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

531–540 of 577 posts

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

#531

Post by tptacek »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #509
tptacek wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There obviously is a reason for merchants to eat the losses, or else virtually every merchant in the modern world wouldn't accept credit cards. The reason is that merchants (on the whole) agree with credit card companies that it is better for customers to feel safe and comfortable shopping, and thus increase transaction volume, even if doing so means that merchants will occasionally eat losses from fraud.

You are discussing a different level of "reasons" than frumper is. In your sense, there is a reason for merchants to take the losses, and there is also a reason for customers to take the losses. But in the sense that there is no reason why customers should take these losses: >>> I did not initiate the sale with the merchant, I did not verify I was the rightful card holder, I did not authorize the funds to be transfer…

It's pretty good evidence that there's no consensus that favors structurally irreversible transactions. But again, if you do, there's a Coin for that!

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

#532

Post by fleddr »

viraptor wrote: post #452
fleddr wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a humanitarian and economical point of view, Bitcoin doesn't hurt the poor. It allows the unbanked to finally store wealth, as a counter to a local strongly inflationary currency. Besides storing wealth, also growing wealth, as pretty much the only option they have. Unless you don't believe the narrative that Bitcoin stores/grows wealth very well, in that case...poor people can simply not use it. Perhaps you mea…

> With Bitcoin, having lots of coins doesn't give you any new free coins, unlike fiat money. Fiat money doesn't give your free money either. You have to invest in something - and there's plenty of fee-limited options in the cryptocurrency world as well. > And this isn't a vague promise, some 60/70% of the hashrate from China, which include most coal-based mining, is being wiped out in just a few weeks. Because the pr…

Fiat money does give you free money. We happen to live in exceptional times where interest rates are close to zero, but in general, simply owning fiat gives you free new fiat. The same is not true for Bitcoin in itself.

Nobody wants to help the environment. The typical US lifestyle would require 8 planets if it was rolled out across the world's population. Just leaving your phone plugged in uses more energy than all of crypto mining combined.

So don't preach about caring, nobody cares. They say they do, but don't. So yes, miners seek out cheap renewables, which is motivated by profit, not helping the environment. As said, none of us are better. We don't care. But if a profit-based incentive leads to renewable energy usage and helping the environment as a side-effect, I'm all for it.

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

#533

Post by fleddr »

varjag wrote: post #446
fleddr wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a humanitarian and economical point of view, Bitcoin doesn't hurt the poor. It allows the unbanked to finally store wealth, as a counter to a local strongly inflationary currency. Besides storing wealth, also growing wealth, as pretty much the only option they have. Unless you don't believe the narrative that Bitcoin stores/grows wealth very well, in that case...poor people can simply not use it. Perhaps you mea…

There is approximately 0 unbanked storing wealth in Bitcoin.

Is that so?

Ever heard of the African Bitcoin community, a transnational initiative running for years now that resulted in Africa growing fastest in addresses of all continents?

Or what about El Salvador, 70% unbanked, where every single citizen will get a first small BTC deposit from the government, thereby becoming banked by the millions?

And what about Libya? You know, that country with a crashing currency that next blocked access to bank accounts for months, it all going up in smoke? Looked into the BTC numbers there?

So tell me, were you completely unaware of this at all, or do you find these people not important enough to count as more than zero?

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

#534

Post by jsemrau »

arcadeparade wrote: post #427
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A relatively unknown, recently launched stablecoin collapsing is not big news in crypto. The fact that some people think a $250,000 heist followed by the collapse of a half a million dollar stablecoin is "not news" underscores how ridiculous the cryptocurrency space is right now.

250k is nothing compared to the biggest defi losses: https://rekt.news/leaderboard/

Thank you for sharing this. But holy moly, what has happened in April in the crypto space?!

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

#536

Post by cmelbye »

elefanten wrote: post #504
cmelbye wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's realistic to think that human judgment can leave the picture after the first deploy. New systems are fragile, requirements change, and mistakes happen. A certain level of trust is required in the founders of a project. And generally, they have long-term incentives that are aligned with your own.

So it implies the crypto maximalist takes on true trustlessness are not proving workable. At least in practice with lots of real users.

Do you have any examples of these takes? The concept of "true trustlessness" is obviously lacking in nuance and probably impossible. Nothing in the world can exist without some form of trust. However, we can certainly use smart contracts to decentralize trust and limit risk exposure.

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

#537

Post by manquer »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #391
pavel_lishin wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I couldn't disagree more. All of the projects I listed have radically different mechanisms, failure conditions, capital efficiencies, and value capture abilities. It's a fascinating space that is in its infancy. And you're missing projects that aren't pegged to the dollar, but instead have dampened volatility floating price targets — like Reflexer and OlympusDAO. It's a rich, beautiful corner of a rapidly growing spa…

Newsworthy would be more accurate description.

It is newsworthy when stuff blows up. Same reason SpaceX gets more coverage for its rocket development than say SLS or Blue Origin ( among other reasons). A lot of people watch car racing for the crashes. thats just human nature.

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

#538

Post by arsmoriendi »

atweiden wrote: post #453
chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #108

The fact that this is trending on HN shows how little hacker news knows about the cryptocurrency space. A relatively unknown, recently launched stablecoin collapsing is not big news in crypto. Now if dai, usdc or usdt had failed, that would be a big deal.

> Now if dai, usdc or usdt had failed, that would be a big deal. The “Dai” peg did break — both in early 2020 [1], and a few days after launching. DAI’s now 60% backed by Tether like instruments. It’s basically a strictly worse version of Facebook’s Libra, assuming Libra weren’t crippled by state regulators (Libra is now Diem). Every major algorithmic stablecoin has imploded at least once in times of market volatilit…

For anyone interested in what backs DAI: https://backeddai.makerdao.network/What-backs-my-Dai-9b5ce66...

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

#539

Post by manquer »

BrissyCoder wrote: post #518
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't disagree more. All of the projects I listed have radically different mechanisms, failure conditions, capital efficiencies, and value capture abilities. It's a fascinating space that is in its infancy. And you're missing projects that aren't pegged to the dollar, but instead have dampened volatility floating price targets — like Reflexer and OlympusDAO. It's a rich, beautiful corner of a rapidly growing spa…

> It's a rich, beautiful corner of a rapidly growing space. I can't imagine what kind of mindset/value-system one has to have to find this stuff rich and beautiful. It's ponzis all the way down. I would call it disingenuous and grubby.

If they have drunk the cool-aid instead of just selling it, then they really believe in the ecosystem with faith that is unshakeable. All Ponzi scheme needs some level of that faith, without that it hard to sell to somewhat knowledgeable audience.

Some of this tech sure eventually will become mainstream in a lot less glamorous and likely more centralized way than crypto enthusiasts like to think, current systems are not perfect certainly, they can leverage more tech, however they also have the benefit of evolving over a long period of time and have gone through the learning curve all the coin markets are going through.

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

#540

Post by w4llstr33t »

hanniabu wrote: post #524
w4llstr33t wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you heard of Tezos? Tezos is often referred to as the first “self-amending” blockchain, which routinely adapts and adopts new features natively and automatically via its unique on-chain governance mechanism. This protocol functionality allows the system to coordinate the selection of new updates though popular voting, integrate the new updates that are selected, and compensate the developers who proposed them. […

Lot of buzz words to say soft forks. Also this has nothing to do with upgradeable contracts.

> has nothing to do with upgradeable contracts.

Although the article is talking about the SafeDollar contract, there were some general points about crypto / blockchain in this thread that I was responding to. Tezos is one example that has on-chain governance, which is why I mentioned it.

If you want to provide more info about how the on-chain governance is really just done through soft forks, and why you think that's not innovative, I'd be curious to hear. I'm not huge on Tezos but I think they do some interesting things.

Post reply on HN