221–230 of 502 posts
Interestingly Mark Cuban got taken for a small amount of money by this and is already calling for regulation around stablecoins: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-17/mark-cuba... I read about it. Decided to try it. Got out. Then got back in when the TVL start to rise back up As a percentage of my crypto portfolio it was small. But it was enough that I wasn't happy about it. But in a larger context it is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Here's a better question: Why? A calculated risk is that you put money into something which may end up losing all of its value; not that your collateral becomes locked in a safe with an accidentally lost key. They had a reasonable expectation that even if the value was totally lost, they wouldn't have their collateral locked forever. Their investment, yes, but not their collateral. Sure, one always has to account fo…
> They had a reasonable expectation that even if the value was totally lost, they wouldn't have their collateral locked forever. Their investment, yes, but not their collateral. They literally handed their money to a computer program that works outside of human control and cannot be interfered with... which means if something goes wrong no one can intervene and sort it out. This is a risk they took willingly. It's no…
That's true in general, but in this rare case anyone's USDC can actually theoretically be recovered in full if the price ever manages to get just barely above 0 for a period of time and they pull it out during such a period.
If nothing can be done, you have to just take the loss. But here something can actually be done, and it's not like it's infeasible. Just hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?" Either: 1. I'm trying to dodge the label "Ponzi scheme" for a reason you haven't provided (maybe you think I have millions invested in this shitcoin?) 2. This isn't a Ponzi scheme, and you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is Which explanation is simpler?
> Why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?" There can be multiple operators. I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes. Your argument is akin to claiming that a three legged dog is not a dog because dogs have four legs. I wouldn't be so uncharitable as to presume to know why you have chosen to make this argument. I think your argument would be clearer i…
>I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes.
Do you know who Charles Ponzi was or why Ponzi schemes are named after him?
Do you know what he did or what Bernie Madoff did? They operated the Ponzi scheme. That's why they were a critical part.
This money really was going into the smart contract, wasn't directly given to old investors, wasn't being siphoned directly into the operator's pocket, all unlike a Ponzi.
You don't know what a Ponzi is and you're trying to save face, I get it.
> $272 million worth of USDC is still locked up in in the contract. Why hasn’t everyone recovered their 74 cents?
Why didn't the masterminds behind this scheme walk away with that cash? Because it was a mistake. Not a genius scheme being run in the shadows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contracts, at least in my jurisdiction, can come in all forms and colours. Even purely verbal contracts are valid, in fact. Those are hard to enforce, with nothing written it is always he-said-she-said when it comes to disputes. So I would be surprised if "smart-contracts" couldn't be litigated if push comes to shove. No way avoid the legal system. And that is a good thing.
Depends on how strong the cryptography is, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite honestly, that's quite scary. The ability to just change an oracle sounds like a backdoor (and not De-centralized). I'm not exactly familiar with Poly - but, I thought that was the sell of Link, was the idea that you are dealing with Oracle pools rather than a specific, single, Oracle?
There's a timelock where any such changes are delayed by 12 hours. So if they were to submit a transaction that people didn't like, they could exit - this significantly reduces the expected value of trying to steal funds since most of it will vanish. But it's useful to be able to tweak some parameters in case of bugs such as this.
And what does it mean that they could exit, when the contract itself was completely broken in the meanwhile?
This has always been the problem with smart contracts. They are infact dumb contacts. To program one you need to think about all the edge cases. The programmers here likely did want >0 here. The possibility that the thing feeding price data return zero incorrectly was higher than the price legitimately being zero in their minds. There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract.
The alternative is our current, arcane legal system - only interpretable by lawyers who charge $600/hr.
This has always been the problem with smart contracts. They are infact dumb contacts. To program one you need to think about all the edge cases. The programmers here likely did want >0 here. The possibility that the thing feeding price data return zero incorrectly was higher than the price legitimately being zero in their minds. There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract.
That's the whole point. Code is law. The alternative is our current, arcane legal system - only interpretable by lawyers who charge $600/hr.
This has always been the problem with smart contracts. They are infact dumb contacts. To program one you need to think about all the edge cases. The programmers here likely did want >0 here. The possibility that the thing feeding price data return zero incorrectly was higher than the price legitimately being zero in their minds. There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract.
That's the whole point. Code is law. The alternative is our current, arcane legal system - only interpretable by lawyers who charge $600/hr.