4 ms·

I'd argue that UST / Anchor is more transparent tbh. Anyone can read the source code, or (more accessibly) the docs and get a pretty good understanding of how i

by xur17 4y ago

I'd argue that UST / Anchor is more transparent tbh. Anyone can read the source code, or (more accessibly) the docs and get a pretty good understanding of how it works. For example: UST [0] - anyone can mint UST by burning $1 worth of LUNA, or mint LUNA by burning $1 worth of UST. With a bit of deductive reasoning, it's pretty clear that in a "race for the exits" scenario, infinite LUNA will be minted, driving the price of UST to zero. [0] https://docs.terra.money/docs/learn/protocol.html https://docs.terra.money/docs/learn/protocol.html

throwawaygh 4y ago
> Anyone can read the source code, or (more accessibly) the docs and get a pretty good understanding of how it works. I really hope this argument is made in court.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  'Members of the jury, anyone can read the source code ...'
  - xur17 4y ago
    Haha, I totally get where you're coming from. From my perspective, I will say that compared to other "investments", I really felt like I could understand the risks with UST. I had money invested, but because I understood the mechanisms I understood how it could fail, and had an idea of the probability. I wish it was possible to replicate this visibility for other investments - the lengthy "disclosures" are no where near as useful as full visibilty into market mechanisms, and real time data on assets / liabilities.