3 ms·
Either I don’t see how this is or was a problem, or I don’t get it in full detail (not a crypto guy, I only follow the news). A crypto subproject - that explici
by wruza 4y ago
Either I don’t see how this is or was a problem, or I don’t get it in full detail (not a crypto guy, I only follow the news). A crypto subproject - that explicitly states what can be done with its contracts carte blanche style on minimal consensus - does it. So what? It’s on a high risk side by design, and unless they tried to hide this fact, it’s okay. Read the damn contract as you usually do, then proceed with your high risk based business. It is not even a “crypto” issue, and no, not every piece of “crypto” has to be fooish, barish and bazzing just like not every piece of open source has to be GPLv3. This is an excellent example that people may vote on a blockchain to have liquid agreements rather than having “code is right even if everyone’s screwed” attitude. The situation may be bad or surprising for someone, but the system worked as planned.
- mcintyre1994 4y agoI’m not sure whether this is true, because the governance vote to control the whale account seems to have been their first ever governance vote with a brand new DAO set up seemingly to take that vote. It is true that their contract will have had some upgrade authority, so people would know that the contract could be changed. But I’m not sure people could previously have been expected to predict that they might create a DAO and have governance votes with a few hours notice.
- tatertots1234 4y agoIt’s pretty much non-news to anybody who isn’t invested in Solend.
- sweezyjeezy 4y agoSpeak for yourself, I find it interesting.