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

The collapse of the IRON stable coin

irony-97882.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 502 posts

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#31

Post by toomuchtodo »

thebean11 wrote: post #28
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…

Are you saying the only time a contract is disputed is when the other party is evading the law? Nobody abuses the legal system to screw over people without enough resources to fight in court?

I'm saying the legal system takes authority. A smart contract doesn't avoid or override that authority.

https://digitalchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Smart-...

> Is A Smart Contract Always A Legal Contract?

> No. Because a smart contract is computer code, a smart contract may represent all, part, or none of a valid legal contract under U.S. law. Smart contracts function – in whole or in part – to give effect to legal contracts. Thus, smart contracts are the programmatic means by which some or all of the terms of the legal contract are performed. It is the underlying contractual terms that are given legal effect.

That legal contract and the contractual terms is what is evaluated and governed by the legal system. Smart contracts are fancy business logic snake oil salespeople are attempting to sell as the law of the land.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#32

Post by Udik »

meowface wrote: post #13

Probably a dumb question, but is there any possibility of temporarily getting the price to slightly above 0 in order to let people get their money out? For example, could some group with a lot of money offer to buy/sell a bit until the oracle considers it above 0, in exchange for some sort of compensation from the investors or devs?

Yep, and btw, how can the price of anything be exactly 0? This doesn't sound right either.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#33

Post by thebean11 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #31
thebean11 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the only time a contract is disputed is when the other party is evading the law? Nobody abuses the legal system to screw over people without enough resources to fight in court?

I'm saying the legal system takes authority. A smart contract doesn't avoid or override that authority. https://digitalchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Smart-... > Is A Smart Contract Always A Legal Contract? > No. Because a smart contract is computer code, a smart contract may represent all, part, or none of a valid legal contract under U.S. law. Smart contracts function – in whole or in part – to give effect…

Not quite sure what you're saying, that you expect the DOJ to somehow overturn the judgements of smart contracts, with possibly anonymous participants or participants outside of the DOJ's jurisdiction?

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#34

Post by criddell »

thebean11 wrote: post #28
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…

Are you saying the only time a contract is disputed is when the other party is evading the law? Nobody abuses the legal system to screw over people without enough resources to fight in court?

They said "typically", so they aren't saying it's true in all cases, but generally when a person is trying to evade some legal authority, it's probably not for reasons good for society.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#35

Post by meowface »

Udik wrote: post #32
meowface wrote: post #13

Probably a dumb question, but is there any possibility of temporarily getting the price to slightly above 0 in order to let people get their money out? For example, could some group with a lot of money offer to buy/sell a bit until the oracle considers it above 0, in exchange for some sort of compensation from the investors or devs?

Yep, and btw, how can the price of anything be exactly 0? This doesn't sound right either.

According to the graph in the post (https://miro.medium.com/max/6088/1*tzpAFvuxVeumWO8ENz_SZg.pn...), it's somewhere around 0.0961 as of that time, and I suppose the price oracle they're using rounds that down to zero, perhaps? Or maybe the contract is rounding it down? Either way, I agree it's odd that exactly zero would be reported even if it's very close to zero.

edit: Nevermind, I misread. It's -0.0961, apparently.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#36

Post by ceejayoz »

thebean11 wrote: post #33
toomuchtodo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying the legal system takes authority. A smart contract doesn't avoid or override that authority. https://digitalchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Smart-... > Is A Smart Contract Always A Legal Contract? > No. Because a smart contract is computer code, a smart contract may represent all, part, or none of a valid legal contract under U.S. law. Smart contracts function – in whole or in part – to give effect…

Not quite sure what you're saying, that you expect the DOJ to somehow overturn the judgements of smart contracts, with possibly anonymous participants or participants outside of the DOJ's jurisdiction?

I think the point is more that if you owe $200M to someone, a court is unlikely to accept "it's irreversibly stuck in a smart contract" as an out.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#37

Post by [deleted] »

thebean11 wrote: post #33
toomuchtodo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying the legal system takes authority. A smart contract doesn't avoid or override that authority. https://digitalchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Smart-... > Is A Smart Contract Always A Legal Contract? > No. Because a smart contract is computer code, a smart contract may represent all, part, or none of a valid legal contract under U.S. law. Smart contracts function – in whole or in part – to give effect…

Not quite sure what you're saying, that you expect the DOJ to somehow overturn the judgements of smart contracts, with possibly anonymous participants or participants outside of the DOJ's jurisdiction?

[deleted]

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#38

Post by runbathtime »

Does this contract have a money transmission license? Selling an IRON or a TRON for USDC is money transmission. BSA requires money transmitters to be licensed in states where they operate, as well as register with FICEN, etc. How can we enforce them to comply at the state level? Can an individual sue the states to enforce compliance on the people behind this smart contract? Those that have lost money might have an incentive to start wanting money transmission rules actually enforced.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#39

Post by sashimi-houdini »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #26
sashimi-houdini wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They are doing it too" is a favorite argument of crypto-enthousiasts. I'd argue the answer here is not more madness (crypto), but a serious attempt to fix the traditional financial system.

Why bother -- it's so broken. We can just again, it makes way more sense.

But cryptocurrency's answer is usually not "how can we do better" but "how can we repeat the same mistakes in a shorter time span?"

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#40

Post by thebean11 »

criddell wrote: post #34
thebean11 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the only time a contract is disputed is when the other party is evading the law? Nobody abuses the legal system to screw over people without enough resources to fight in court?

They said "typically", so they aren't saying it's true in all cases, but generally when a person is trying to evade some legal authority, it's probably not for reasons good for society.

They are trading one legal authority for another, and this is agreed upon up front. Both parties agree that the code is the legal authority before entering into a contract, which is much different from evading authority after the fact.

> but generally when a person is trying to evade some legal authority, it's probably not for reasons good for society

Reminds me of the "nothing to hide" argument, that only someone trying to commit a crime would need or want protection from the legal system. History paints a different picture.

Post reply on HN