TerraUSD crash led to vanished savings, shattered dreams

* Greatly reduced cost of solar panels and batteries * Things like uber/doordash made taxis / takeout way more efficient * Transitioning to electric vehicles. In 2008 I'd pay $50/week for fuel, now I pay $10/week to travel the same distance in my electric car. Not to mention savings in oil changes/maintenance * mRNA vaccines nonexistent in 2008 * Significant progress towards autonomous vehicles, if that comes to fruition on a large scale it will transform our society

The actual value-additive innovation right now is happening around financial primitives being rebuilt in a decentralized manner, using smart contracts. Everything from the virtual machine to the language capabilities (and restrictions) to the "legos" used to build decentralized applications are constantly evolving.

The constant hacks are also a form of hardening that's happening. New kinds of attacks are regularly discovered, and then exploited or responsibly disclosed, and then protocols start to guard against them, and the entities building the "legos" (I'm mainly talking about OpenZeppelin) upgrade any pieces that need to be upgraded.

Well ... yeah, that kinda highlights the problem. If you don't know what something is, and are unwilling to learn, and have a hard time with google[1], then no, you don't get to claim vindication as having wisely made an appropriate inference based on valid evidence. Hence my point.

To fill you in: articbull's comments were vague enough to apply equally well to lending out the stablecoin DAI no the Compound platform, which did not crash or have to suspend withdrawals at any point.

Also, you have no idea, but you knew to switch Dai to all caps? :-p I think you're switching modes.

>A random counterexample doesn't disprove every famous and/or high market cap coin crashing.

>To use your market example, if you kept saying tech stocks are overpriced we would judge it based on the performance of the NASDAQ. You wouldn't be able to say "well, Apple still convinces people to give them all their money and they're still doing well so you were wrong."

Okay, and if you had been saying to avoid tech stocks for the past ten years, then you wouldn't be able to claim credit for the few times it does fall back, esp if it was up o average (hence my point about predicting 8 of the last three crashes).

You definitely wouldn't be able to claim credit for "having warned" someone about a specific stock's fumble (like Netflix's unforced errors), if "tech bad" is all you were basing it on, which is what arcticbull was doing when claiming to have to have warned about Luna in his comments merely because of a general anti-crypto stance.

>I don't touch crypto because I think it's a scam

The point is that that's not the same as differential insight into which specific ones are scams and why. If some aren't scams, that makes you wrong about them, and inability to differentiate means you can't claim to have had deep insight even when some do turn out to be scams.

IOW, you can be right for the wrong reasons, and if so, you can't claim that as vindication.

[1] Also, really? "dai cryptocurrency" and "compound cryptocurrency" both take you directly to explanations of what they are. On google, the latter pops up a "what is compound..." question which, when expanded, explains that it's a protocol for lending and borrowing.

Anchor's whitepaper and protocol promises ridiculous yield on USD pegged assets, and it is the basis for the entire Terra/Luna crash.[1] Nobody designing the ETH protocol is claiming that it provides USD pegged yield or will double or triple your investment. The closest thing written into the protocol is a return on the native ETH token for block producers - miners or stakers - receiving block rewards from the protocol and tips from user transactions.

Ignore the laser eye Michael Saylor's of the world who make ridiculous claims about these protocols that are unsubstantiated - try to look at the protocol design and spec.

> Here's what you said: “without the beneficiary needing to set up a USD bank account or disclose private data to a third party.” How is that true if you're not breaking KYC?

The sender sets up an account, the receiver only needs a 24 word seed phrase to receive the tokens. Maybe the receiver will need to declare this as a gift or income depending on context and their country's tax laws, sharing details with their government, but they are not having to share details to PayPal or another private company that would typically facilitate an international transaction like this.

> You surely meant 0% plus the transaction and currency conversion fees on both ends, right?

Depending on the use case, there may not be a fiat exchange. Another user might be happy to receive 1000 DAI, in which case there is no centralized exchange needed.

The transaction fees can be minimal through L2 - in cents - and are different than commissions and take-rates of processors like Western Union or PayPal. In ETH, most of the fee is burned, reducing total supply and providing value to the entire network. Another part of the fee is a tip to the block producers, which in a permissionless system can be any entity with enough capital at stake. Finally the fee is a fixed amount, not a percentage of total value being sent. Transaction fees are not perfect - a fee-free permissionless network is not possible - but some will find it preferable and more fairly distributed worldwide compared to how private payment processors currently extract rent.

[1] https://www.anchorprotocol.com/docs/anchor-v1.1.pdf

It’s misleading to look at the market cap with the implication that it’s fluctuations are due to loss of value per unit (the usual cause for non-stablecoins).

You might as well say that your bank lost $500 when you made a $500 withdrawal (while neglecting to mention the deletion of $500 in liabilities).