3 ms·

I appreciate the effort you put into your response! I think the conversation has diverged quite a bit from my original point. I’m not even trying to argue that

by rank0 5y ago

I appreciate the effort you put into your response! I think the conversation has diverged quite a bit from my original point. I’m not even trying to argue that uniswap is not useful or an improvement. Instead I’m pointing out that when we compare defi protocols to the traditional system, the core services are largely the same. Defi is an attempt to allow anyone to participate in the roles which are usually accessible only for institutions. That doesn’t mean those roles are just now being invented by uniswap/aave/whatever. Unrelated Opinion: defi’s practical utility comes from circumventing regulation and adding leverage to a crypto position. (Eg no KYC, selling AAPL tokens, borrow tether against an ETH position to buy more ETH)

dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
> I’m not even trying to argue that uniswap is not useful or an improvement. Sorry, I misread what you wrote, then. > Instead I’m pointing out that when we compare defi protocols to the traditional system, the core services are largely the same. Sure, I don't disagree. Why reinvent the wheel if it has already been invented? But... just because the wheel has already been invented, doesn't mean that inventing a "tire" is not novel (because a tire is just a fancy wheel, after all, no?). My point: in many ways, defi is replicating "service-types" that already existed in the traditional financial system (as you say); on the other hand, it is not replicating the exact same services (note: my bank does not allow me to borrow BTC from them) and in the same exact way. In a nutshell, defi is a "copy" of the traditional financial system the same way that "a tire is a copy of a wheel" (i.e. they are clearly not the same thing, and a tire is an innovation over a wheel, but they can also be thought as being "more or less the same thing", since they both are used to make cars move). > Defi is an attempt to allow anyone to participate in the roles which are usually accessible only for institutions. More than that. Even an institution cannot convince a bank to give them a USD loan using BTC as collateral. > That doesn’t mean those roles are just now being invented by uniswap/aave/whatever. Agreed. The same way that, when Dunlop and Goodyear invented tires, they did not try to claim that they had invented wheels. I am not sure you'll find anyone trying to argue that (e.g. that AAVE invented "loaning against a collateral"). > Unrelated Opinion: defi’s practical utility comes from circumventing regulation and adding leverage to a crypto position. (Eg no KYC, selling AAPL tokens, borrow tether against an ETH position to buy more ETH) Not necessarily just that. Even if I have no problems with any regulation that needs circumventing (i.e. I'm not doing anything illegal), and have no need to borrow crypto-assets, the traditional financial system (currently) provides no way to lend crypto-assets. If, for some reason, you have 100 ETH, you're going to use Uniswap et al., and not the traditional financial system (since that's not even an option, currently).

by rank0 5y ago

dkshdkjshdk 5y ago

> I’m not even trying to argue that uniswap is not useful or an improvement. Sorry, I misread what you wrote, then. > Instead I’m pointing out that when we compare defi protocols to the traditional system, the core services are largely the same. Sure, I don't disagree. Why reinvent the wheel if it has already been invented? But... just because the wheel has already been invented, doesn't mean that inventing a "tire" is not novel (because a tire is just a fancy wheel, after all, no?). My point: in many ways, defi is replicating "service-types" that already existed in the traditional financial system (as you say); on the other hand, it is not replicating the exact same services (note: my bank does not allow me to borrow BTC from them) and in the same exact way. In a nutshell, defi is a "copy" of the traditional financial system the same way that "a tire is a copy of a wheel" (i.e. they are clearly not the same thing, and a tire is an innovation over a wheel, but they can also be thought as being "more or less the same thing", since they both are used to make cars move). > Defi is an attempt to allow anyone to participate in the roles which are usually accessible only for institutions. More than that. Even an institution cannot convince a bank to give them a USD loan using BTC as collateral. > That doesn’t mean those roles are just now being invented by uniswap/aave/whatever. Agreed. The same way that, when Dunlop and Goodyear invented tires, they did not try to claim that they had invented wheels. I am not sure you'll find anyone trying to argue that (e.g. that AAVE invented "loaning against a collateral"). > Unrelated Opinion: defi’s practical utility comes from circumventing regulation and adding leverage to a crypto position. (Eg no KYC, selling AAPL tokens, borrow tether against an ETH position to buy more ETH) Not necessarily just that. Even if I have no problems with any regulation that needs circumventing (i.e. I'm not doing anything illegal), and have no need to borrow crypto-assets, the traditional financial system (currently) provides no way to lend crypto-assets. If, for some reason, you have 100 ETH, you're going to use Uniswap et al., and not the traditional financial system (since that's not even an option, currently).