21–30 of 221 posts
How did the "whale" have so much invested in the market but such little voting rights?
The whale has been inactive and almost certainly didn't vote on this proposal. The Solend team tried to reach out to them via socials multiple times and they never responded. You can see their attempts in the "What We've Tried" section here[1] [1] https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxP...
Three Arrows Capital?
I like crypto, but it is true that it brings nothing new to the table.
One of the themes in pro-crypto writings has been the idea that as long as you “do your own research” then the bad things won’t happen on your chosen cryptocurrency. The prevailing idea (among pro-crypto spaces) is that bad things only happen to other people who deserve them because they didn’t do the right research. Recently we’re seeing the bad things happen in more and more mainstream chains. Even famous NFT propo…
Sorry, I've read this again and now I think this has little to do with Solana and entirely to do with Solend, and I think they're separate. Maybe someone who knows more about the space can clarify things. I now presume the funds needed to be deposited in Solend's smart contract in order for the trader to borrow the funds against his collateral, and Solend is pushing a patch in order to modify the code so they can sei…
One of the themes in pro-crypto writings has been the idea that as long as you “do your own research” then the bad things won’t happen on your chosen cryptocurrency. The prevailing idea (among pro-crypto spaces) is that bad things only happen to other people who deserve them because they didn’t do the right research. Recently we’re seeing the bad things happen in more and more mainstream chains. Even famous NFT propo…
For crypto to replace modern finance, it needs to be better in every way (so it’s a total replacement).
Decentralized currency is better for some things, worse for things like preventing scams. If modern finance prevents scams better, than crypto won’t replace it in that area at least.
Solution? Easy: scams aren’t a problem. Modern finance isn’t better in fixing that problem, cause it’s not a problem. Now crypto is once again better in every way.
How did the "whale" have so much invested in the market but such little voting rights?
If they don't believe in the depth of the SOL/USD(C|T) books this could just be a way to sell SOL or go short SOL.
This whale is probably just happy to default on the loan and get liquidated at this point.
defi at its best. zero upside of centralized finance with all the downsides, after all.
> defi at its best. zero upside of centralized finance with all the downsides, after all. 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 a…
In a bullrun, no one cares about "decentralisation" or "fundamentals", they just want to make as much money as possible, even if it means interacting with CEXs/CeFi/centralised L1 scamchains etc.
Only when things go south do people understand why "decentralisation" is important.
Time to put the pitch forks down and is no different to the DAO hack for Ethereum.
Next time, just read beyond the headline, titles rather than quickly spreading outrage everywhere in the comments section. It really doesn't help.
Especially if the source is... ...Reddit.
The current headline "Solana just seized $170MM of user funds to prevent a decrease in Solana's price" is factually incorrect. A project on Solana, called "Solend", froze $170m of funds deposited into its protocol. "Solana" didn't seize the funds, nor was the purpose specifically to protect Solana's price.
Sorry, I misattributed this in a big way. > 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 current headline "Solana just seized $170MM of user funds to prevent a decrease in Solana's price" is factually incorrect. A project on Solana, called "Solend", froze $170m of funds deposited into its protocol. "Solana" didn't seize the funds, nor was the purpose specifically to protect Solana's price.
Sorry, I misattributed this in a big way. > 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…
I would suspect to protect Solend itself.
"Preventing Solana network downtime" feels more like an appeal to Solana people to vote on their proposal rather than ignoring it.
> Note that I think the true purpose of "preventing Solana network downtime" would be to protect the price.
It is possible, and even the norm among people building things, to not think of everything in terms of "protecting the price" of a token.
When Github goes down, the engineers at Github are not thinking "oh no, we must protect $MSFT". They are thinking "Github is down, let's make Github not down".