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

The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

rorodi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 429 posts

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#141

Post by sec400 »

adam_arthur wrote: post #128
marcinjachymiak wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what happens behind the scenes at Celsius. I do know there are many ways to get those high ROIs in DeFi. With zero evidence suggesting they are lying about returns, the charitable guess I can make is that they are getting high DeFi returns and giving their customers slightly lower ones after taking a cut.

Can you explain some of the ways then? Not the user facing side, but the backend/underlying part that generates the returns necessary to sustain those yields.

Not Celsius specifically but you can see details about yearn's strats here: https://docs.yearn.finance/getting-started/products/yvaults/...

Specific vaults strats: https://medium.com/yearn-state-of-the-vaults/the-vaults-at-y...

Links to the actual contracts: https://yearn.watch/

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#142

Post by outside1234 »

criddell wrote: post #29
WFHRenaissance wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a huge fan of the the current cryptocurrency scene, but I think it will remain very useful as a medium of exchange and store of value in unstable parts of the globe for years to come.

It will remain a very useful medium of exchange? Are you saying that today it is a very useful medium of exchange? Are you using it that way?

I use it to money launder - I lose 10-20% in the value swings - but that means I get 80% of the money for free out the other end of the NFT Ape I sold.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#144

Post by JaimeThompson »

marcinjachymiak wrote: post #77

I'm not a fan or user of Celsius, but this is an incredibly inflammatory title with very little evidence to back it up. Claims like that demand greater proof. This is an incredibly lazy article The author pretty much failed to do any research on DeFi investments (point 3 in the OP). Compound and Aave are just 2 of many places investors place their assets, and are definitely near the lower end of APYs. Badger, which C…

"Its flagship product: 10 to 12.68% annual returns on USD stable coins and this with little to no risks."

What is more likely that they figured out a way to "hack" the financial system to make such returns in a very safe fashion or that they are doing things behind the scenes which may be a little bit sketchy?

10% safe annual returns is a bit high if one thinks that the APY is reflection of how risky the investment is.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#145

Post by lfnoise »

usehackernews wrote: post #75
obayesshelton wrote: post #15

Crypto and NFT is one big ponzi scheme. Who on earth is spending $000,000s on a virtual ship? I sense it is a case of somebody close to the NFT or virtual world buying the asset and making out it is a great thing and then selling it on quickly. Many a scam involves somebody from the group buying something so the unwilling feel like it safe. As always, don't be left holding the baby.

Why do people on HN assume that if they don’t find something valuable, others shouldn’t either. I think of NFTs like car titles. Having the car title in your name is the only way to prove you own a car. Someone can burrow your car, and have it in their possession but that doesn’t make them the owner - the title does. When you buy a car, what you’re really buying is a little paper that says you’re the owner - without…

The legitimacy of a car title is backed by a government agency. What legal entity backs an NFT? To what authority do you go to enforce your ownership of a JPEG if there is a dispute? Will courts recognize an NFT in a case of disputed ownership?

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#146

Post by infecto »

hackingforfun wrote: post #73
daniel-thompson wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it will remain very useful as a medium of exchange The only current usecase I'm aware of for crypto as a medium of exchange is for criminals, i.e. ransomware / extortion / etc.

I see this point rehashed on HN over and over. I'd love if there was a more productive discussion of cryptocurrencies. I don't think they are going away anytime soon. Too many technologists and others are thinking about them now. I personally think store of value is a strong use case, at least for those of us who consider them to have value. Just wondering, what would it take for you (and others who share similar vie…

I don't think crypto in general is nonsense. I do think a lot of the hype is. Some of my concerns with it

* Is it a currency or an investment? None of the major coins seem usable as a currency to me, the values are too volatile.

* What does it offer me over using USD? For me at least I see very little value, I often cannot use it for purchases and most of the places that I have seen it offered do it for secrecy, VPN or counterfeit goods. I am not trying to perpetuate the idea that cryto is only used for illegal activities but for myself I have little to no benefit of using it for purchases.

* Would you compare your "store of value" use case the same as owning gold? It is interesting to hear coins having a store of value since for me at least the volatility kills it and without a huge use in the economy I don't have confidence in it holding up.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#148

Post by selestify »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #112
tomp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is spending $1 000 000 on a "virtual image" (NFT) any different than spending it on a Picasso? There are equivalent/superior copies of both readily available, but some people value provenance ...

The Picasso is truly scarce. The NFT is artificially scarce.

That is only true at a superficial level. In terms of high-quality art, the Picasso is artificially scarce in the sense that there are reproductions so high-quality that only experts can tell the original apart from the reproduction. Clearly it's no longer the quality of the art that matters, because the reproduction visually looks just as appealing as the originally, but the provenance.

There are only so many "original" Picassos because Picasso is dead, but if we consider artwork that looks just as good as Picasso's, then the scarcity is entirely artificial and caused by provenance.

NFTs from a particular source will similarly become "truly" scarce once that source is dead.

There may be a difference in degree, in how hard it is to recreate a physical work versus a digital one. But it is not a difference in kind.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#149

Post by anonymoushn »

pjc50 wrote: post #143
shp0ngle wrote: post #46

“10 to 12.68% annual returns on USD stable coins and this with little to no risks.” well… I mean…

So who's taking the other side of these trades? Who's paying 10% to borrow money under these circumstances?

Anyone with a non-directional strategy that generates higher returns than that. There are probably hundreds of such firms by now.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#150

Post by tinco »

vesinisa wrote: post #94
marcinjachymiak wrote: post #77

I'm not a fan or user of Celsius, but this is an incredibly inflammatory title with very little evidence to back it up. Claims like that demand greater proof. This is an incredibly lazy article The author pretty much failed to do any research on DeFi investments (point 3 in the OP). Compound and Aave are just 2 of many places investors place their assets, and are definitely near the lower end of APYs. Badger, which C…

So instead of actually debunking his arguments you published a handwavy reply? I very much think that if someone is offering insanely high ROIs but does not divulge how the value is created, you can safely assume it's a scam, and simply pointing out the disparity suffices as proof to me at least.

So, definitely not in defense of Celsius it smells funny to me as well. But the author doesn't seem to understand DeFi. I don't know how Celsius operates but if there's a genuine zero-knowledge proof of their operations then that is better than an actual audit. The author doesn't understand this and proceeds as if no audit actually happened. If the author instead spent some time researching the contents and the merits of the proof they'd make a better point. If the zK proof is bullshit, that's a far worse indictment than all the other circumstantial evidence in my opinion.

Anyway, I don't have much faith an operation ran by an old con artist and a 24-yr old actress would actually produce a valid zK-proof that covers their operations. That's the sort of thing you need a serious technical team for. So the article still stands in that regard.

Post reply on HN