5 ms·

If anyone wants to see an example of a company that is currently doing well at crypto insurance https://app.nexusmutual.io/cover https://app.nexusmutual.io/cove

If anyone wants to see an example of a company that is currently doing well at crypto insurance https://app.nexusmutual.io/cover https://app.nexusmutual.io/cover

TylerE 5y ago
Why are they any more trustworthy than your typical crypto company? (i.e. not at all) They don't have a list of board members/investors or a mailing address anywhere that I can find
- danielvf 5y ago
  From the link on the home page for the "notice of general meeting" for Nexus Mutual Ltd, the directors are: KARP, Hugh DANILA, Ionela Roxana MELBARDIS, Reinis MUNOZ-MCDONALD, Nicolas THURGOOD, Graeme George This matches the company and director information registered in the UK since 2017. Company mailing address is here as well: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10917763/officers https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...
  - robjan 5y ago
    The office address in that link is just a virtual office.
- vmception 5y ago
  because you can get claims approved pretty fast after making cheap policies for specific protocols and transactions. consensus on unexpected behavior of a smart contract is pretty quick. the insurance pool is filled by the risk tolerance of people wanted that form of passive income. If it doesn’t function as intended then complain about that and launch a competitor.
  - throwhauser 5y ago
    How many claims have they paid out?
    - danielvf 5y ago
      You can see on this page on their site: https://app.nexusmutual.io/claim-assessment https://app.nexusmutual.io/claim-assessment
    - latchkey 5y ago
      LMGTFY... https://www.yahoo.com/now/defi-insurer-nexus-mutual-balks-084811711.html https://www.yahoo.com/now/defi-insurer-nexus-mutual-balks-08... https://twitter.com/NexusMutual/status/1460313218430210058 https://twitter.com/NexusMutual/status/1460313218430210058 https://medium.com/nexus-mutual/paying-claims-for-the-yearn-hack-693bcfc5cd57 https://medium.com/nexus-mutual/paying-claims-for-the-yearn-...
    - vmception 5y ago
      I don’t know. I know of dozens of high profile hacks over the last year that left entire communities scrambling where some members and users had previously opened policies on one of the various insurance protocols and got paid out the same day as the hack. They were often recipients of the recovery path the communities took too. There is more than just Nexus Mutual. You can ask in their respective communities if they have stats on that, or perhaps run a query on dune analytics to see what actions their associated smart contracts have taken, isolate a claim payout and tell the query to count What I envision is the insurance choices being shown at the wallet level or opening policies is concatenated in other coverable smart contract transactions.
  - tkfu 5y ago
    That's a completely nonsensical answer to the question that was asked. It's frigging insurance--the whole damn point of buying insurance is to offload risk. Insurance where you can't be certain the company will be around (or actually pay out) when the shit hits the fan is completely useless as insurance, and it's either naïve or disingenuous to suggest that the solution to that is to "complain". And suggesting launching a competitor is just an extra special kind of stupid: if you have enough capital to start an insurance company, you're obviously not in the market for buying insurance.
    - vmception 5y ago
      In this model the protocols are often community funded and there is sentiment for more competitors. Just copy the same model and tweak a small variable. Its not the same as the highly capitalized opaque insurance company you need to be skeptical about, the analogy from a lived experience almost doesnt work at all. it does have the function of derisking things though. So it exists, I know it exists, you dont know it exists, I’m not the encyclopedia of the specific nuances of each protocol, so go check it out
      - tkfu 5y ago
        The basic argument you seem to be making is "This exists, and there is self-evidently a market for it, therefore it must be good. (Or, if it isn't good, tweaking some parameters could make it good.)" That's a bad way to evaluate the risk of something so new, in a market that is so volatile. People get suckered into buying bad insurance all the time, even in highly regulated markets. But anyway, I went ahead and checked out the white paper of nexus mutual [1], because I was curious. It appears to have a serious amount of hand-waving on one of the most important topics: the risk correlation between offered insurance products. They do reference the correlation matrix, but the only mention of how the value of the matrix is determined is to say that if independence between cells can be assumed, the math is very simple. Doing a quick search through their website and code, it looks like they are indeed just assuming that products aren't correlated, instead of trying to estimate real correlation values. This means that their minimum capital requirements (and thus the implied risk of default) are incorrectly calculated if that assumption is violated--which it certainly is. This seems to be by design, and baked into the incentive structure of the whole concept. There's just no practical way to crowdsource proper correlation evaluation and adjustment, and the economics stop being remotely competitive if you just guess at correlations and treat it as another risk to be hedged. You can see this later on in the white paper (appendix A), where they point out that the economic viability of the project depends on lowered labour costs because product creation, assessment, and policy issuance are crowdsourced or automated. Their game theory/tokenomics are focused on providing incentives for individual products to price risk accurately, however: they do not propose any mechanism for adjusting or calculating MCR based on correlation risk when new products/coverage are offered. This is further evidence that they're just assuming independence without any real justification, and thus being chronically undercapitalized. [1] https://nexusmutual.io/assets/docs/nmx_white_paperv2_3.pdf https://nexusmutual.io/assets/docs/nmx_white_paperv2_3.pdf
- jbkiv 5y ago
  Got it, the trust level is pretty low when you the very basic due diligence. I think Nexus Lexus is legit. They had to in order to get UK clearance. But I understand that they want to demutualize now and become a DAO. DAO is the gold standard for no corporate oversight. Fake profiles on Twitter and Linkedin. Thousand of fake followers. Incorporated in banana countries. And if they are incorporated at all. If the plan is a rug pull, then bypass incorporation, of course.
  - dralley 5y ago
    Even if they were a "normal" company, trust level ought to be low by default by virtue of their name being a fairly obvious ripoff of a well known lawtech and risk analysis company. https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page
  - phphphphp 5y ago
    I know nothing about the company but I do know about UK company law. A UK company is very easy to open, there's no oversight, you declare the truthfulness of your statements and that's it: it takes about 10 minutes, you could have a UK company by the end of today. The directors of the company in question are not British, so even in the worst case scenario where they break the law and are pursued, they can just skip the country and face no real recourse. There are some opportunities that can be a meaningful demonstration of credibility, like registration with the FCA, but I don't see any evidence of that for this company. I would consider their incorporation (as a cic, not a for-profit company) meaningless in determining if they're credible.
jbkiv 5y ago
Nexus Mtual and others focus on smart contracts on a protocol, rug pulls, and de-pegging risk Our target: consumers buying and selling NFTs and crypto. When we launch I'll scared to death 24/7.

If anyone wants to see an example of a company that is currently doing well at crypto insurance https://app.nexusmutual.io/cover https://app.nexusmutual.io/cover

TylerE 5y ago

Why are they any more trustworthy than your typical crypto company? (i.e. not at all) They don't have a list of board members/investors or a mailing address anywhere that I can find

danielvf 5y ago
From the link on the home page for the "notice of general meeting" for Nexus Mutual Ltd, the directors are: KARP, Hugh DANILA, Ionela Roxana MELBARDIS, Reinis MUNOZ-MCDONALD, Nicolas THURGOOD, Graeme George This matches the company and director information registered in the UK since 2017. Company mailing address is here as well: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10917763/officers https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...
- robjan 5y ago
  The office address in that link is just a virtual office.
vmception 5y ago
because you can get claims approved pretty fast after making cheap policies for specific protocols and transactions. consensus on unexpected behavior of a smart contract is pretty quick. the insurance pool is filled by the risk tolerance of people wanted that form of passive income. If it doesn’t function as intended then complain about that and launch a competitor.
- throwhauser 5y ago
  How many claims have they paid out?
  - danielvf 5y ago
    You can see on this page on their site: https://app.nexusmutual.io/claim-assessment https://app.nexusmutual.io/claim-assessment
  - latchkey 5y ago
    LMGTFY... https://www.yahoo.com/now/defi-insurer-nexus-mutual-balks-084811711.html https://www.yahoo.com/now/defi-insurer-nexus-mutual-balks-08... https://twitter.com/NexusMutual/status/1460313218430210058 https://twitter.com/NexusMutual/status/1460313218430210058 https://medium.com/nexus-mutual/paying-claims-for-the-yearn-hack-693bcfc5cd57 https://medium.com/nexus-mutual/paying-claims-for-the-yearn-...
  - vmception 5y ago
    I don’t know. I know of dozens of high profile hacks over the last year that left entire communities scrambling where some members and users had previously opened policies on one of the various insurance protocols and got paid out the same day as the hack. They were often recipients of the recovery path the communities took too. There is more than just Nexus Mutual. You can ask in their respective communities if they have stats on that, or perhaps run a query on dune analytics to see what actions their associated smart contracts have taken, isolate a claim payout and tell the query to count What I envision is the insurance choices being shown at the wallet level or opening policies is concatenated in other coverable smart contract transactions.
- tkfu 5y ago
  That's a completely nonsensical answer to the question that was asked. It's frigging insurance--the whole damn point of buying insurance is to offload risk. Insurance where you can't be certain the company will be around (or actually pay out) when the shit hits the fan is completely useless as insurance, and it's either naïve or disingenuous to suggest that the solution to that is to "complain". And suggesting launching a competitor is just an extra special kind of stupid: if you have enough capital to start an insurance company, you're obviously not in the market for buying insurance.
  - vmception 5y ago
    In this model the protocols are often community funded and there is sentiment for more competitors. Just copy the same model and tweak a small variable. Its not the same as the highly capitalized opaque insurance company you need to be skeptical about, the analogy from a lived experience almost doesnt work at all. it does have the function of derisking things though. So it exists, I know it exists, you dont know it exists, I’m not the encyclopedia of the specific nuances of each protocol, so go check it out
    - tkfu 5y ago
      The basic argument you seem to be making is "This exists, and there is self-evidently a market for it, therefore it must be good. (Or, if it isn't good, tweaking some parameters could make it good.)" That's a bad way to evaluate the risk of something so new, in a market that is so volatile. People get suckered into buying bad insurance all the time, even in highly regulated markets. But anyway, I went ahead and checked out the white paper of nexus mutual [1], because I was curious. It appears to have a serious amount of hand-waving on one of the most important topics: the risk correlation between offered insurance products. They do reference the correlation matrix, but the only mention of how the value of the matrix is determined is to say that if independence between cells can be assumed, the math is very simple. Doing a quick search through their website and code, it looks like they are indeed just assuming that products aren't correlated, instead of trying to estimate real correlation values. This means that their minimum capital requirements (and thus the implied risk of default) are incorrectly calculated if that assumption is violated--which it certainly is. This seems to be by design, and baked into the incentive structure of the whole concept. There's just no practical way to crowdsource proper correlation evaluation and adjustment, and the economics stop being remotely competitive if you just guess at correlations and treat it as another risk to be hedged. You can see this later on in the white paper (appendix A), where they point out that the economic viability of the project depends on lowered labour costs because product creation, assessment, and policy issuance are crowdsourced or automated. Their game theory/tokenomics are focused on providing incentives for individual products to price risk accurately, however: they do not propose any mechanism for adjusting or calculating MCR based on correlation risk when new products/coverage are offered. This is further evidence that they're just assuming independence without any real justification, and thus being chronically undercapitalized. [1] https://nexusmutual.io/assets/docs/nmx_white_paperv2_3.pdf https://nexusmutual.io/assets/docs/nmx_white_paperv2_3.pdf
jbkiv 5y ago
Got it, the trust level is pretty low when you the very basic due diligence. I think Nexus Lexus is legit. They had to in order to get UK clearance. But I understand that they want to demutualize now and become a DAO. DAO is the gold standard for no corporate oversight. Fake profiles on Twitter and Linkedin. Thousand of fake followers. Incorporated in banana countries. And if they are incorporated at all. If the plan is a rug pull, then bypass incorporation, of course.
- dralley 5y ago
  Even if they were a "normal" company, trust level ought to be low by default by virtue of their name being a fairly obvious ripoff of a well known lawtech and risk analysis company. https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page
- phphphphp 5y ago
  I know nothing about the company but I do know about UK company law. A UK company is very easy to open, there's no oversight, you declare the truthfulness of your statements and that's it: it takes about 10 minutes, you could have a UK company by the end of today. The directors of the company in question are not British, so even in the worst case scenario where they break the law and are pursued, they can just skip the country and face no real recourse. There are some opportunities that can be a meaningful demonstration of credibility, like registration with the FCA, but I don't see any evidence of that for this company. I would consider their incorporation (as a cic, not a for-profit company) meaningless in determining if they're credible.

jbkiv 5y ago

Nexus Mtual and others focus on smart contracts on a protocol, rug pulls, and de-pegging risk Our target: consumers buying and selling NFTs and crypto. When we launch I'll scared to death 24/7.