3 ms·
Maybe not having that ability be available to "anyone" is actually a good thing.
by VectorLock 4y ago
Maybe not having that ability be available to "anyone" is actually a good thing.
- thebeastie 4y agoWell, they’re kind of limited in what they can do with it because of the requirement to make a profit in an atomic transaction. But I think the conversation we should be having is, do we want to move towards more resilient markets, given that the additional security will carry a heavy cost in terms of productivity? I’m sure there are arguments both ways but it seems like we don’t have the full picture yet.
- VectorLock 4y agoThey might be limited but people seem to be figuring out how to cause all kinds of havoc with them.
- postcynical 4y agoAgree. Only fine men like George Soros and companies willing to pay enough to lawyers should be able to do so. Also open source software should be banned, as everyone can search for security exploits. I see it the same with flash loans, etc. It forces DeFi protocols to safeguard against all attack vectors, resulting in a much more secure environment.
- poopypoopington 4y agoAnyone includes George Soros
- VectorLock 4y ago"Hardening against all attack vectors" seems to be working out as well in DeFi as it is in the rest of the technology world.
- everfree 4y agoWhat benefit is there in restricting the use of large amounts of capital to actors who control that capital free and clear?
- closedloop129 4y agoLike Reddit, HN and Lemmy.ml - different selection of investors leads to different preferences. The various economies in the world show that not all investors create the same results. Restricting big investments to investors who were successful in the past seems to be not the worst idea.