Live data from Hacker News

The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

rorodi.substack.com

351–360 of 429 posts

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#351

I think people underestimate how long fraudulent / ponzi schemes can last. Madoff's ponzi scheme ($65B) went unnoticed for ~50 years until a whistleblower got the SEC to take notice, and it could have potentially gone on a while longer if that hadn't happened. There's a lot more money in the crypto-sphere, and no great way to regulate. I wouldn't be surprised if lots of these entities are able to run on for 100+ year…

This is not quite factually accurate with regards to Bernie Madoff. The SEC ignored the whistleblower Harry Markopolos, and the fraud wasn't revealed until the fund became insolvent many years later (7-8 years after Markopolos originally suspected fraud). After he couldn't meet investor redemptions, Madoff confessed to his sons, who subsequently called lawyers and alerted the SEC.

Doesn't change the point of your post though.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what happens behind the scenes at Celsius. I do know there are many ways to get those high ROIs in DeFi. With zero evidence suggesting they are lying about returns, the charitable guess I can make is that they are getting high DeFi returns and giving their customers slightly lower ones after taking a cut.

Can you explain some of the ways then? Not the user facing side, but the backend/underlying part that generates the returns necessary to sustain those yields.

I think I can answer your questions.

Background/Disclaimer: I'm long crypto and have significant assets in Gemini's Earn program, a regulated variant of crypto lending that pays 8% on their stablecoin, GUSD.

I found Celsius and Yearn to be too sketchy/inscrutable to bother with[1], so I'm not going to defend anything about them, only the narrower claim that (some) DeFi liquidity pools are a non-Ponzi, sane way to earn returns in some conditions.

Liquidity pools [2] function as automatic market makers, using their assets to allow traders to trade between two cryptocurrencies. As a liquidity provider, you lock up two cryptos in return for a cut of the fees it takes from traders; your cut is proportional to how much liquidity you contributed. Those pools expose an interface to the Eth network that lets anyone put one of the cryptos in and take the other out, with a pre-determined formula for how it figures the exchange rate. Its profitability comes from the extent to which this exchange (after accounting for both pool fees and Eth network fees) gives a better deal to traders than their other alternatives (like centralized exchanges).

Like any market maker, you face the risk of "impermanent loss" from the shift in relative value of the cryptos, as market makers make standing buy/sell offers which look stupid when the market moves against them. There are also setup fees and all the usual risks associated with smartcontracts. When you consider how long you have to leave them in the pool to make a profit, and those fixed setup fees, plus the opportunity costs of lending through other providers with less volatility[4], the returns (3-100%) just about barely compensate you for the risk.

I experimented with them starting about three months ago and made a presentation, for which you're welcome to see the slides (slide 7 summarizes the downsides):

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BrMMbL5vOzdnkaPVj5mO...

Contra bhouston's claim [3], these LPs don't require ETH to perpetually gain value: as long as traders continue to use the pool, ETH could stay stagnant or even fall significantly and they will still pay a return, though a long-term fall would induce a big impermanent loss (in an ETH-stablecoin pool) that would take a while for fees to compensate you for. (Edit: Although I suppose you could argue that people won't keep trading between ETH and other tokens unless that speculation, in the aggregate, is merited -- but it's not a simple matter of the pools only being profitable as some kind of derivative of ETH's value.)

[1] In the case of Celsius, largely because of this: https://prohashing.com/guides/earning-interest-on-crypto

[2] I've mainly worked with Uniswap v3; some of the details may vary slightly in other protocols.

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29498814

[4] For example, Gemini will lend out your GRT tokens at 6.4%, so that's your minimal return for this to be a good idea.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that even mean? You can produce a copy of Picasso that is indistinguishable from an original. You can produce counterfeits of most "real world" items that are indistinguishable.

> You can produce a copy of Picasso that is indistinguishable from an original. I can't, but will happily pay anyone that can considerably more than the Ethereum gas fees involved in minting an NFT copy of something.

Go wild:

https://www.etsy.com/market/picasso_replica

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just glanced through these and don't see any explanation. They basically just say "we put it in a vault and harvest the rewards". What I'm asking is where do the rewards come from. What is the underlying mechanism that makes this model sustainable. If you invest in a REIT, tenants earn money through their business and pay rents. If you invest in a BDC, the BDC makes loans to businesses and collects interest. Relati…

I think the main answer to most of these questions is that everything works well as long as BTC and most others currencies continues to rapidly increase in value as a result of a lot of cash inflows into these cryptocurrencies. This papers over all of the fraud at least for now... When the explanation is too complex for anyone to really grasp or verify, realize that this is probably intentionally opaque in order to h…

FYI, I made a big reply that includes a response to your claim:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29501396

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#355
post #202

For those who believe "crypto is too big to fail", or the genie is out of the bottle, or that crypto concepts have become so engrained and popular that it's not possible to stop, I'd like to point out that Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scam lasted for 30+ years. People built entire lives on his very professional-seeming "business". Scams can go on for a very long time, and very large numbers of people can build their whole l…

Crypto is an open protocol for financial services/transactions running on decentralised hardware. Thats pretty cool and useful. Naturally the first thing that happened was that all the scammers and get rich idiots moved in like with any powerful new technology. It will surely take some time to get the real world usage up and the portion of moon boys/scammers down but it will happen nevertheless.

Scammers moving in on new, powerful technologies is a function of regulartory arbitrage in the face of moving the massive boat of government. To get rid of the scam requires removing the arbitrage. Financial systems are centralized specifically because you can't regulate them without the rule of law. The IRS in the US has already required reporting crypto-asset income. All that is left is for government to ban transfers to/from anonymous wallets.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If these returns were true then institutional investors would use them. But they do seem like they should have collapsed years ago. After trying to raise money for arb strategies with higher returns than Celsius all year I'm really tired of hearing this.

Rate arb is the just about the most reasonable way to make money that I can imagine. Seems like execution is the hard part though, what's your system like?

Hello, I've updated my email in my hacker news profile if you'd like to chat about that sort of thing.

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can produce a copy of Picasso that is indistinguishable from an original. I can't, but will happily pay anyone that can considerably more than the Ethereum gas fees involved in minting an NFT copy of something.

Go wild: https://www.etsy.com/market/picasso_replica

Not gonna lie, I can tell the difference...

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#358
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also other ways to get these returns outside of DeFi, like by staking ETH, selling covered calls, or various other strategies on centralized services

>like by staking ETH What's the ROI on staking ETH right now? Is it anywhere near the rate that they claim? >selling covered calls you're taking on risk when doing that. It works well until you get assigned, in which case you take a massive loss and unable to pay back your investors.

[deleted]

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go wild: https://www.etsy.com/market/picasso_replica

Not gonna lie, I can tell the difference...

Go for a higher quality replica?

https://www.marcalexanderart.com/reproductions/

"own a museum quality reproduction of a great master’s painting that is indistinguishable from the original"

Re: The biggest crypto lending company is a ponzi scheme

#360
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also other ways to get these returns outside of DeFi, like by staking ETH, selling covered calls, or various other strategies on centralized services

>like by staking ETH What's the ROI on staking ETH right now? Is it anywhere near the rate that they claim? >selling covered calls you're taking on risk when doing that. It works well until you get assigned, in which case you take a massive loss and unable to pay back your investors.

How do you take a “massive loss” on covered calls being exercised? They have defined risk, you give up some potential upside to collect premium. If they are exercised, the underlying is called away.

Selling naked calls has a lot more risk, see the blowup of optionsellers.com on naked natural gas options

Post reply on HN