

That whole concept doesn't make any sense really. You don't have a lamp which can quietly turn itself into a plasma torch from a perfectly safe prior configuration. Yet any stable coin is an attractive nuisance basically - it involves keeping sizable money around doing nothing. As seen by pension raids that is a huge "steal me" sign. Even if you could keep it secure such an arrangement is fundamentally very entropic without it being a real currency with backing. It is still entropic but that is being used to sustain a nation state instead of bad finance which actively tries to avoid useful investments.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#30
post #19

I wrote Skepticoin as a serious parody of Bitcoin. Articles like these about the "state of the art" of cryptocurrency make me wonder: would a parody of a more "modern" cryptocurrency even be recognizable as such?

bitcoin is a parody of itself completely unusable as a currency, even maximalists cant seriously tell people to use it as such. "cryptocurrency" at this point means less useful than any currency in any mmo

Bitcoin totally failed as a currency, but it's still something. I'm not necessarily arguing Bitcoin is useful or valuable period, but the issue you refer to is more with the "cryptocurrency" name and public conception that that's what all this technology is. The core idea is reliable, secure decentralization and the things it can enable.

Coins that support smart contracts show that "cryptocurrency" isn't a great term. Even if you never try to use ether as a currency (and indeed, most people don't), Ethereum can and does still do lots of things completely unrelated to finance in any way, with ether just serving as computational fuel.

The interesting part is fully trustless peer-to-peer networks, not e-currencies. E-currencies are just an example of one thing you can run atop such a network protocol. They've already existed to some extent for a long time via protocols like BitTorrent, and these just expand on those ideas.

Post reply on HN