Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. And what if the borrower defaults? Per https://docs.anchorprotocol.com/protocol/money-market#borrow... , it seems like there'd be zero risk as long as the LTV is >= 1.0, but that sort of defeats the point of loans. ;)
> it seems like there'd be zero risk as long as the LTV is >= 1.0, but that sort of defeats the point of loans. ;) Help me see what I am missing, what is the point of loans that is defeated by requiring an LTV >= 1.0? To my knowledge all collateral backed lending is based on the principal that the collateral value must always be greater than the value of the loan in order to remain solvent. Since crypto is a volatile…
More to the earlier point, though, this is really not how most lending works, so the idea that this somehow means that "absent central bankers, we'd all make 2% APY risk-free on bank deposits" is just silly. The global equity market is $50T, the global corporate bond market something like $100T. Total cash-equivalents (M2) in the US is $21T.
Even if "pledging shitcoins as collateral for speculating on coinbase" were zero-risk--which of course it isn't--the market for such loans is, unfortunately, too small for all of us to retire risk-free.