The collapse of the IRON stable coin • Hacker News Board

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#271

Post by joe_the_user » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #250

toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your counterparty being able to contest a contract in court could very well be a "bad" thing for you. Evading the law (whether the court or a regulatory body such as the SEC [civil] or DOJ [criminal]) is typically a "bad thing" for the person or people intending to or successfully doing so. https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti... (SEC Cyber Enforcement Actions, control-f "blockchain" | "cryp…

> Evading the law (whether the court or a regulatory body such as the SEC [civil] or DOJ [criminal]) is typically a "bad thing" for the person or people intending to or successfully doing so. Oh wow. If only this were true. If only they were so diligent in punishing other kinds of things. Here's something I read recently, from the aftermath of the Libor scandal: https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-waivers-grante…

I think the gp just meant that when a person comes to the attention of courts and regulatory bodies, that the person had the intention of evading these authorities will taken badly by them and likely result in more sanctions than just what would happen for breaking the various rules.

All the different ways people evade authorities is a large topic. But, you're right, friends in high places help.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#272

Post by bombcar » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

kemonocode wrote: post #269

I knew crypto detractors were going to have a field day with this one. ;) With DeFi, you're simply exchanging one type of risk for another. Without due diligence you're pissing your money away- as it is to be expected. And as it was brought up before, this was an unaudited contract that had been running for what, weeks? Months? Personally, I cannot say I understand DeFi deeply enough to get into the intricacies of "y…

I mean you don't need to do much due diligence to know that a 30,000% APR is unsustainable - so you're just gambling that you can get in, get some, and get out before it levels off or explodes.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#273

Post by vmception » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

vincentmarle wrote: post #243

biztos wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I missed out on the unregulated ICO rush because I thought you had to, you know, develop a new blockchain technology for your new cryptocurrency, which is really hard, and I was busy. Much later I learned all you had to do was copy and paste a Solidity program and then promote it. Guess I dodged an ethical bullet in my ignorance, but still...

You can create a new coin in a couple hours, the "hard work" is in selling and promoting it...

15 seconds for the transaction

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#274

Post by TigeriusKirk » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #245

ikeboy wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's enough time for most people to exit during normal circumstances. Sometimes longer periods are used. Definitely better than nothing. In this case people wouldn't have been able to exit due to the bug, correct.

> It's enough time for most people to exit during normal circumstances. Most people don't monitor the finer details of their investments 24/7. 12 hours is better than nothing, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to stay tapped into news feeds about their crypto at minimum twice a day.

People doing esoteric DeFi are tapped in much more often than that. I'd agree in a broad general use case it's not enough time, but for DeFi as it is today, it's plenty.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#275

Post by leephillips » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #254

leephillips wrote: post #96

Since the price is not an integer, this is not an “off-by-one” error. No? It was the common mistake of writing `>` when `>=` was intended.

Are prices really not integers? That alone seems a huge design flaw. BTC prices are integers (in units of Satoshis, which are smaller than BTC).

Oh, I don’t know. I was assuming they were some kind of fixed point number.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#276

Post by neutrinoq » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

freewilly1040 wrote: post #266

> I’ve since learned that the developer(s?) behind this are already the laughing stock of the DeFi community, having wrecked each of their 3 previous projects (now 4) — though this might be their biggest hit yet What's the best DeFi project? One where the value proposition is actually clear, there are actually people using it and it's actually at parity or better than a traditional financial system offering?

The one I actively use and have benefited a lot from is PlanetFinance.io

You can easily get 50%+ APY a year on various stablecoins and crypto.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#277

Post by exdsq » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

AlexCoventry wrote: post #247

exdsq wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in the space for a few years and can say it's been the opposite experience for me. Had the chance of working on a Haskell project with the original creators of Haskell, being taught QuickCheck by the creator of QuickCheck, testing economic ideas created by professors of Economics at top universities, and sponsored entire compilers and languages to help ensure the software was as solid as possible. One of…

Wow, sounds great. Where have you been working / which cryptocurrencies/services have you been working on?

This was with IOHK (iohk.io) on Cardano however due to relocating and work visas etc I'm currently working on my own projects in the Eth/Cardano ecosystems

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#278

Post by ayngg » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

kemonocode wrote: post #269

I knew crypto detractors were going to have a field day with this one. ;) With DeFi, you're simply exchanging one type of risk for another. Without due diligence you're pissing your money away- as it is to be expected. And as it was brought up before, this was an unaudited contract that had been running for what, weeks? Months? Personally, I cannot say I understand DeFi deeply enough to get into the intricacies of "y…

The big thing that people get caught up on is the fact that the space is essentially permissionless and because of that there is no regulation meaning everyone is entirely responsible for themselves, a level of responsibility that is foreign to most people. Anyone can make anything they want, which will inevitably lead to projects that outright scams, or fail because of bugs or misaligned incentive structures. Of course these are the projects everyone here loves because it reaffirms their belief that the entire space is a scam.

I think the real story is the insatiable appetite for get rich quick schemes in today's world, because without that many of these projects would simply not be used. IIRC they had some insane yields of like 50k% apy on their token, anyone with any sense would know to run away from anything promising that.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#279

Post by ethbr0 » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

tornato7 wrote: post #226

I think Circle is the real winner here. If there are 200 million USDC locked up permanently in some contract, then Circle can safely spend $200m of it's collateral knowing it will never be withdrawn. Or, if they were generous, they could return it to the community that invested in IRON (seems unlikely)

So, as a thought experiment, because of the nature of the bug that $272M is locked until such time as TITAN becomes worth > 0.

And TITAN is printed by the system itself, whenever IRON is Outside of abusing the oracle, that seems like a pretty pickle.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#280

Post by bob33212 » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #265

thebean11 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract. That's obviously the point, though. You are trading one set of risks for a completely different set of risks that might suit your use case much better; your counterparty being able to contest a contract in court could very well be a "bad" thing for you.

> That's obviously the point, though. You are trading one set of risks for a completely different set of risks. But that's exactly the point. People are not able to interpret "smart" contracts. For normal contracts most people can understand the contract and if there is a dispute you have laws and courts who can interpret in every case. In case of "smart" contracts even the contract developers more often than not see…

This is how ALL of Crypto works. A decentralized ledger means that you cannot call the CEO or CFO of the ledger and have a clearly fraudulent transfer revoked. That is the tradeoff.