Say it with me: Blockchains mathematically prevent fraudulent misuse of deposits Yes, on/off ramps are an issue. Yes, blockchains do not prevent physical threats of violence or profound custodial negligence. No, SBF would not have been able to defraud millions of depositors on a blockchain where everyone self-custodied.
> SBF would not have been able to defraud millions of depositors on a blockchain where everyone self-custodied.
Does the TerraUSD count? People self-custodied, but the blockchain was built in such a way that it went to 0 easily enough.
Was that profound custodial negligence? It seems like blockchains that fail in such a way are a dime a dozen, and the end result doesn't seem vastly different from "$company running $TKN has gained a lot of money, and all the holders self-custodying $TKN have lost practically all their money even though $company assured them $TKN was safe". Is that any different in a useful way from "FTX has gained a lot of money, and all its customers have lost practically all their money which the company assured them was safe"?
Practically every crypto "pump and dump" follows this scheme of a custom token ('blockchain' if you will), a company saying it's not a pump and dump, and users self-custodying right until they lose all their money.
Perhaps blockchains prevent "fraudulent misuse of deposits", but enable "users exchange money for $TKN, which is definitely 100% worth something, and then it isn't", which really seems quite similar to me.