Solend seized $170M of user funds

Decentralized my ass

DeFi definitely over promised, and under delivered: the part that I take issue with is why build these tools on centralized alt currencies? I mean if you think NFTs are the extent of DeFi (much of which is what web3 hinged on) than this was predictably going to fail just like the ICO craze did.

Smart contracts based on oracles are likely to be the real big advent, and I foresee it to be what Dorsey is proposing with now the absurd titled 'web5.' I just can't see why anyone would place this much trust in a PoS coin with a central governance and with major stake by VC in SV. The whole point was to get away from these gate-keepers, not allow them to have a major share of the coins in existence where they can, likely have, cornered the entire market.

Whatever, a purging was necessary: I hope this makes CONbase fold once and for all.

I just wish I had kept my cash and been able to take advantage of this major dip in BTC: I made major purchases back when we hit mid 30s (~50% of ATH) after liquidating some positions in late Nov.

Not that this would be entirely surprising by Solana itself, which is a centralized chain that has been struggling to handle its network uptime and throughput in recent months.

[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/solendprotocol/status/15384413504...

> nor was the purpose specifically to protect Solana's price.

I think it was. What else would the purpose be? Note that I think the true purpose of "preventing Solana network downtime" would be to protect the price.

They're trying to avoid cascading liquidations down to zero, because everyone involved in the governance is holding substantial amounts of Solana. I think letting the liquidations happen on-chain, and even cascade, is much more in the spirit of crypto. But an argument could be made, just like with what happened in the LME Nickel market, if you think that letting people wrestle for control of the chain is true decentralization, or if you think that the true goal of a market provider is to provide stability above all else...

Forcibly "partially liquidating the position" above liquidation price is pretty indefensible. Are they going to point to a line in their TOS that says that at the end of the day they always have the right to do whatever they want?