Live data from Hacker News

We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

blog.stablegains.com

51–60 of 388 posts

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#51
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d probably assume somebody looked at “15% interest” as a sales pitch and “losing all of your money” as the actual thing that happened and concluded that it was fraud. What exactly is fraud by your estimation?

There is intent behind fraud.

So if you intend for the con to survive longer than it did you're in the clear? Interesting.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#52

people who bet early, made big money. people who came in on the hype lost everything. the definition of pyramid schemes. Oh well. We'll see, it might bounce back as these things do.

Oh, by that definition, even AAPL is a pyramid schema.

How about we leave the definition for pyramid scheme where it's already at?

> Pyramid scheme: making money based on recruiting an ever-increasing number of "investors."

> Oh well. We'll see, it might bounce back as these things do.

No, it won't. It won't regain the trust of the community and the project is dead in the water now, no way it'll recover from this.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#53
post #27
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source on the company being fraudulent? Source on Terra being a fraud? Please provide sources for your ad-hominems.

That's not an ad hominem. The circular relationship between Terra and Luna is really fishy. It's probably not really a scam today, but similarly structured schemes should probably be classified as such and criminalized in the future.

The best explaination Ive seen (from HN I think) was that the Terra/Luna thing was an attempt to tranche the 'asset'. So Luna (junior tranche) has the risk and potential returns, whereas Terra is supposed to be less risky, less returns (Senior tranche). See MBS, CDO, CDO^2, etc.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#54

> 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."

To be fair, the collapse of an algorithmic stablecoin is no surprise ;)

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#56
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d probably assume somebody looked at “15% interest” as a sales pitch and “losing all of your money” as the actual thing that happened and concluded that it was fraud. What exactly is fraud by your estimation?

There is intent behind fraud.

The "intent" that is necessary is the intent to benefit from the known misrepresentation, which in this case Stablegains did by obtaining investment from these customers.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that Stabelgains needed to "intend" the end result (ie, "catastrophically fail and lose all of their customers funds") for it to be fraud.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#57

Least corrupt crypto company. Return is directly correlated to risk, so when a black box corporation is promising 15% returns and marketing itself as a “simple and safe” way for its users to benefit from “advances in financial technology.” It's probably not safe, but it is very simple.

>Return is directly correlated to risk

This is at least a weak EMH assumption. It's not a law. In crypto sometimes the opposite is true for short to medium periods of time because uninformed people are afraid of 'too high' returns. Best money is made on market inefficiencies like that.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#58

It's pathetic that regulators haven't stopped this nonsense. These scams don't even last 6 months anymore, it's a joke

It's pathetic that the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury allowed anyone but the U.S. Government to mint a coin 'tethered' to USD, and named anything remotely similar. It's bizarre and a complete reversal from prior practice.

IMO letting crypto die by itself is the best way to prove it sucks.

If any blockchain was forbidden, there would be a huge PR stress and infinite arguments about their viabilities.

Just let morons fail.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#59
post #28

Least corrupt crypto company. Return is directly correlated to risk, so when a black box corporation is promising 15% returns and marketing itself as a “simple and safe” way for its users to benefit from “advances in financial technology.” It's probably not safe, but it is very simple.

Any crypto or web3 startup contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of "receive_funds.sh > /dev/null".

Thought you were about to say 'a Ponzi scheme'.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#60

> 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."

> "15% interest. No surprises."

I’m honestly not surprised about how things turned out.

Post reply on HN