Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

cryptoslate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 577 posts

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#231

Post by pavel_lishin »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #164

There are more than $100b of stablecoins — 285x year-over-year growth — with a variety of very interesting and high-quality stablecoins proliferating. And of course, Hacker News focuses on some garbage project nobody in the space even followed. How is there no discussion about FRAX, Maker's DAI, USDC, CRV's 3pool token, Liquity's LUSD, and so many other interesting projects?

Because there's nothing interesting about them. They're just another variation on the same ol' "we peg our value to the dollar(*)!" pitch.

The interesting stuff happens when they fail.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#232

Post by breck »

Jasper_ wrote: post #137
breck wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts. I agree, but think it's fixable. I believe we have missed a natural platform in between binary notation and computer languages. I believe there is a 2-D dimensional binary. Simply using a grid (with an array of cells forming a line, and lines stacked on top of each other—a spreadsheet basically), we can drop *all*…

did you just reinvent Befunge, but unironically?

    >              v
    v  ,,,,,"OH NO! "@

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#233

Post by shadowgovt »

progbits wrote: post #59
lalaland1125 wrote: post #8

These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.

Time for LawyerCoin (TM). The smart-contract is written in English (or other human language) and the oracles are powered by a bunch of lawyers who pinky swear to enforce them. I'm doing ICO next week, if anyone wants in.

Did you just re-invent law from first principles? ;)

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#234

Post by la_fayette »

omk wrote: post #31

A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…

When I was young I remember when I showed Excel to my parents, they always calculated through the numbers because they didn't trust computers.

Maybe we have a similar phenomenon with blockchains nowadays... Of course there will be errors in the source code somewhere, it is software written by humans!? It is just a matter of creating another level of abstraction as a safeguard in the smart contract, maybe even with 4 eye principles...

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#235

Post by vimy »

iNane9000 wrote: post #140
twox2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in that case, nothing incentivizes more crime than USD.

It’s more regulated though. That’s the point is there’s some control in usd, for better and worse.

Cash is the ultimate anonymous method of payment.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#236

Post by UIGYUIUYG »

ncann wrote: post #206
UIGYUIUYG wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can literally say that about cold hard cash. Blackmail? Pay cash. Buying illegal substances? Cash. Gambling? Get your cash out. It's all in how you use it. https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/05/moon-missi... Anything is a store of value, wood, gold, water, dogecoin ect. If people want to accept something for something else this is a way of life. It's just sad that people only see the bad use cases. Ho…

> It's just sad that people only see the bad use cases Yeah, when 95%+ of the actual things that people use crypto for are those things, it's hard not to. Can you honestly say the "valid" uses for crypto take up more than 5% the total volume in any possible metric you can think of? It's always ransomware, extortion, blackmail, money laundering, drugs, you name it.

One I personally know of - https://cryptoslate.com/another-big-cardano-ada-deal-is-in-t...

There is many other cases for blockchain / crypto technologies far beyond the world of ransomware, extortion, blackmail, money laundering.

> The country will implement a national, blockchain-based student and teacher ID and attainment recording system to digitally verify grades, remotely monitor school performance and boost education and employment nationwide.

> IOHK’s Atala PRISM identity solution will enable authorities to create tamper-proof records of educational performance across 3,500 schools, 5 million students, and 750,000 teachers to pinpoint the locations and causes of educational under-achievement and allocate educational resources effectively.

You've got Walmarts chinese subsidy investing in vechain for logistics:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/walmart-china-subsidiary-team...

These are just two off the top of my head, let alone all the partnerships in the works that we haven't heard about yet.

There's big money getting into crypto whilst simultaniously lots of news and opinions regarding the fact it's used for nefarious acts.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#237

Post by arcticbull »

ourcat wrote: post #213
lalaland1125 wrote: post #8

These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.

Agreed. And it's the auditors who need to get better.

A lifetime of experience has shown us that code review and testing are never sufficient to eliminate bugs. What we need to do is abandon the concept of smart contracts that immutably and permanently move people's money with zero recourse - running exposed to the internet without a firewall.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#238

Post by flixic »

sonicggg wrote: post #201
thebean11 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "they"? Maker has nothing to do with USDC. USDC is a Coinbase product.

Your seem uninformed. Dai is backed by USDC.

Last I heard, Dai was backed over-collateralized crypto, like ETH. Even Coinbase says so:

> Unlike centralized stablecoins, DAI isn't backed by US dollars in a bank account. Instead, it’s backed by collateral on the Maker platform.

https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/trading-and-funding/cr...

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#239

Post by rodiger »

Jhsto wrote: post #168
chrisco255 wrote: post #114

I honestly don't understand why this coin even makes the news. At $250K it was less than a microcap penny token. It's insignificant and not worth a print.

Despite the low liquidity on the exchange, the market cap of the token was supposedly $250M: https://twitter.com/Mudit__Gupta/status/1409463917290557440?...

that was a typo, it's 250k.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#240

Post by remram »

G3rn0ti wrote: post #169
omk wrote: post #31

A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…

I think the word „smart contract“ does not actually describe them very good. Of course, a piece of software can not replace a legal contract, really, because software is stupid and inflexible. Think of smart contracts rather as vending machines for financial transactions. For example: You enter some crypto coins, maybe select an option and the machine returns a receipt for redeeming your investment plus some interest…

In a very real way, those contracts are less smart than existing legal contracts.

In the same way a "smart speaker" allows for interactive and sensitivity to its environment compared to a "dumb speaker", a "legal contract" allows for arguing and bugfixing and sensitivity to its environment compared to an block chain "contract".

They should call them "strict contracts" or "inflexible contracts" or "software-enforced contracts". The smarts have been taken out on purpose.

Post reply on HN