4 ms·

The fact that these offerings are non-custodial is innovative, as is the fact that they are always open (albeit if there's high demand the fees may be high enou

The fact that these offerings are non-custodial is innovative, as is the fact that they are always open (albeit if there's high demand the fees may be high enough to be prohibitive) FDIC & regulation kind of makes it so for most people most of the time it doesn't matter that banks are custodial. Offering these services without being custodial is innovative though. EDIT: The other major (IMO) innovative piece is the permissionlessness. zapper.fi is a great example of being able to build something that adds lots of value (given you've already bought into crypto & defi) without needing anyone's permission to integrate into their systems.

lottin 5y ago
> FDIC & regulation kind of makes it so for most people most of the time it doesn't matter that banks are custodial. Non-custodial means the owner is responsible for protecting the asset from theft and operational risks. Nobody wants that, especially not in the case of digital assets, which aren't governed by property rights and instead rely entirely on effective control of the asset to determine who "owns" it.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
  Do you really believe no one wants non-custodial financial services?
  - lottin 5y ago
    I already explained why non-custody is a dumb anti-feature that only appeals to a small number of conspiracy theorists who haven't really thought things through.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
      Explaining something doesn't make it so and usually it doesn't do much to convince people of it especially when you are so clearly condescending.
      - lottin 5y ago
        I explained my point of view, and you haven't, so if you ask me what I think without adding anything new to the conversation, what do you expect me to do other than pointing out that I already explained my position? It seems that you don't understand how conversations work.
        X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
        You made the unsubstantiated assertion that no one wants non-custodial financial services.

lottin 5y ago

> FDIC & regulation kind of makes it so for most people most of the time it doesn't matter that banks are custodial. Non-custodial means the owner is responsible for protecting the asset from theft and operational risks. Nobody wants that, especially not in the case of digital assets, which aren't governed by property rights and instead rely entirely on effective control of the asset to determine who "owns" it.

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
Do you really believe no one wants non-custodial financial services?
- lottin 5y ago
  I already explained why non-custody is a dumb anti-feature that only appeals to a small number of conspiracy theorists who haven't really thought things through.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
    Explaining something doesn't make it so and usually it doesn't do much to convince people of it especially when you are so clearly condescending.
    - lottin 5y ago
      I explained my point of view, and you haven't, so if you ask me what I think without adding anything new to the conversation, what do you expect me to do other than pointing out that I already explained my position? It seems that you don't understand how conversations work.
      - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
        You made the unsubstantiated assertion that no one wants non-custodial financial services.