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

Rarbg Is No More

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 679 posts

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#641

Post by whimsicalism »

lottin wrote: post #639
whimsicalism wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the 'person supplying crypto for stablecoin' side, my opinion is it is not very useful. It allows you to keep crypto exposure while taking your cash out so you can make leveraged bets on crypto going up. On the person 'supplying trust & owned property and getting a stablecoin loan', the other side of some Dai loans, there is real value being created there as they can use cheaper credit to invest in their business.…

Sorry, but something doesn't add up. How is "cheaper credit" created by a collateralized loan exactly?

If you put up your home or property as collateral, you can still own the property will getting lower rates. Similar thing with the Dai loans I am describing there.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#642

Post by jasonfarnon »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #608
jasonfarnon wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very out of the loop at this stage of life, but one thing I have wondered--has software as a service, and all the online gaming, killed off all those kinds of warez? Are most of these pirate sites nowadays just for movies/tv? (One of the reasons I have been wondering about this is that I so f'ing hate windows etc updating and phoning home all the time I would prefer a version cracked a la 2007 to prevent that, ov…

Online-only, heavily DRMed games are still a tiny minority of games. And even if you look at popularity instead, Minecraft (so far as the more open Java version is still popular at least) single-handedly skews the results enough for them not being a clear win for the locked down games.

what metric are you using if not popularity? the raw # of games put out on the market?

I can remember the online game thing starting way back when I was still playing. Quake had an ethernet option, and I remember something called "Unreal Tournament" spreading like wildfire around dorms when I was in school. My first though was "it's really fun shooting at real kids instead of barrels!" immediately followed by "this is going to be really hard to crack!" I figured every developer would move online by now just to kill cracking.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#644

Post by latchkey »

lottin wrote: post #638
latchkey wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A complaint about crypto is that it is too volatile to hold. If you can hold AND put at least some of it (up to your comfortable collateralization ratio) to work through lending it out (and borrowing against it), then that can offset the volatility. What you do with the borrowed funds is up to you and there are an endless stream of possibilities. One example is to re-lend out again for additional interest. Interest a…

If the amount that you borrow is the same amount that you lend, both amounts cancel out. Your net investment position is zero. As I see it, you can't do anything you the borrowed funds because you haven't borrowed any funds. You have the same funds that you had before taking the "loan".

No. Here is an example:

I have 1 BTC, worth $27,000 today.

I lend that 1 BTC. I'm getting 1% on it. This is better than the pet rock that it otherwise is.

I can then borrow safely 50% of the value of that BTC, so $13,500 worth of goods. Now, I've magically given myself an additional $13,500, that I didn't have before.

The price of BTC would have to drop 50% before I'd be liquidated (some of my BTC would be automatically sold to cove the loan). Certainly, BTC can drop 50% in value... but if you are paying attention, you should have more than enough time to pay back that loan or add more BTC. In practice, BTC drops that much slowly over time (like a month or two), not in one go. It also works the other way, if BTC gains in value, you have less to worry about.

Let's say I pick to borrow ETH ($1800). I can now borrow 7.5 ETH at 3%. I can then lend that 7.5 ETH at 5%. I can then take those 5% earnings and sell those or even restake them.

Money legos. None of this requires permission or credit reports, just transactions on a blockchain. If you use a chain that has far lower fees (like Polygon, Arbitrium, Avalanche), then the fees are a rounding error in the cost of operations.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#645

Post by lottin »

whimsicalism wrote: post #641
lottin wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but something doesn't add up. How is "cheaper credit" created by a collateralized loan exactly?

If you put up your home or property as collateral, you can still own the property will getting lower rates. Similar thing with the Dai loans I am describing there.

Yes, but it's not quite the same, because both the collateral and the asset being borrowed belong in the same asset class. It's as if you're renting a car but you have to put up the same car that you're renting (only in a different colour) as collateral. It seems a little pointless. Usually, people want to rent a car because they don't have a car. Likewise, they want to borrow money, because they don't have money.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#646

Post by latchkey »

lottin wrote: post #645
whimsicalism wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put up your home or property as collateral, you can still own the property will getting lower rates. Similar thing with the Dai loans I am describing there.

Yes, but it's not quite the same, because both the collateral and the asset being borrowed belong in the same asset class. It's as if you're renting a car but you have to put up the same car that you're renting (only in a different colour) as collateral. It seems a little pointless. Usually, people want to rent a car because they don't have a car. Likewise, they want to borrow money, because they don't have money.

> It's as if you're renting a car but you have to put up the same car that you're renting (only in a different colour) as collateral.

Huh? That confused the heck out of me. How would you get the same car that you're renting in a different color?

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#647

Post by whimsicalism »

lottin wrote: post #645
whimsicalism wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put up your home or property as collateral, you can still own the property will getting lower rates. Similar thing with the Dai loans I am describing there.

Yes, but it's not quite the same, because both the collateral and the asset being borrowed belong in the same asset class. It's as if you're renting a car but you have to put up the same car that you're renting (only in a different colour) as collateral. It seems a little pointless. Usually, people want to rent a car because they don't have a car. Likewise, they want to borrow money, because they don't have money.

Wrong for two reasons:

1. There is no restriction that the asset being borrowed and the collateral are in the same asset class - loans can be extended based on whatever criteria the DAO in charge of the Dai votes on. There are a number of loans backed by real property investments in the US, see [0] under RWA. There are a number of loans also backed by large holdings in US bonds.

2. Dai is pegged to the dollar. It can be instantly exchanged with the dollar at a number of onramps. It is not equivalent to holding volatile crypto like ethereum.

[0]: daistats.com

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#648

Post by lottin »

latchkey wrote: post #646
lottin wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it's not quite the same, because both the collateral and the asset being borrowed belong in the same asset class. It's as if you're renting a car but you have to put up the same car that you're renting (only in a different colour) as collateral. It seems a little pointless. Usually, people want to rent a car because they don't have a car. Likewise, they want to borrow money, because they don't have money.

> It's as if you're renting a car but you have to put up the same car that you're renting (only in a different colour) as collateral. Huh? That confused the heck out of me. How would you get the same car that you're renting in a different color?

The same model. Or a different model, but one that is worth the same in the market.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#649

Post by lottin »

latchkey wrote: post #644
lottin wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the amount that you borrow is the same amount that you lend, both amounts cancel out. Your net investment position is zero. As I see it, you can't do anything you the borrowed funds because you haven't borrowed any funds. You have the same funds that you had before taking the "loan".

No. Here is an example: I have 1 BTC, worth $27,000 today. I lend that 1 BTC. I'm getting 1% on it. This is better than the pet rock that it otherwise is. I can then borrow safely 50% of the value of that BTC, so $13,500 worth of goods. Now, I've magically given myself an additional $13,500, that I didn't have before. The price of BTC would have to drop 50% before I'd be liquidated (some of my BTC would be automatica…

I don't think this is correct. Let's say you have one bitcoin. Your funds available for spending are $27,000 (we're assuming bitcoin has perfect liquidity, for the sake of the argument). If you borrow $13,500 against your bitcoin, your funds available for spending are now $13,500. So, less than what you started with. This isn't a loan. A loan increases your funds available for spending, not decreases them.

Re: Rarbg Is No More

#650

Post by lottin »

whimsicalism wrote: post #647
lottin wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it's not quite the same, because both the collateral and the asset being borrowed belong in the same asset class. It's as if you're renting a car but you have to put up the same car that you're renting (only in a different colour) as collateral. It seems a little pointless. Usually, people want to rent a car because they don't have a car. Likewise, they want to borrow money, because they don't have money.

Wrong for two reasons: 1. There is no restriction that the asset being borrowed and the collateral are in the same asset class - loans can be extended based on whatever criteria the DAO in charge of the Dai votes on. There are a number of loans backed by real property investments in the US, see [0] under RWA. There are a number of loans also backed by large holdings in US bonds. 2. Dai is pegged to the dollar. It can…

Okay, these loans that are backed with real world assets are just traditional finance right? We were discussing loans that are granted automatically to anyone without requiring an approval, remember:

> How I can take out a collateralized loan, anywhere in the world, without having to ask for approval?

Post reply on HN