5 ms·

So is this presented as "evidence" to suggest there was an attack on Luna, that its depegging into a death spiral was intentional by some person or group of peo

So is this presented as "evidence" to suggest there was an attack on Luna, that its depegging into a death spiral was intentional by some person or group of people?

greatpostman 4y ago
Yeah someone found a flaw and took it down
Kiro 4y ago
That's probably what happened and not a conspiracy theory but that doesn't make Luna or algorithmic stablecoins less bad. If they are vulnerable to attacks, then they're not stable.
wmf 4y ago
I don't see any attack. It looks like a bank run caused by people exiting crypto. It has been known for years that algorithmic stablecoins cannot survive a bank run so maybe Wallet A knew that their withdrawals had a probability of triggering collapse, but I still wouldn't blame them.
- chii 4y ago
  What i want to know is who benefited from the crypto-run on luna. The run is indeed a self-fulfilling and a positive feedback loop, since a small disturbance in price could trigger some of the conservatives to withdraw at a tiny loss, and this could snowball. But it is also possible that someone intentionally did it, like soros did for the english pound back when it got depegged. But i imagine you'd have to be able to borrow large amounts of luna and/or UST, sell it short, then trigger this run, in order to make profit. Is there any evidence that someone did such a large borrow?
  - xwolfi 4y ago
    Do Kwon benefitted, everyone else was conned. The depeg of UST is more akin to a short of Herbalife than the Soros GBP attack. Remember the weakness of Terra was orders of magnitude easier to expose than that of a national currency.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > What i want to know is who benefited from the crypto-run on luna. Literally everyone who sold first, that is, the $hundreds of $millions of dollars that were sold on Saturday, May 7th, as described in this article. That's the thing about bank-runs. The *first* person to sell benefits. As the whole community slowly realizes what is going on, they all rush to sell at the same time. This causes the death spiral.
    - thematrixturtle 4y ago
      "Benefiting" is only relative: people who managed to exit UST at $1 didn't make a profit, they just avoided being left holding the bag. The people who actually benefited were those who earned the 18% interest from Anchor, which was funded by the suckers whose "investments" went to zero.
      - chii 4y ago
        > The people who actually benefited were those who earned the 18% interest from Anchor These people would have been better served if the whole scheme continued rather than killing it by a run.
        dragontamer 4y ago
        This was a zero-sum game. The loss of the masses who invested into 18% APY accounts is equivalent to the profits that Anchor made from this scheme.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > "Benefiting" is only relative: people who managed to exit UST at $1 didn't make a profit, they just avoided being left holding the bag. That confuses the issue somewhat. 5 years ago, UST didn't exist. Sometime in the last 2 or 3 years, Do Kwon started to sell millions, maybe billions, of UST to people, 1 UST for $1 USD. In fact, maybe he sold them for less than $1 USD, maybe he sold UST for 80-cents (to fund over a year's worth of time of 18% APY promises). Everyone who sold UST, over the past 2 years for real USD, got to keep the dollars. The UST bag holders are... well... the bagholders. They have nearly nothing left now. Even those who sold UST at 80-cents or 60-cents last year or two years ago benefits by selling before everyone else did. > The people who actually benefited were those who earned the 18% interest from Anchor, which was funded by the suckers whose "investments" went to zero. The opposite. A bunch of people sold UST to a bunch of others for 82-cents, maybe 90-cents (since it took less than a year for a UST to disappear). Thanks for your dollars, here's a bunch of UST that soon became worthless.
- Fargoan 4y ago
  It was a Soros style attack
  - 3np 4y ago
    What makes you draw that conclusion? With publicly available evidence, this is not clear. If not, please present your thought-process.
    - social_quotient 4y ago
      Maybe from this article https://beincrypto.com/terras-ust-de-pegging-a-brilliant-soros-style-attack-claims-analyst/ https://beincrypto.com/terras-ust-de-pegging-a-brilliant-sor...
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    Soros didn't attack. He shorted, betting against the pound. He's no more criminal than any other short seller.
    - Terry_Roll 4y ago
      Exactly, just like there are so many ways to legally kill people.
      - Ygg2 4y ago
        Such as?
        Terry_Roll 4y ago
        Start with, where is your evidence?
        Ygg2 4y ago
        That Soros shorted the pound? It's well documented https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday Shorting in itself isn't all evil. It prevents stock from ballooning too hard. It's very risky since in case you lose, your losses can be astronomical.
adhesive_wombat 4y ago
If code is law and its all deliberately unregulated, is it an attack, or is it simply an innovative leveraging opportunity?
- wmf 4y ago
  I don't even see anything innovative here. People withdrew their money.
  - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
    Perhaps, but I'd be entirely unsurprised if, if someone thought exiting the pool might destabilise it, that they might arrange some way to profit from that.
yieldcrv 4y ago
Its just a chronology with no conclusion Hoping to add more accuracy to the information available
3np 4y ago
What gives you that impression?
woodruffw 4y ago
Your "attack" is someone else's "well-executed and informed financial strategy." Absent a central authority that determines legitimacy, it's not clear why we should simultaneously accept the cryptocurrency community's churlish attitude towards financial stability and the crocodile tears around being the victims of said volatility.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Ponzi schemes don’t need much of an attack to collapse
TJSomething 4y ago
My read is that it's equally likely that it's an inexperienced retail investor who got spooked by the state of the global economy.
yhat1136 4y ago
In the mid-2000s two employees from Citadel left for Jump Trading and took some source code. Jump then took this strategy, improved on it and destroyed Citadel's HFT revenue stream. We're talking about billions in lost revenue for Citadel. I don't have proof for these allegations, but it is an open secret in the industry. There was a lawsuit a few years ago, but Jump was able to convince the courts that they could not reveal their source code because it would damage their business. Citadel was never able to prove that their code was stolen. Ken Griffin could certainly be strongly motivated to employ such an attack. And if he did... you have to admit it was pretty brilliant. This is something straight out of "Billions".

So is this presented as "evidence" to suggest there was an attack on Luna, that its depegging into a death spiral was intentional by some person or group of people?

greatpostman 4y ago

Yeah someone found a flaw and took it down

Kiro 4y ago

That's probably what happened and not a conspiracy theory but that doesn't make Luna or algorithmic stablecoins less bad. If they are vulnerable to attacks, then they're not stable.

wmf 4y ago

I don't see any attack. It looks like a bank run caused by people exiting crypto. It has been known for years that algorithmic stablecoins cannot survive a bank run so maybe Wallet A knew that their withdrawals had a probability of triggering collapse, but I still wouldn't blame them.

chii 4y ago
What i want to know is who benefited from the crypto-run on luna. The run is indeed a self-fulfilling and a positive feedback loop, since a small disturbance in price could trigger some of the conservatives to withdraw at a tiny loss, and this could snowball. But it is also possible that someone intentionally did it, like soros did for the english pound back when it got depegged. But i imagine you'd have to be able to borrow large amounts of luna and/or UST, sell it short, then trigger this run, in order to make profit. Is there any evidence that someone did such a large borrow?
- xwolfi 4y ago
  Do Kwon benefitted, everyone else was conned. The depeg of UST is more akin to a short of Herbalife than the Soros GBP attack. Remember the weakness of Terra was orders of magnitude easier to expose than that of a national currency.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > What i want to know is who benefited from the crypto-run on luna. Literally everyone who sold first, that is, the $hundreds of $millions of dollars that were sold on Saturday, May 7th, as described in this article. That's the thing about bank-runs. The *first* person to sell benefits. As the whole community slowly realizes what is going on, they all rush to sell at the same time. This causes the death spiral.
  - thematrixturtle 4y ago
    "Benefiting" is only relative: people who managed to exit UST at $1 didn't make a profit, they just avoided being left holding the bag. The people who actually benefited were those who earned the 18% interest from Anchor, which was funded by the suckers whose "investments" went to zero.
    - chii 4y ago
      > The people who actually benefited were those who earned the 18% interest from Anchor These people would have been better served if the whole scheme continued rather than killing it by a run.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        This was a zero-sum game. The loss of the masses who invested into 18% APY accounts is equivalent to the profits that Anchor made from this scheme.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > "Benefiting" is only relative: people who managed to exit UST at $1 didn't make a profit, they just avoided being left holding the bag. That confuses the issue somewhat. 5 years ago, UST didn't exist. Sometime in the last 2 or 3 years, Do Kwon started to sell millions, maybe billions, of UST to people, 1 UST for $1 USD. In fact, maybe he sold them for less than $1 USD, maybe he sold UST for 80-cents (to fund over a year's worth of time of 18% APY promises). Everyone who sold UST, over the past 2 years for real USD, got to keep the dollars. The UST bag holders are... well... the bagholders. They have nearly nothing left now. Even those who sold UST at 80-cents or 60-cents last year or two years ago benefits by selling before everyone else did. > The people who actually benefited were those who earned the 18% interest from Anchor, which was funded by the suckers whose "investments" went to zero. The opposite. A bunch of people sold UST to a bunch of others for 82-cents, maybe 90-cents (since it took less than a year for a UST to disappear). Thanks for your dollars, here's a bunch of UST that soon became worthless.
Fargoan 4y ago
It was a Soros style attack
- 3np 4y ago
  What makes you draw that conclusion? With publicly available evidence, this is not clear. If not, please present your thought-process.
  - social_quotient 4y ago
    Maybe from this article https://beincrypto.com/terras-ust-de-pegging-a-brilliant-soros-style-attack-claims-analyst/ https://beincrypto.com/terras-ust-de-pegging-a-brilliant-sor...
- Ygg2 4y ago
  Soros didn't attack. He shorted, betting against the pound. He's no more criminal than any other short seller.
  - Terry_Roll 4y ago
    Exactly, just like there are so many ways to legally kill people.
    - Ygg2 4y ago
      Such as?
      - Terry_Roll 4y ago
        Start with, where is your evidence?
        Ygg2 4y ago
        That Soros shorted the pound? It's well documented https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday Shorting in itself isn't all evil. It prevents stock from ballooning too hard. It's very risky since in case you lose, your losses can be astronomical.

adhesive_wombat 4y ago

If code is law and its all deliberately unregulated, is it an attack, or is it simply an innovative leveraging opportunity?

wmf 4y ago
I don't even see anything innovative here. People withdrew their money.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  Perhaps, but I'd be entirely unsurprised if, if someone thought exiting the pool might destabilise it, that they might arrange some way to profit from that.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Its just a chronology with no conclusion Hoping to add more accuracy to the information available

3np 4y ago

What gives you that impression?

woodruffw 4y ago

Your "attack" is someone else's "well-executed and informed financial strategy." Absent a central authority that determines legitimacy, it's not clear why we should simultaneously accept the cryptocurrency community's churlish attitude towards financial stability and the crocodile tears around being the victims of said volatility.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Ponzi schemes don’t need much of an attack to collapse

TJSomething 4y ago

My read is that it's equally likely that it's an inexperienced retail investor who got spooked by the state of the global economy.

yhat1136 4y ago

In the mid-2000s two employees from Citadel left for Jump Trading and took some source code. Jump then took this strategy, improved on it and destroyed Citadel's HFT revenue stream. We're talking about billions in lost revenue for Citadel. I don't have proof for these allegations, but it is an open secret in the industry. There was a lawsuit a few years ago, but Jump was able to convince the courts that they could not reveal their source code because it would damage their business. Citadel was never able to prove that their code was stolen. Ken Griffin could certainly be strongly motivated to employ such an attack. And if he did... you have to admit it was pretty brilliant. This is something straight out of "Billions".