6 ms·

"Depegging" is an interesting term. A scam, bolstered by lies and fraud, fell apart. A made up claim that they could financially match a useless asset to a usef

"Depegging" is an interesting term. A scam, bolstered by lies and fraud, fell apart. A made up claim that they could financially match a useless asset to a useful fiat currency.

chrischen 4y ago
You’re giving them too much credit. A lot of crypto are just incompetence and failed startups. Not everything is a scam just because it didn’t work. Some were just misguided attempts (in hindsight).
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  They were warned of this exact scenario multiple times
  - chrischen 4y ago
    If you’ve ever done a normal startup you’d know you constantly get bombarded with warnings of failure, and more often than not those warnings are right. And it’s not necessarily because people know something, but because most startups fail and you have more than a 50/50 chance of being right just by saying “you will fail.”
    - cuteboy19 4y ago
      That is fine if it is just a loss to you and your investors. Not to your customers. It is like Elizabeth Holmes being told that her tests were faulty and she still does not fix them.
      - chrischen 4y ago
        This is just a startup that happens to be able to skirt investment laws. This is a failing of regulations rather than necessarily outright scams. If people could invest in regular startups a lot of people would lose money too. Elizabeth Holmes didn't have faulty tests. She literally lied and defrauded investors about having the thing she was working on. That's actually a bad example to compare to the UST situation because that thing was out in the open, including how it worked. A scam requires some deliberate deception or lying. A bad idea is not necessarily a scam, and dumb people knowingly pouring money into a bad idea is also not a scam. If it was a scam in any way, it was a failing of governments of wherever you lived letting you invest in this.
  - dchftcs 4y ago
    Also, a bank with this level of incompetence is going to be roasted by regulators. In fact banks are not allowed to take this much unbounded risk with their deposits to begin with. web3 people are cynical about the traditional system but they often forgot how much protection existing regulations offer and that the bad things are often due to bad actors slipping through cracks and make a big impact. Such as the Korean hedge fund manager that leveraged himself beyond what regulations allow in spirit by hiding his exposure. In crypto there are not just cracks, there are gaping holes.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      > The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks There are some costs associated with that protection; to put it mildly. It isn't like the regulators protected the system in 2008-era with their prudent de-scamming, they protected it by handing out money to incompetents. There will be a lot of pain from scams and immutability. It still seems entirely possible that in a few decades crypto as a whole will be more respectable than the US dollar. The US have been a reliable custodian only by comparison to other governments and there are obvious advantages to crypto vs currency backed by guns and printing presses. Although I do agree things like Luna are certain disasters in the making best avoided completely.
      - boppo1 4y ago
        > It still seems entirely possible that in a few decades crypto as a whole will be more respectable than the US dollar. The US have been a reliable custodian only by comparison to other governments and there are obvious advantages to crypto vs currency backed by guns and printing presses. Can you elaborate? I'm mostly pro-crypto, but it feels like it's really begun to stagnate since early '21. Also, How will proof of stake not lead to big incumbent actors that control everything, like the US bulge bracket?
        roenxi 4y ago
        > Can you elaborate? I'm mostly pro-crypto, but it feels like it's really begun to stagnate since early '21. My guess is the whole thing is going to collapse in a flaming implosion, leaving broken and dismembered financial entities in its wake. Then it'll rebuild. The cycle will happen 2-3x more times, building up some evidence for what value propositions crypto has and then the show can go properly mainstream. Something like the early internet. People got very overexcited, things fell apart, then a bit later the likes of Amazon turn up and start using it for serious projects. > Also, How will proof of stake not lead to big incumbent actors that control everything, like the US bulge bracket? No idea. Nor much care. If it is worst than the US fiat system then nobody will use it, if better then good.
wvlia5 4y ago
- sanderjd 4y ago
  I have paid for all of my shelter, food, and taxes with it, for decades.
  - wvlia5 4y ago
    I have paid with crypto (including UST): my dentist, my employees, my house, food. So crypto is "useful", since "useful" = "being able to buy things" by your definition
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      I just answered the question. Fiat currency is clearly useful, because it is used to pay for all the things people need. It's really pretty straightforward. What I would say about cryptocurrency is that it is somewhat useful by this definition, but much less so. With some effort I can pay for food, but it would require a lot of effort to use it to pay for shelter, and it is not legal to use it to pay taxes. Its usefulness is a small subset of the usefulness of fiat currency.
- splitrocket 4y ago
  If it's useless, I'd be happy to take it off your hands!
  - wvlia5 4y ago
    I'm not saying it's useful or useless, I'm asking for a definition of "useful". According to parent, "useful" = "being able to buy things". Which crypto lets you do. So, parent has some thought contradictions
    - splitrocket 4y ago
      I've tried to buy things with crypto. It's easier to barter. By a longshot.

"Depegging" is an interesting term. A scam, bolstered by lies and fraud, fell apart. A made up claim that they could financially match a useless asset to a useful fiat currency.

chrischen 4y ago

You’re giving them too much credit. A lot of crypto are just incompetence and failed startups. Not everything is a scam just because it didn’t work. Some were just misguided attempts (in hindsight).

cuteboy19 4y ago
They were warned of this exact scenario multiple times
- chrischen 4y ago
  If you’ve ever done a normal startup you’d know you constantly get bombarded with warnings of failure, and more often than not those warnings are right. And it’s not necessarily because people know something, but because most startups fail and you have more than a 50/50 chance of being right just by saying “you will fail.”
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    That is fine if it is just a loss to you and your investors. Not to your customers. It is like Elizabeth Holmes being told that her tests were faulty and she still does not fix them.
    - chrischen 4y ago
      This is just a startup that happens to be able to skirt investment laws. This is a failing of regulations rather than necessarily outright scams. If people could invest in regular startups a lot of people would lose money too. Elizabeth Holmes didn't have faulty tests. She literally lied and defrauded investors about having the thing she was working on. That's actually a bad example to compare to the UST situation because that thing was out in the open, including how it worked. A scam requires some deliberate deception or lying. A bad idea is not necessarily a scam, and dumb people knowingly pouring money into a bad idea is also not a scam. If it was a scam in any way, it was a failing of governments of wherever you lived letting you invest in this.
- dchftcs 4y ago
  Also, a bank with this level of incompetence is going to be roasted by regulators. In fact banks are not allowed to take this much unbounded risk with their deposits to begin with. web3 people are cynical about the traditional system but they often forgot how much protection existing regulations offer and that the bad things are often due to bad actors slipping through cracks and make a big impact. Such as the Korean hedge fund manager that leveraged himself beyond what regulations allow in spirit by hiding his exposure. In crypto there are not just cracks, there are gaping holes.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks There are some costs associated with that protection; to put it mildly. It isn't like the regulators protected the system in 2008-era with their prudent de-scamming, they protected it by handing out money to incompetents. There will be a lot of pain from scams and immutability. It still seems entirely possible that in a few decades crypto as a whole will be more respectable than the US dollar. The US have been a reliable custodian only by comparison to other governments and there are obvious advantages to crypto vs currency backed by guns and printing presses. Although I do agree things like Luna are certain disasters in the making best avoided completely.
    - boppo1 4y ago
      > It still seems entirely possible that in a few decades crypto as a whole will be more respectable than the US dollar. The US have been a reliable custodian only by comparison to other governments and there are obvious advantages to crypto vs currency backed by guns and printing presses. Can you elaborate? I'm mostly pro-crypto, but it feels like it's really begun to stagnate since early '21. Also, How will proof of stake not lead to big incumbent actors that control everything, like the US bulge bracket?
      - roenxi 4y ago
        > Can you elaborate? I'm mostly pro-crypto, but it feels like it's really begun to stagnate since early '21. My guess is the whole thing is going to collapse in a flaming implosion, leaving broken and dismembered financial entities in its wake. Then it'll rebuild. The cycle will happen 2-3x more times, building up some evidence for what value propositions crypto has and then the show can go properly mainstream. Something like the early internet. People got very overexcited, things fell apart, then a bit later the likes of Amazon turn up and start using it for serious projects. > Also, How will proof of stake not lead to big incumbent actors that control everything, like the US bulge bracket? No idea. Nor much care. If it is worst than the US fiat system then nobody will use it, if better then good.

wvlia5 4y ago

sanderjd 4y ago
I have paid for all of my shelter, food, and taxes with it, for decades.
- wvlia5 4y ago
  I have paid with crypto (including UST): my dentist, my employees, my house, food. So crypto is "useful", since "useful" = "being able to buy things" by your definition
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    I just answered the question. Fiat currency is clearly useful, because it is used to pay for all the things people need. It's really pretty straightforward. What I would say about cryptocurrency is that it is somewhat useful by this definition, but much less so. With some effort I can pay for food, but it would require a lot of effort to use it to pay for shelter, and it is not legal to use it to pay taxes. Its usefulness is a small subset of the usefulness of fiat currency.
splitrocket 4y ago
If it's useless, I'd be happy to take it off your hands!
- wvlia5 4y ago
  I'm not saying it's useful or useless, I'm asking for a definition of "useful". According to parent, "useful" = "being able to buy things". Which crypto lets you do. So, parent has some thought contradictions
  - splitrocket 4y ago
    I've tried to buy things with crypto. It's easier to barter. By a longshot.