3 ms·

A better title would be "Solend seized $170MM of user funds". Claiming it was done by "Solana" is incorrect. Claiming it's to prevent a drop in Solana's price

by flaque 4y ago

A better title would be "Solend seized $170MM of user funds". Claiming it was done by "Solana" is incorrect. Claiming it's to prevent a drop in Solana's price is clickbait & editorializing.

dang 4y ago
Ok, we've changed the title to that. (Submitted title was "Solend just seized $170MM of user funds to prevent a decrease in Solana's price".) If someone suggests a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the submitted article), we can change it again. And if there's a better URL than the Reddit thread, we can change that too.
- smoe 4y ago
  I think a better url would be the governance proposal itself https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxPMnXJUZ1Hn/proposal/HuaL6cDtuNtfnJgvwMnYiZDHVCoLAuDtVFgJD8kYChJ4 https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxP... Linked from this tweet by solend https://twitter.com/solendprotocol/status/1538441350441422848 https://twitter.com/solendprotocol/status/153844135044142284...
  - rvz 4y ago
    That first link is very accurate and already explains the proposal in depth rather than the clickbait and low effort reddit post who are reacting aggressively and screeching at the headline. Speaking of which suggests to me that the majority of the tribal redditors in that subreddit commenting have not been around since the controversial Ethereum DAO hack which already abandoned the nonsensical 'cOdE iS lAW' idea and already set that precedent and is no different to what is happening to Solend on Solana. So it is no surprise that the majority of DeFi, DAOs, etc has been one giant scam which will result in the collapse of many tokens, projects and even blockchains because of these false promises from the very beginning. The reality is that after regulations come in, only a select few blockchains projects will stick around.
  - dang 4y ago
    I have zero clue what's going on with this story—seriously zero—but my spidey sense is that if we change the URL to either one of those, we'll trigger a bunch of complaints about it being one-sided. That's not to say the current URL is the best one. But probably a neutral third-party source would be better, though such a thing may not exist.
    - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
      I’m planning on writing a book about you, btw That’s how much I appreciate what you do here. Your “spidey-senses” are invaluable. I hope you train a mentor before you leave us.
    - pcthrowaway 4y ago
      I work in crypto. I have nearly no stake in Solana or any Solana based project, but I have done a little bit of smart contract programming on Ethereum (actually working on changes to a popular lending protocol that has built-in governance for upgrades) My personal opinion is that the Governance URL would be far more neutral than any article or thread where people are piling on to use this to criticize Solana (the same change to a protocol could happen, and probably has happened, on Ethereum). The /r/cryptocurrency subreddit is not neutral when it comes to Solana, and 99% of the commenters don't understand what they're talking about. Criticizing Solend if the proposed changes are made is fair, but this is basically how DAOs work... token holders vote to make proposed changes. If you don't like the existing implementation and governance process, you should avoid the protocol, or pay attention to what might change that could affect you. If I sign up for a web service and agree to a ToS (which always says it may change and that continued use means I'm agreeing to any future changes), I have far less transparency into what changes might be made. Solend users agreed to the protocol implementation which includes upgrading without a timelock (bad practice). But at least there is a governance process, which gives users a chance to get out when unfavourable changes are happening. Also, I don't know enough about Solend or Solana to verify this, but users of lending protocols typically get a distribution of the governance token based on their stake, which means the "whale" being discussed likely could block this vote if they wanted to.
SilasX 4y ago
>Claiming it's to prevent a drop in Solana's price is clickbait & editorializing. But … that’s one of the reasons they cite in justifying the proposal. >> It'd be difficult for the market to absorb such an impact since liquidators generally market sell on DEXes. In the worst case, Solend could end up with bad debt. This could cause chaos, putting a strain on the Solana network. Liquidators would be especially active and spamming the liquidate function, which has been known to be a factor causing Solana to go down in the past. https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxPMnXJUZ1Hn/proposal/HuaL6cDtuNtfnJgvwMnYiZDHVCoLAuDtVFgJD8kYChJ4 https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxP...

by flaque 4y ago

A better title would be "Solend seized $170MM of user funds". Claiming it was done by "Solana" is incorrect. Claiming it's to prevent a drop in Solana's price is clickbait & editorializing.

dang 4y ago

Ok, we've changed the title to that. (Submitted title was "Solend just seized $170MM of user funds to prevent a decrease in Solana's price".) If someone suggests a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the submitted article), we can change it again. And if there's a better URL than the Reddit thread, we can change that too.

smoe 4y ago
I think a better url would be the governance proposal itself https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxPMnXJUZ1Hn/proposal/HuaL6cDtuNtfnJgvwMnYiZDHVCoLAuDtVFgJD8kYChJ4 https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxP... Linked from this tweet by solend https://twitter.com/solendprotocol/status/1538441350441422848 https://twitter.com/solendprotocol/status/153844135044142284...
- rvz 4y ago
  That first link is very accurate and already explains the proposal in depth rather than the clickbait and low effort reddit post who are reacting aggressively and screeching at the headline. Speaking of which suggests to me that the majority of the tribal redditors in that subreddit commenting have not been around since the controversial Ethereum DAO hack which already abandoned the nonsensical 'cOdE iS lAW' idea and already set that precedent and is no different to what is happening to Solend on Solana. So it is no surprise that the majority of DeFi, DAOs, etc has been one giant scam which will result in the collapse of many tokens, projects and even blockchains because of these false promises from the very beginning. The reality is that after regulations come in, only a select few blockchains projects will stick around.
- dang 4y ago
  I have zero clue what's going on with this story—seriously zero—but my spidey sense is that if we change the URL to either one of those, we'll trigger a bunch of complaints about it being one-sided. That's not to say the current URL is the best one. But probably a neutral third-party source would be better, though such a thing may not exist.
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    I’m planning on writing a book about you, btw That’s how much I appreciate what you do here. Your “spidey-senses” are invaluable. I hope you train a mentor before you leave us.
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    I work in crypto. I have nearly no stake in Solana or any Solana based project, but I have done a little bit of smart contract programming on Ethereum (actually working on changes to a popular lending protocol that has built-in governance for upgrades) My personal opinion is that the Governance URL would be far more neutral than any article or thread where people are piling on to use this to criticize Solana (the same change to a protocol could happen, and probably has happened, on Ethereum). The /r/cryptocurrency subreddit is not neutral when it comes to Solana, and 99% of the commenters don't understand what they're talking about. Criticizing Solend if the proposed changes are made is fair, but this is basically how DAOs work... token holders vote to make proposed changes. If you don't like the existing implementation and governance process, you should avoid the protocol, or pay attention to what might change that could affect you. If I sign up for a web service and agree to a ToS (which always says it may change and that continued use means I'm agreeing to any future changes), I have far less transparency into what changes might be made. Solend users agreed to the protocol implementation which includes upgrading without a timelock (bad practice). But at least there is a governance process, which gives users a chance to get out when unfavourable changes are happening. Also, I don't know enough about Solend or Solana to verify this, but users of lending protocols typically get a distribution of the governance token based on their stake, which means the "whale" being discussed likely could block this vote if they wanted to.

SilasX 4y ago

>Claiming it's to prevent a drop in Solana's price is clickbait & editorializing. But … that’s one of the reasons they cite in justifying the proposal. >> It'd be difficult for the market to absorb such an impact since liquidators generally market sell on DEXes. In the worst case, Solend could end up with bad debt. This could cause chaos, putting a strain on the Solana network. Liquidators would be especially active and spamming the liquidate function, which has been known to be a factor causing Solana to go down in the past. https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxPMnXJUZ1Hn/proposal/HuaL6cDtuNtfnJgvwMnYiZDHVCoLAuDtVFgJD8kYChJ4 https://realms.today/dao/7sf3tcWm58vhtkJMwuw2P3T6UBX7UE5VKxP...