901–910 of 976 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it overcollateralized? If someone buys on Dai token for $1 then where do the backers of Dai get the extra $0.66?
I encourage you to do your own research, there is more than enough information out there. The basic jist is that there are two ways of getting Dai, either 1. buying it from someone else with Dai (no extra $0.66) 2. minting it as a loan collateralized by your holdings in some other crypto (which requires $1 + X% backing) where X varies depending on the crypto. I believe you also get paid some "stability" fees for doin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There have been no reports of people that tried to get that and didn't There were no reports of Bernie Madoff not being able to repay investors until the day he ran out of cash.
Even that never really happened, did it? Madoff was never not able to make a payment. His kids reported him to the police before they could be found out by anyone else. Of course, as part of the reporting, they also got immunity from the consequences of the company they worked for being an elaborate ponzi scheme. I suspect it's highly likely that this was a scheme they came up with to ensure that no one in the family…
Until the day it collapsed. It collapsed because he didn't have enough cash to cover withdrawals and he could not find new victims.
That's how all Ponzi schemes collapse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about that--or at least, the reality seems more complicated. Terra certainly has an element of complicated financial dynamics behind it such that people who know a little--but not a not--may think it's the greatest idea since sliced bread, and get eaten by the professionals. I agree with you there. But a lot of the crypto ecosystem seems to be much more mundane than that. As far as I can tell, there isn'…
The financial wizardry behind NFT's is the wash trading. A lot of average people looking to get into NFT's simply don't understand that many of the 'success stories' they see of people making big money on NFT's are just wash trading trying to lure in the marks.
The Luna "automatic peg" stuff is genuinely clever, but with genuinely surprising implications (at least for me, a casual observer/layperson) for dynamic instability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry by instant I meant expectation of receivables. I also am arguing that is a bad assumption.
Sadly, from personal experience I can tell you that the expectation of receivables cannot be used to buy groceries or pay rent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing the gymnastics people will do to shift responsibility off the supply side and onto the demand side. No, lying should not be rewarded. Ponzi schemes should not be rewarded. Currently, they are. Yes, we need more responsibility -- on the supply side . Demand side already has responsibility and correct incentives: the fools have been parted from their money. Done. This goes for small things, like NFT ponzis…
I was with you until the last sentence. When has housing ever not been an asset class? Real estate is and was the original asset class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ah okay, thats a perspective.
I'm curious why you feel the need to try to distort and spin stuff to benefit a company like Tether? They don't deserve your loyalty and they help give the crypto community a bad name.
Tether also grows in the same trajectory as USDC. or said another way, USDC grows in the same trajectory as Tether. That means if we were willing to assume it is actually functioning as detailed, then the same global sentiment perpetuates stablecoin growth.
What part of anything I wrote gave you the impression I have any loyalty to Tether. I was pretty explicit about the opposite of that.
> Let there be a run, I don't like to use Tether. I don't like algorithmic stablecoins more. There are options now, those options are holding up.
You're grasping just because I'm not auto-admonishing them. That's not necessary. It mostly works because its mostly dollars, the western-retail trader fud is not matched by western institutional sentiment[0], and is definitely not matched by eastern retail or eastern institutional sentiment. There is no surprise untethering, it would come from redemptions causing a liquidity issue after the dollars are all redeemed, or a crisis of confidence when redemptions are actually cut.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-12/money-mar...
If Tether's $25bn of commercial paper needs to be sold during a redemption run, after its $50billion of tethers were redeemed for dollars, then at that point there would likely be a liquidity issue spreading further to the all the Defi apps as Tether confidence shrinks, and some contagion to the "money markets". But the money markets should be able to absorb this size, commercial paper is a huuuuuuuge market.
The boogeyman stuff just is ... overblown. There is an objective reality, its not that bad, and doesn't mean you have to use it either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perfect play, by definition, evens out. If everyone plays perfectly, then the ev should be zero (modified by position around the table). So it should balance to zero if everyone plays an equal number of hands from every position. The payoff would be adjusted by the rake.
But that is a wildly inaccurate assumption for any real table. I still wouldn't call it perfect play because as soon as someone adopts a fixed strategy, the meta game shifts and it is no longer optimal. If anything, the assumption is equal play, not perfect play
The meta idea is what I first thought. It’s hard to evaluate though. The ai does not adapt, but continues to beat pros, who are welcome to try and adapt.
I’m curious if there are some zany cheese strats against this kind of AI that work reliably but the answer may be no. The only really practical tool you have that could work is a crazy bluff, but I doubt that’s sustainable.
It doesn’t really matter if perfect play is considered though. Games should be rated assuming equal competence. It’s not misleading if in fact your turn out to be a worse player in a game of skill.
The entire concept of a "stablecoin" reminds me a lot of something from SIGBOVIK 2014. Keep in mind, this was written in 2014, before any stablecoins actually existed, and that SIGBOVIK is supposed to be a joke conference where people present extremely silly ideas as if they were real breakthroughs. > DollarCoin: We propose skipping the middleman and providing direct proof-of-dollar with a blockchain that consists of…
Waiting 2 days isn't good enough for many applications, that's a lot of risk to take on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The billions of dollars of _backing_ should show up somewhere. https://twitter.com/dsquareddigest/status/140291428628503347... > again - who is on the CP desk at Tether? Who is their account manager at Goldman Sachs? Who do they talk to at, say, the GE corporate treasury? Commercial paper is a short term money market that has to be managed and rolled - you can't just buy and hold the bonds anonymously. Dan's argument…
From what I heard, Tether had invested heavily in "emerging markets" instead of the established US markets, which explains why nobody at Goldman Sachs has dealt with them.