5 ms·

Considering the market caps of other crypto currencies that serve no purpose whatsoever (other than going to the moon, obviously), one could argue that by being

by mckirk 4y ago

Considering the market caps of other crypto currencies that serve no purpose whatsoever (other than going to the moon, obviously), one could argue that by being interconnected with UST, LUNA is actually one of the more sensible currencies. Because at least it's not _just_ for speculative purposes. Though I suppose that says more about the rest of the crypto space than about LUNA's legitimacy.

betwixthewires 4y ago
You could argue that, from a naive understanding of how it works. Of course, it's worse than even a useless speculative asset, because it was designed to scam people out of money. The mechanism is designed to prop up the value of LUNA while the creators accumulated BTC, not to maintain a pegged stablecoin, as stated.
- mckirk 4y ago
  I've researched some more and come upon this article: https://kash-defi.medium.com/why-ust-is-a-superior-stablecoin-aff7d9651ce7 https://kash-defi.medium.com/why-ust-is-a-superior-stablecoi... I'd be curious to hear whether you still think it's a scam after reading it.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    Alright, first point in the article: > For every $1 of UST, there’s an algorithm to maintain parity with the US Dollar Well that was broken yesterday. The algorithm is not sufficient because you have to have collateral to maintain parity correlation. Why would I "believe" in an algorithm? It either works or it doesn't. This one obviously doesn't. Interesting the title of the section is "belief." Things are not worth what we think they're worth because we believe it. It's a common misconception. Something is used because we believe it will still be worthwhile tomorrow, but something isn't worthwhile tomorrow just by believing it will be. > Belief in the protocol based on its mechanics, its math, its history, and its team. Belief in it's team? Nobody in their right mind in this market would ask you to believe in a team. Belief in the mechanics? Based on the writing, I'd be willing to bet the author doesn't understand the mechanics. I do, and I've explained it in this thread a few times, it is nonsensical. Then there's an admission of investment into the project and therefore bias. Then ample appeal to authority, fallacious explanations as to why Terra is different than competitors with a similar scheme, "cash flow" which is laughable in a decentralized context. The author has the audacity to claim that Luna is backed by transaction fees. This is absurd. Th rest is just shitting on something called Titan and something called Iron, which are probably low hanging fruit. Go read about nubits and nushares and learn a thing or two about previous attempts to do this.

by mckirk 4y ago

betwixthewires 4y ago

You could argue that, from a naive understanding of how it works. Of course, it's worse than even a useless speculative asset, because it was designed to scam people out of money. The mechanism is designed to prop up the value of LUNA while the creators accumulated BTC, not to maintain a pegged stablecoin, as stated.

mckirk 4y ago
I've researched some more and come upon this article: https://kash-defi.medium.com/why-ust-is-a-superior-stablecoin-aff7d9651ce7 https://kash-defi.medium.com/why-ust-is-a-superior-stablecoi... I'd be curious to hear whether you still think it's a scam after reading it.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  Alright, first point in the article: > For every $1 of UST, there’s an algorithm to maintain parity with the US Dollar Well that was broken yesterday. The algorithm is not sufficient because you have to have collateral to maintain parity correlation. Why would I "believe" in an algorithm? It either works or it doesn't. This one obviously doesn't. Interesting the title of the section is "belief." Things are not worth what we think they're worth because we believe it. It's a common misconception. Something is used because we believe it will still be worthwhile tomorrow, but something isn't worthwhile tomorrow just by believing it will be. > Belief in the protocol based on its mechanics, its math, its history, and its team. Belief in it's team? Nobody in their right mind in this market would ask you to believe in a team. Belief in the mechanics? Based on the writing, I'd be willing to bet the author doesn't understand the mechanics. I do, and I've explained it in this thread a few times, it is nonsensical. Then there's an admission of investment into the project and therefore bias. Then ample appeal to authority, fallacious explanations as to why Terra is different than competitors with a similar scheme, "cash flow" which is laughable in a decentralized context. The author has the audacity to claim that Luna is backed by transaction fees. This is absurd. Th rest is just shitting on something called Titan and something called Iron, which are probably low hanging fruit. Go read about nubits and nushares and learn a thing or two about previous attempts to do this.