Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

blog.stablegains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 388 posts

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#261

Post by anamax »

tootie wrote: post #162
Liron wrote: post #26

Written as if no mistakes were made on their end. Paraphrasing: "We all thought UST and Anchor were a source of stable >10%/yr gains that you could trust for your corporate treasury. That the yield instead turned out to be -99% is quite disappointing, and makes this a natural time for us to bring our service to an end. It's been a pleasure to serve you."

Anybody who believes that kind of logic deserves to lose their stake. Crypto has spent most of it's formative years riding an historic bull market and claiming it's immune to market forces. Now we have pretty clear evidence that crypto is just a multiple of the Nasdaq.

In a yield-chasing world, there's always a fair amount of correlation between liquid "assets".

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#262

Post by anamax »

chx wrote: post #62
gloryless wrote: post #30

It's pathetic that regulators haven't stopped this nonsense. These scams don't even last 6 months anymore, it's a joke

All crypto is a scam and it's so simple to see, it's astonishing anyone fell for this. Look. Imagine an otherwise empty room with a table and a few chairs. A couple people come in with some money in their pockets and cards. They play a few round of a card game, some lose, some win. When they leave, the room as it was before so it is crystal clear the sum of their money couldn't change. Some won, some lost but overall…

Some cryptos do have real-world benefits - https://investmentu.com/santos-crypto/

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#263

Post by anamax »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #49
gloryless wrote: post #30

It's pathetic that regulators haven't stopped this nonsense. These scams don't even last 6 months anymore, it's a joke

It's pathetic that the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury allowed anyone but the U.S. Government to mint a coin 'tethered' to USD, and named anything remotely similar. It's bizarre and a complete reversal from prior practice.

You mean like Disney Dollars?

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#264

Post by trixie_ »

phire wrote: post #108
trixie_ wrote: post #29

UST, a stable coin not even pretending to be backed by the very thing it was pegged to fails. Unlike USDT, USDC or GUSD, there was a documented plan of attack to take UST down 6 months ago, someone just raised enough capitol to execute it.

While there was a proposed attack, there is no evidence it (or any other attack) was executed. Which would be weird. Attacks on blockchains usually have detailed analysis within days, the blockchains are public and any evidence would be right there for people to examine. All evidence is that UST simply collapsed on under it's own weight because it's algorithmic nature was never stable. As soon as the price of LUNA st…

Yes the attack was a loophole in the algorithm not the blockchain itself.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#265

Post by anamax »

ryanSrich wrote: post #86

IMO, every single exchange is at least partially responsible for misleading users. Binance.US and OKCoin specifically marketed UST as a stablecoin that you could earn 20%. Marketing it as a stablecoin is a very clear signal that it has less risk. Yes, users should inform themselves, but exchanges (as well as companies like Stablegains) need to be held accountable.

Binance.US didn't list UST until fairly recently.

Before then, Binance.US had several other "stable coins", the most popular being Binance USD and Tether. (Binance.US also has a dollar asset which is supposedly FDIC insured.)

Binance.US has trading rules that specify things like minimum and maximum price. The minimum price for Binance USD and Tether is something like $0.0001 (and the maximum price is something like $1000.0). IIRC, all of the other stable coins have similar "bounds".

UST when introduced was different. Its minimum price was $0.70 (and its maximum price was $1.30).

When things went to crap, that minimum price basically froze the market, or rather froze people into their positions. (There were people willing to buy at $0.45, for a while, then $0.17.)

FWIW, Binance.US eventually significantly reduced the minimum.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#266

Post by leereeves »

codedokode wrote: post #258
codedokode wrote: post #255

After I read about this Terra ecosystem, it looks very suspicious: first, you buy UST tokens, investing real money. You are promised a yield up to 20% (suspicious point 1). Then, you deposit your UST so that other people can lend it. But the terms look weird to me (suspicious point 2): first, the loans are "overcollateralized", so, for example, you need to put down equivalent of $100 to get a loan of $70. Second, the…

By the way, here is an idea about new type of coin, that I would call "investcoin". Do you see any potential problems with it? This would be a coin that is backed by stocks. When you buy my investcoin, you can choose any kind of stock from a preapproved list and I will buy them for your money. If you decide to cash out, I will sell stocks of my choice to repay you. The stocks are managed in a public account, so anyon…

Sounds like an ETF traded on cryptocurrency markets instead of the stock exchange, perhaps you could call it a "CTF" (crypto-traded fund).

Would it be regulated like an ETF or mutual fund? There might even be regulations that make exchanges like Coinbase unwilling to deal with it.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#267

Post by Jasper_ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #147
giantg2 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, they are also a YC backed company.

> For what it's worth, they are also a YC backed company Severely disappointing. I respect PG too much to believe he would knowingly condone this. The partner who did this didn't understand what they were investing in or should be decoupled with haste. At the very least, the Alaska RMB, U of M Endowment, Bloomberg's family office and SMC should be asking why their capital is backing what should have been clear as day…

pg defended YC funding a company making installer adware [0], you shouldn't really be surprised

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#268

Post by downandout »

rspeele wrote: post #253
downandout wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, sadly that return is based on my infrastructure costs, which I can't keep increasing and get the same return. But yes, I'm doing better than 50X my monthly infrastructure costs with this, which are my only actual risk.

Ah, ok, so this is more like a thing where you drive around looking for loose change on the ground, and you find enough to exceed your fuel and maintenance expenses. But you can't scale it up by hiring more drivers, because there is only so much loose change to be found. Surely you see how even a 10% safe return on investment like these DeFi schemes offer is a whole different thing, when it's a compounding return. Th…

You are correct, but all investments have a maximum size at which returns will stop. That said, even large banks are seeing returns considered impossible in traditional markets with DeFi strategies, often with lower risk. Arb bots like mine are now generating more than $1 billion per year in risk-free earnings, so the pie is not exactly small. Estimates are that statistical arbitrage bots, which do take on some small capital risk, generated over $5 billion in profits last year.

I agree with you that throwing money at anyone who tells you they can take an unlimited investment and offer compounding returns on it is a recipe for disaster. But in DeFi, intelligence and strategy translate directly to greater yield. Math has proven time and again that those things matter very little in traditional markets.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#269

Post by phire »

trixie_ wrote: post #264
phire wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there was a proposed attack, there is no evidence it (or any other attack) was executed. Which would be weird. Attacks on blockchains usually have detailed analysis within days, the blockchains are public and any evidence would be right there for people to examine. All evidence is that UST simply collapsed on under it's own weight because it's algorithmic nature was never stable. As soon as the price of LUNA st…

Yes the attack was a loophole in the algorithm not the blockchain itself.

Yes, but the (alleged) attack on the algorithm would have happened on blockchain, and would have been recorded as transactions in the blocks.

Ironically, some attacks on blockchains themselves (like 51% attacks) are actually harder to analyze, because part of the evidence lives in blocks that were deliberately orphined from the blockchain, and the p2p network doesn't have any incentive to share those blocks. I've analyzed such attacks and you actually have to examine the caches and logs of nodes that were running at the time to find evidence.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#270

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

anamax wrote: post #263
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pathetic that the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury allowed anyone but the U.S. Government to mint a coin 'tethered' to USD, and named anything remotely similar. It's bizarre and a complete reversal from prior practice.

You mean like Disney Dollars?

Only if they were called USDD.
Post reply on HN