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

381–388 of 388 posts

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#381

Post by formerkrogemp »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185
davidgerard wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VCs promoting this sort of blatant and obvious Ponzi - and there are many VCs getting into ponzinomic crypto enterprises - is a good reason to start making some of the investors more liable.

> is a good reason to start making some of the investors more liable I'm beginning to agree. Piercing the corporate veil is reserved for "serious misconduct" [1]. If you're told someone will sell an unlicensed deposit-like product [2], promise depositors (their words) "will not lose [their] funds" [3] and pay a ten or 20% interest rate, and you give them money to do it, you aided and abetted fraud. (At the very least…

Until and such time as there are consequences I wouldn't hold my breath. America is nice if you're rich. It's not so great otherwise.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#382

Post by bryanzk »

downandout wrote: post #245
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will not lose my funds, whether the market is good or bad Is your counterparty risk always zero (between you and the chain)? Custody? What if a chain is halted or amended? These systems run on novel rails. You couldn’t honestly tell an investor “you will not lose your funds,” and you’d refrain from using the word “deposit.” Because you’re trying to honestly communicate an opportunity, not to defraud.

Is your counterparty risk zero? Custody risk? In the case of flash loans/swaps, the answer is yes. It's 0. Further, I never have any capital at risk, all of my bots use flash loans/swaps. These transactions are atomic, which means that either all parts of it succeed or they all fail (it's a "revert" in blockchain parlance). So I can borrow $200 million without any prior permission and do an arb/liquidation or anythin…

Hi there. My name is Bryan, and I'm a member of the EigenPhi team. Thanks for recommending us; twice!! :D Would you please spare a few minutes to have a quick chat? I'd love to receive your feedback and provide more valuable data! Here is my email: bryan at eigenphi.com. Looking forward to your reply!!

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#383

Post by abakker »

formerkrogemp wrote: post #366
abakker wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

look - there are companies out there - Renaissance for one - who do make very good returns consistently. The difference is that not all returns are infinite. in fact, most good investments are finite - the market eventually catches on and then prices equilibrate. saying that there are no guaranteed 20% returns does not mean that with hard work and good strategy there are not 20% returns to be made on some arbitrary a…

What the fuck are you talking about? The Renaissance medallion fund isn't open to the public and is no longer generating double digit returns as of 2020 or 2021. Much of their performance can be attributed to the fact that they just didn't pay their taxes. A $6.8 billion fine just doesn't cut it in the face how much money they were making. The Medallion fund saw $11 billion in net outflows due to low returns in 2021.…

I was talking about the topic at hand: the possibility of consistent good rate of return. You are right - medallion has had some hard times recently. But, prior to that, it generated very good returns for a while.

You are not addressing the substance of my comment, namely that many investments are finite, and this is why infinite riskless investments don't work.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#384

Post by fakename »

FYI, for anyone else withdrawing funds:

I requested an ACH withdrawal at 5pm pacific on 5.23 It was processed 13 hours later at 645am on 5.24 The conversion rate I received was 0.03850612745 If you view the UST value during that window, it was worth almost twice that rate on average: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/terrausd/

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6ae021b3bd9848ade6863820092dcf2844...

Just a warning for anyone expecting to get out with even the value of your UST...

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#385

Post by robocat »

formerkrogemp wrote: post #380
robocat wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You original comment was low quality, and now you are doubling down by being rude. I definitely think your reply breaks site guidelines. I suggest you read the section below the heading Comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I admit my second comment wasn’t much better, sorry. VCs want to hold on to their successful investments as long as possible, with some limitations depending on the contracts f…

> Your original comment was low quality, and now you are doubling down by being rude. I was not the original commenter with whom you were speaking. I'll admit that my comment could be rude, and for that I'm sorry. The length of the mockery was a bit much, but I don't think it was uncalled for. To assume that venture capital exists without the primary motivation and purpose of making money is misleading at best and de…

> The length of the mockery

Snarkiness, Mockery, Sarcasm are very strongly discouraged or outright “banned” depending on context. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21187460 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482110

Your “replies” are not engaging, and it feels like you are mocking me with strawman shit I never said. That is very unpleasant, and nobody likes that. You have read an awful lot into sentences where I am just trying to be factual.

You have no idea what I think about VCs morally, so why are you responding with moral points?

For example: “To assume that venture capital exists without the primary motivation and purpose of making money is misleading at best and delusional more generally”. Who are you arguing against? Who assumes what? And “delusional” is an unpleasant flamebait word.

>> I admit my second comment wasn’t much better, sorry.

> Placing venture capitalists within some special class whose reasoning or motivations are beyond the understanding of most people is where I take umbrage

I mean, where is your reply even connected to what you quoted? Are you just baiting?

The quality of your two comments is extremely low in my opinion. Please, reread the guidelines (I do regularly), and try and learn to follow the unwritten standards the community follows.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#386

Post by npc12345 »

xvector wrote: post #302
npc12345 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I upvoted you btw, I don't like to censor). I'm a maximalist and even I am not that disingenous.

I simply do not believe it was fraud, and I don't see any evidence provided of it being the case. A badly-designed stablecoin? Incompetence? Sure. But the accusation of fraud requires evidence of malice.

I see your point now.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#387

Post by formerkrogemp »

abakker wrote: post #383
formerkrogemp wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the fuck are you talking about? The Renaissance medallion fund isn't open to the public and is no longer generating double digit returns as of 2020 or 2021. Much of their performance can be attributed to the fact that they just didn't pay their taxes. A $6.8 billion fine just doesn't cut it in the face how much money they were making. The Medallion fund saw $11 billion in net outflows due to low returns in 2021.…

I was talking about the topic at hand: the possibility of consistent good rate of return. You are right - medallion has had some hard times recently. But, prior to that, it generated very good returns for a while. You are not addressing the substance of my comment, namely that many investments are finite, and this is why infinite riskless investments don't work.

> You are not addressing the substance of my comment, namely that many investments are finite, and this is why infinite riskless investments don't work.

I agree that "infinite riskless investments don't work" and agree with the "possibility of consistent good rate of return." Many investments are indeed finite on a human scale. An investor will almost always want their money back with some return, no? At some point they'll take their money out of the investment or market and spend it. The particular issue was the claim that the Medallion Fund from Renaissance Technologies was a good example for a consistent rate of return. They may have done that but how would we know? Their data is self reported, and as far as I'm aware there's no publically available audits of their performance. Even if there were, we have evidence of their cheating at taxes through abuse of options. If I were you, I would take their claims with a very large lump of salt. Do you know who else claimed guaranteed double digit rates of return? Bernie Madoff. We might not have found out about his fraud either if it weren't for some whistleblowing and for his admission of wrongdoing.

The Medallion Fund may have returned 30-70% over decades. Do we really know for sure? I think you'd have been better off simply suggesting index funds for consistent returns for the average person or citing Warren Buffett or Bill Gross for generating alpha/consistent returns.

Post reply on HN