4 ms·
That is not true. The supply of luna coins kept increasing, which means that new money was being pumped in without corresponding sellers. Furthermore, while on
by hristov 4y ago
That is not true. The supply of luna coins kept increasing, which means that new money was being pumped in without corresponding sellers. Furthermore, while on one side luna coins were being destroyed to support the tera peg on the other side new supply of luna coins was being created and new money brought in. This new money went to the luna foundation which used it to pay the yield on the anchor protocol.
- nightski 4y agoSo anything with inflation is considered a ponzi scheme in your eyes? Just want to mention that I in no way support algorithmic stable coins, I think they are a joke (including luna/terra). But I also don't agree crypto currencies are generally a ponzi scheme (there may be a few exceptions).
- johntb86 4y agoIt's the impossible trilemma - you can't have * a fixed foreign exchange rate * free capital movement (absence of capital controls) * an independent monetary policy As a stablecoin, they claimed to have * A fixed exchange rate with the dollar * Generally free movement in and out (except for the 21-day redemption period, etc.) * an interest rate untethered to risk-free rates you could get on USD so it was impossible for it to work.
- hristov 4y agoI am not talking about crypto in general but the ancor protocol in particular. The ancor protocol provided 19.5 % yield without having any asset that actually produces that kind of income. It provided the yield from new investments coming in, which is the definition of a ponzi scheme.