We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

Post by phire » Sun, May 22, 2022, 10:31 AM UTC

cuteboy19 wrote: post #329

phire wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ana…

The (nonexistent) attack could have been conducted over exchanges though

Post by ulzeraj » Sun, May 22, 2022, 11:19 AM UTC

stevebmark wrote: post #317

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What should you write exactly? The facts. Copies of marketing you saw, statements showing what you invested and what you were paid, e-mails and other communication from the company and a statement of loss. There are links in this thread where promises were made that turned out to be lies; I would include those as well if you saw them ex ante .

Here's a sample letter: Dear government I'm trying to subvert, I complain about the instability of your useful, fiat currency, so I entered into a get rich quick scheme with no intention of reporting gains on my taxes. This obvious scam fell apart. Please punish them with the government system I don't believe in.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 22, 2022, 11:45 AM UTC

perihelions wrote: post #41

nrmitchi wrote: post #34

> While we have informed users that there are no absolute guarantees against risks I'm... uh.... fairly certain this was not the crux of their marketing which severly downplayed the underlying risk. There is also a huge spectrum between "we cannot guarantee that there is 0 risk" (which seems to be what the above sentence is saying), and "there exists a risk that all of your funds disappears in 24 hours". It seems lik…

This was their old marketing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431915 - "15% interest. No surprises."

Post by progrus » Sun, May 22, 2022, 11:58 AM UTC

ramchip wrote: post #338

arinlen wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who has studied quantitative finance knows that it is a HARD science. I worked with a Nobel prize winner in economics, and the math dominated. There was no politics, no opinions, no ethics involved. It really is a science. Your comment makes no sense. Just because there's modeling involved that does not make it a hard science. A hard science requires stuff like the ability to perform controlled experiments a…

It doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but I would say astrophysics is a hard science, and yet a ton of it is based on observation and modeling of events we can't control or reproduce.

Post by gwnywg » Sun, May 22, 2022, 12:05 PM UTC

woolion wrote: post #350

koheripbal wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What most people don't understand about finance is that there are fundamental rules that you really cannot break without consequences. Anyone who has studied quantitative finance knows that it is a HARD science. I worked with a Nobel prize winner in economics, and the math dominated. There was no politics, no opinions, no ethics involved. It really is a science. Most social media characterize finance as some ethical…

It's really striking how in recent years the Godwin point has been replaced from "everybody who disagrees is Hitler" to "everybody who disagrees is a anti-climate flat-vax earth-denier". It's really not helping getting any point across. In a way it is self-realizing polarization: because you are casting any criticism of "modern finance" into this "bundle of badness" this is likely to reinforce their position.