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

The collapse of the IRON stable coin

irony-97882.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 502 posts

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#91

Post by treis »

meowface wrote: post #13

Probably a dumb question, but is there any possibility of temporarily getting the price to slightly above 0 in order to let people get their money out? For example, could some group with a lot of money offer to buy/sell a bit until the oracle considers it above 0, in exchange for some sort of compensation from the investors or devs?

The article laughs at the developers but then gets things fundamentally wrong. The error isn't an off by one error, to begin with. Then, as you note, it doesn't make any sense for the coins to be locked. The oracle should always report a price above 0 and if for some reason it's not it should be relatively trivial to get it to

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#92

Post by exporectomy »

jcpham2 wrote: post #27
georgyo wrote: post #5

This has always been the problem with smart contracts. They are infact dumb contacts. To program one you need to think about all the edge cases. The programmers here likely did want >0 here. The possibility that the thing feeding price data return zero incorrectly was higher than the price legitimately being zero in their minds. There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract.

I've been saying for a very long time now to anyone who chooses to listen that a contract itself is a human construct - it is both temporal and physical and has location to be relevant and useful. Without all of those properties a contract ceases to useful to a human being under all edge cases. So it is, in fact, a dumb contract. Humans want contracts that make them whole at the end of the day, that's the point of th…

How is that thing you've been saying relevant here or how does it lead to your 2nd paragraph? Smart contracts meet all your requirements for a contract just as PDF contracts do.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#93

Post by gknoy »

RandomLensman wrote: post #64
thebean11 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are trading one legal authority for another, and this is agreed upon up front. Both parties agree that the code is the legal authority before entering into a contract, which is much different from evading authority after the fact. > but generally when a person is trying to evade some legal authority, it's probably not for reasons good for society Reminds me of the "nothing to hide" argument, that only someone tr…

Courts remain the legal authority, you cannot trade on for other unless provided by law (as in statute), and then it is back again to the courts to interpret. What did both parties really agree to? IANAL, but intentions and assumptions of the parties can matter - for example, quite a few things you cannot waive in some places, irrespective of what you agree or not.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but I recall that when it comes to contracts, they often allow you to waive protections that the law would normally give you (e.g., specifying that conflict is resolved with arbitration) if both parties agree to it.

In the case of smart contracts, where both parties (if I understand it right?) agree that the code defines the contract itself, it seems like saying "... but I made a mistake" (or it has an error) would be very hard to prove. It would be like if you had written in a 3 year no-questions-asked return period into a car contract, rather than a 3 day one, and then tried to litigate when someone actually used that.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#94

Post by tluyben2 »

ramesh31 wrote: post #88
Semaphor wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can recommend checking out Reddit’s /r/cryptocurrency and branching out to smaller altcoint subreddits. Read the comments. There are thousands of people just looking for that one weird trick to get rich. As a sidenote, I almost always got out just before a crash by when I was playing with altcoins by waiting for people to get over the top enthusiastic in their subreddit and then selling everything. Might as well ha…

>There are thousands of people just looking for that one weird trick to get rich. Increasingly I think they're the smart ones. I'm sitting here working my butt off for a few thousand dollars a month, while these guys raised hundreds of millions of dollars without even being able to grammar check a sentence. Who's the real sucker?

Well, most these talks are marketcap for their coin or token. That is not actual value. Some of the biggest ICOs got only a fraction out of them or nothing at all.

They still get a lot for free scamming others. Just do not think that a 100m$ ICO means they raised that. They cannot get anything close to that out.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#95

Post by raziel2701 »

bombcar wrote: post #55

> Non-collateralized stablecoins require continual growth to be successful. In the event of a price crash, there is no collateral to liquidate the coin back into, and the holder’s money would be lost, as seen with many past projects trying to utilize such design [sic]. Isn’t that just a Ponzi scheme?

It sure sounds like it, new money needed to pay the old money.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#97

Post by tluyben2 »

Semaphor wrote: post #84
tluyben2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I get older, I do not understand how known scammers, especially the ones that raise millions over and over, get support time and time again. If not in jail, why do they still get jobs. I know some who just told me in my face that they were scammers of millions (or simply were happy screwing people even with viable ways out) and they raise money again, screw people again etc. People do use Google right? Due diligen…

I can recommend checking out Reddit’s /r/cryptocurrency and branching out to smaller altcoint subreddits. Read the comments. There are thousands of people just looking for that one weird trick to get rich. As a sidenote, I almost always got out just before a crash by when I was playing with altcoins by waiting for people to get over the top enthusiastic in their subreddit and then selling everything. Might as well ha…

I was not even talking crypto but 'normal' CEOs. I mean a famous one was the guy (do not think he was the CEO but close to him?) from Groupon: he was a known scammer and yet, he gets bingo every time. And many many more.

Edit: whoops I never knew what became of Groupon but I see it was a massive scam altogether. Seems the investors could have known that from the first time they met the founders by just typing some names into Google. How does that work?

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#98

Post by jonfw »

xqk8 wrote: post #82
boomer_joe wrote: post #23

>Non-collateralized stablecoins read: "ponzi scheme". This is pretty funny.

A Ponzi scheme requires a central actor like Charles Ponzi, you're quoting a description of a "purely algorithmic stablecoin" which implies no central actor to channel new investors' money to old, no central actor to defraud the new investors and by telling them they've gained money when they haven't. I guess they are comparable in the way that they both require a inflow of capital, is that what you're saying? That w…

A ponzi scheme largely refers to a scheme where you invest capital to get access to the future inflow of capital, where that future inflow of capital comes from other investors who are hoping to access future inflows of capital, etc.

The difference between this and a startup is obvious- a startup intends to become financially independent at some point

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#100

Post by saalweachter »

xqk8 wrote: post #82
boomer_joe wrote: post #23

>Non-collateralized stablecoins read: "ponzi scheme". This is pretty funny.

A Ponzi scheme requires a central actor like Charles Ponzi, you're quoting a description of a "purely algorithmic stablecoin" which implies no central actor to channel new investors' money to old, no central actor to defraud the new investors and by telling them they've gained money when they haven't. I guess they are comparable in the way that they both require a inflow of capital, is that what you're saying? That w…

Technically it has to be run from the Ponzi region of France.
Post reply on HN