> The bug caused a misplacement of decimal points when refunding pavladiv.near’s USN. Instead of returning 4.9995 USN (about $5), the smart contract bug minted 4.9995 trillion USN
Don’t worry guys, we fixed the regex in our currency conversion code, so your money will be fine now.
.. and we did so in a “decentralized” manner. Because we’re the Decentral Bank, of course, and everything is possible if you believe in it, including arbitrarily modifying and fixing bugs in “immutable” constructs in a centralized manner. Thank god we didn’t have to halt and roll back the blockchain again, that always forces Joe to put in decentralized overtime.
These people are slowly but surely building a shitty carbon copy of the regular financial system and don’t even realize it.
> Is Loopring doing a shit carbon copy of the existing financial system?
No, that’s a shit carbon copy of order rings to facilitate the shit carbon copy of the regular market.
> How about FTX? You can claim some of the same bad characteristics, but certainly not the same systemic weaknesses, and frankly, types of disrespect.
.. that’s a centralized exchange like any other centralized exchange, with the added bonus of absolutely no regulatory oversight, compliance requirements, transparency and absolutely no asset protection. Considering that all this boring boomer-crap exists to protect market participants (so, you), I suspect that this is a level of disrespect and systemic weakness that’s almost impossible to achieve anywhere else. Anyway, what system, there is nothing “crypto” about centralized exchanges besides the assets being traded.
You’re probably going to contemplate decentralized exchanges now, so on this note I’d just like to remind you that not even decentralized exchanges like Uniswap or DYDX are actually decentralized, and even if they will be at some point, they will not be immutable, completely negating any of the hallucinated benefits to begin with, and they will probably never be either because it’s quite literally nearly impossible.
> How does this keep being repeated?
Because people with the faintest idea about economics or what a blockchain actually is are not in DeFi, so the echo chamber doesn’t even include the most simple concepts.
I have no doubt there will be very valuable applications for cryptocurrency at some point, but this shit ain’t it.
Yes. And this is precisely it’s benefit. This is by design. Safe guards are artificial, and ultimately distort markets. Extremely volatility is present right now, because this asset class is so new and poorly understood.
Some of us want to play with the safety off. Life is a dark forest. We pretend it isn’t with “safeguards” but they only mask its true nature.
Why does the "Decentral Bank" have safeguards and ways to modify "immutable" constructs just like any other web3/DeFi project then?
The financial system is the way it is for a reason, and crypto is not some sort of revolutionary unicorn that noone has ever thought of before teenagers wanted to buy ape pictures. Yeah, proof of ownership is cool and stuff. Meanwhile almost the whole of DeFi and Web3 is even running counter to the very core philosophy of cryptocurrency and/or decentralisation… and this comes from an early Bitcoin evangelist. I’m truly starting to believe that the crypto “investors” nowadays are the only ones not understanding this “new asset class” that for some reason is 14 years old and has CME futures. You’re not even playing with safety off, you just strapped a black stock market to a blockchain, handed the safety to amateurs and criminals and are playing with regulation off.
But yeah, the stupid nonbelievers, that’s why volatility must be present. First of all, what’s happening to DeFi isn’t volatility, and secondly I’ve heard that kind of reasoning before and it never ends well.
That is a decision only you can make for yourself. Some people
collect plates and spoons. Some
Collect stamps. Others like unusual coins.
Me, I’m all about the sats.
Stands to reason you wouldn't be upset by a stranger taking the tires off your car, because they were merely bolted on and that's how unregulated markets are supposed to work?
If only there was an equivalent unregulated food space. Wonder how many crypto enthusiasts would put their money where their mouth is. Or maybe crypto enthusiasts like regulations selectively.
Now. It was always an open food project and spawned many other unregulated powered food makers. Some of these are regulated today. I was into it years ago in the food hacking days and also when I was vegan.
I want a world where I can buy weird powered food from hackers without the man regulating it’s contents.
All of them are regulated. That some "food hackers" break the plethora of local, state, and federal laws governing the manufacture and sale of food products does not falsify this fact.
Frankly, what you want is insane. The reason we have laws and regulations for food content is to avoid killing people with botulism, salmonella, E. coli, lead, mercury, arsenic, cyanide... — basically all the things people used to die of before they got sick of dealing with food-borne illnesses and poisoning and demanded regulations.
The regulations aren't even that onerous. I helped my wife start a food business, and the costs are not anything exorbitant; commercial kitchen space, testing for shelf-stability, and some local certifications. It was profitable enough for someone who is selling as a hobby, but anyone serious would buy or build a kitchen to reduce ongoing costs and boost profit.
If someone wants to invest in a startup, wouldn't they prefer to use a system that, you know, isn't going to be decentralized? Traditional (or should i use the term "legacy"?) startup investing already has a huge slew of issues regarding trust, curious to know how decentralized systems are going to mitigate that and AFAIK the blockchain world is no stranger to con artists.
Most us just want the ability to invest in startups but can't because they're not rich enough to be deemed an "accredited investor" or are of the wrong nationality.
Being decentralized is useful insofar that nobody can prevent me for entering into mutually beneficial financial relationships.
"...they're not rich enough to be deemed an "accredited investor"..." startup investing is not Kickstarter and both the investors and the recipients tend to like knowing that there is some merit behind the money.
"...are of the wrong nationality." not sure what you're trying to imply there but regardless of whether you're investing through a "decentralized" investment system or "traditionally", you're still going to have to abide by the laws of the jurisdiction the company is in.
"...nobody can prevent me for entering into mutually beneficial financial relationships" and nobody can help you if the "mutually beneficial financial relationship" (which is quite a bold thing to imply) is going to turn out to be one way beneficial ;-)
Don’t worry guys, we fixed the regex in our currency conversion code, so your money will be fine now.