3 ms·
There is a difference, the code for UST/LUNA was open-source and risks were out in the open. In contrast, a company can hide wrongdoing and you can be left wit
by aeternum 4y ago
There is a difference, the code for UST/LUNA was open-source and risks were out in the open.
In contrast, a company can hide wrongdoing and you can be left with something like Enron.
Long-term, I'd trust the algos more than the traditional system. Survival is a powerful selector, flawed ideas will be weeded out. Those that remain will be both resilient and transparent.
- yunohn 4y ago> I'd trust the algos more than the traditional system LUNA being an algo stable helped with nothing. Do Kwon erratically bought BTC at a peak and during this attack, it was "sold" but is now /unaccounted/ for. Further, they minted more LUNA and increased circulating supply from 350k to 7T in a few days. None of this is algorithmic, but purely (and messily) human-operated.
- aeternum 4y agoAgreed, there will always be scammers out there. Trust the code, not the human shills. Just as with a company, consider who has controlling interest. One advantage of crypto however is that the books are wide open to those willing to look.
- yunohn 4y agoNo, my point is that an algorithm can only control very few things - most governance actions are manual and attacks can exploit anything.
- aeternum 4y agoYes that's fair, but if you choose algos/chains with actual distributed governance then you at least the voting has to happen on-chain so you can sell if you don't agree with the way a vote is going. You can sometimes do the same with companies but definitely not always.