20 ms·
TerraUSD crash led to vanished savings, shattered dreams
- sbf501 4y agoAnd an avalanche of "I told you so". Don't forget that part.
- arcticbull 4y agoI mean, we did tell 'em.
- dubswithus 4y agoWho did you tell?
- arcticbull 4y agoYou're welcome to review my post history.
- dubswithus 4y agoDo you also welcome retail investors that haven’t heard of HN?
- arcticbull 4y agoWelcome? Not sure what you mean. I maintain a similarly opinionated Twitter feed. It’s also to be clear not my responsibility. This whole “nobody could have known” is as asinine as it was predictable.
- dubswithus 4y agoThere’s a lot of grumbling on HN and on Twitter but most won’t hear it.
- SilasX 4y agoOkay, I’ll bite. Your comment history doesn’t have you mentioning Terra, TerraUSD, or Luna before May 9, e.g. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=author%3Aarcticbull%20Luna&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... You just made generic anti-crypto recommendations, some of which look good in hindsight. That’s not the same as identifying the specific mechanism that proved to be Luna’s downfall; it’s more like being a permabear who predicted 8 of the last 3 stock market crashes. You can likewise claim to have “told you so” about Dai’s collapse, with equally good epistemic grounding.
- HWR_14 4y agoWhy can't I rely on "avoid crypto, it's a scam"? I have to identify every new coin and it's mechanism of failure?
- SilasX 4y agoFor the reason I just gave: it would mean that others could say “I told you so” about Dai/Compound etc not crashing. If it’s still not clear, imagine I was always saying the stock market is a scam and would collapse. Do I get credit for predicting Netflix’s recent tumble? Even if it happened for completely unrelated reasons to the mechanisms of collapse I was warning about? It’s fine to be risk-averse and avoid crypto as a rule; that’s not the same thing as knowing Luna couldn’t work long-term.
- HWR_14 4y ago> it would mean that others could say “I told you so” about Dai/Compound etc not crashing. No, they really cant. Like, I have no idea what DAI/Compound are, and trivial googling didn't answer. A random counterexample doesn't disprove every famous and/or high market cap coin crashing. To use your market example, if you kept saying tech stocks are overpriced we would judge it based on the performance of the NASDAQ. You wouldn't be able to say "well, Apple still convinces people to give them all their money and they're still doing well so you were wrong." Besides, it's not enough for the greater fools to continue to exist. There needs to be a credible mechanism for wealth to actually be created. > It’s fine to be risk-averse and avoid crypto as a rule Being risk-averse and avoiding crypto are different things. I don't touch crypto because I think it's a scam
- sumy23 4y agoPeople are so smug when they say “I told you so.” It really bothers me. On every negative story about crypto, so many people comment “hur dur financial regulation dur”. But that’s so easy to say after the fact. If these people really could foresee these events happening, then they could have made a lot of money by taking short positions. That would be a lot more impressive to me than taking cheap opportunities to feel inferior at others’ expense by saying “I told you so” after the fact. As far as I’m concerned, you don’t say anything unless you put your money where your mouth is. Anyone can give advice from the sidelines. Show some conviction. Disclaimer: the only crypto I’ve ever owned was $50 of eth I mined on my GPU.
- npalli 4y ago"Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" - Keynes. Why does only taking short position qualify one to speak on this issue. You could be right but get wiped out in the short term when the mania drives these shitcoins to 10-20 times their fair value.
- vba616 4y agoI was told a very long time ago to never sell something short because you have the risk of unlimited loss. But another drawback, from what I read, is that selling something short is taking out a loan, and if something is obviously a very lucrative short, then the interest will usually cancel it out. Free lunches exist, but if it seems really obvious, don't get your hopes up.
- phailhaus 4y agoShort positions: * Have unlimited downside * Are more difficult to get your hands on It's not really reasonable to expect everyone bearish on crypto to also take uncapped risks.
- sumy23 4y agoYou can buy short options that have capped downside.
- m3kw9 4y agoPeople talk about the great transfer of wealth in defi
- kylebenzlee 4y agoIts working. Markets are a mechnism to transfer wealth from the stupid to the smart.
- ntoskrnl 4y ago> TerraUSD was touted as a blue-chip cryptocurrency. Let me stop you right there. Terra was a barely 2 year old shitcoin. I don't think you know what "blue-chip" means.
- phailhaus 4y agoWho are you talking to? WSJ is correct: it was touted as blue-chip. It was not.
- ntoskrnl 4y agoI guess I'm talking to whoever was doing the touting. Not that it matters now.
- irjustin 4y agoThis is correct. I had friends in Anchor who had believed in the underlying asset, Terra Luna+UST. Sad day.
- tim333 4y agoEven Mike Novogratz who's a professional investor in this stuff had Luna tattooed on him: https://cointelegraph.com/news/novogratz-says-luna-tattoo-is-a-constant-reminder-investing-requires-humility https://cointelegraph.com/news/novogratz-says-luna-tattoo-is...
- SilasX 4y agoYep, just two months ago there was the announcement about Curve creating the prestigious 4pool of four stablecoins, which included TerraUSD and excluded DAI, sparking a rivalry, in which a DAI founder called the former a Ponzi. https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/tv1ejs/battle_between_decentralised_stablecoins_just_got/ https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/tv1ejs/batt...
- joshjdr 4y agoIn the defense of WSJ: >was touted as To quote another HN comment: >I mean, we did tell 'em. /s /shrug /eye roll
- Animats 4y agoOh, no. They had feeder funds. Stablegain [1] was feeding money into them: You can now earn up to 15% APY interest on your cash with Stablegains. This is 30x higher than in your traditional bank. You can deposit and withdraw using your preferred methods (ACH, wire transfer, USDC) with the help of our partner Circle. There are no long-term lock-up periods. Earn passive income every day We take care of all technical aspects of accessing digital lending markets for you. You can simply sit back and watch your earnings grow. The interest rate you get accrues every day. Stablegains, Inc. is registered as a Money Services Business (MSB) number 31000211740426 with the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). © 2021 Stablegains, Inc. There are people hit by this who didn't even know they had exposure. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220513142801/https://www.stablegains.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220513142801/https://www.stabl...
- ceeplusplus 4y agoThe biggest scam Stablegains pulled was to advertise taking USDC (most trusted stablecoin, backed by real, audited reserves), as to imply they were providing USDC lending yield, when in reality they converted your money to UST funny money.
- dustyharddrive 4y agoIt’s worth mentioning USDC (Circle) reserves have never been audited, and they don’t even claim to hold dollars anymore (https://archive.today/2021.07.12-223553/https://www.ft.com/content/7676451f-23a9-42eb-a179-c3ebbcfc0bff https://archive.today/2021.07.12-223553/https://www.ft.com/c...): > Until March 2020, the attestations said USDC was backed by dollars, held in government-backed US depository institutions. After that, they said the reserves were held at institutions and in “approved investments”, but did not give precise details about what those investments were. By June, it changed the wording on its website from “backed by US dollars” to “backed by fully reserved assets”.
- adrr 4y agoI always wondered if the USD based stablecoins just hold each other's coins in lieu of cash. It's like an infinite money glitch if it's circular.
- neonate 4y agohttps://archive.ph/HWJio https://archive.ph/HWJio
- jmyeet 4y agoI occasionally get asked by relatives and friends of what to invest in. Now I'm no expert but I guess in the valley of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Thing is what I tell them seems to bore them because, well, it's boring. My advice is basically this: Put your money in a broad index fund and don't look at it for 10 years. In giving this advice you start to realize it's not what people want to hear. It's not that they want to get rich quick. They just want to make a lot of money really fast. It's completely different. Crypto-skeptics such as myself could clearly see that the vast majority of Crypto Andys were motivated by nothing more than greed. There's no fundamental belief in blockchain technology. There's no correcting the (alleged) fundamental flaws in the traditional financial system. In fact, there's an awful lot of ignorance of why the financial system is the way it is and little motivation to learn (IME). It's just greed. So when I see these people get wiped out, I feel bad because that must suck and it's probably not the right time to say "I told you so" (or even "I informed you thusly") but I hope at some point people take ownership for their foolish decisions and do better next time.
- dubswithus 4y agoPerhaps they knew what they were doing just as startup investors take a calculated risk that their doggy social networking site might not be the next big thing?
- pphysch 4y ago"calculated risk" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. "Wishful thinking" is the more likely culprit
- dubswithus 4y agoSam Altman invested in Worldcoin. And VC’s are investing in crypto startups as well. Is there a YC partner that has never invested in a crypto company? I would love to know.
- makeitdouble 4y agoI think index funds are better seen as "savings" than "investments" in most people's mind.
- Proven 4y ago
- Drblessing 4y agoLet's not forget that 10 years ago the largest banks all failed. [1] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/financial-crisis-review.asp#:~:text=As%20for%20the%20biggest%20of,than%20ever%20after%20the%20recession https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/financial....
- effingwewt 4y agoAnd many of us thought they should have been allowed to fail. Profits privatized, losses socialized. Banks are far from innocent, but let's not forget that crypto has been almost all scams (Im giving thr benefit of the doubt that there may be a legit one out there somewhere). They wanted decentralized, unregulated finance until the shit hit the proverbial fan. People invested for insane returns and were surprised pikachu face that they could possibly lose money. I've still got friends right now screaming 'get in while it's cheap!' edit to add- this is becoming the hot potato many of us saw Wallstreet pull before. who is gonna hold it when the music ends?
- alphabettsy 4y agoMaybe an important distinction that these were the largest investment banks and not retail banks. I want them to be allowed to fail. As I learn more I’m not so sure.
- dehrmann 4y agoWaMu failed.
- dehrmann 4y agoRetail bank accounts are FDIC-insured. It was capped at $100k per account before 2008 (it's currently $250k), but spreading $177,000 across two accounts isn't a huge burden. Now for the Ukrainian, betting whether crypto or the hryvnia is more stable is an actual dilemma.
- dubswithus 4y ago> Keith Baldwin, a 44-year-old surgeon who lives outside New Bedford, Mass., saved $177,000 during the past decade. Last year he took his savings and bought USD Coin, putting it in a crypto account that paid a 9% annual yield. A surgeon saved 177k over 10 years? Something else might be going on here.
- gowld 4y agoHe also bought a mansion and a few cars and divorced and gambled a lot in Vegas and online casinos and hot stock tips? What's amazing is that this person put his name in the WSJ as a gullible fool who can now be targeted by spearphishing scams (including that Crypto Recovery scam that has was even spamming HN recently) and shunned by his peers and potential clients.
- MBCook 4y agoOk I’ve never tried to look into TerraUSD or other stablecoins before. So I have $100. I use that to buy $100 worth of Terra because it’s pegged to USD. Then I can.. sell it for $100? What’s the point? If they promise returns where are they supposed to come from? If my coins are pegged to USD how do they appreciate? Or is the idea they just give me more for holding? But if the coins are pegged where do they get the money for the new coins they’re giving me? If they don’t promise returns why would anyone invest in a stablecoin? If they give me more how is that not explicitly a pyramid scheme? I can at least see the argument for BTC based on past appreciation. This I don’t get.
- cowtools 4y ago>If my coins are pegged to USD how do they appreciate? Staking rewards. It's marketed as a necessary feature of PoS cryptocurrencies, but it isn't really necessary if the cryptocurrency is actually centralized anyways. Centralized cryptocurrencies like USDT just use it to entice buyers with rewards for just holding it, creating inflation at the cost of everyone else. This is a major reason against Proof-of-Stake: if you don't reward stakers, then they will be incentivized to abuse their powers and double spend. If you do reward stakers, it creates a ponzi-like incentive structure like this.
- troon-lover 4y ago
- pcthrowaway 4y agoUST staking had nothing to do with PoS though. The Terra blockchain's native cryptocurrency was LUNA. There was a relationship to LUNA, in that $1 worth of luna burnt would mint $0.999 UST, and vice versa (1 UST burnt would mint $0.999 of LUNA). UST was appealing because you could supply it in Anchor protocol, which was a money market. Anchor advertised nearly 20% APY on your supply, so it was appealing to convert your fiat to UST and then supply it to Anchor like a high interest savings account.
- TheTeriyakiDon 4y agoUST was not able to be staked in a Proof-of-Stake system. UST was lent (to borrowers) via lending protocols, and in return the lenders earned interest. This interest was subsidized by Luna to encourage usage of the UST stablecoin. USDT also doesn't incentivize holders of the token. Centralized or decentralized platforms may offer incentives for depositing token though, but this isn't done by Tether itself.
- xyst 4y agoBlockchain technology is heavily underrated. With this dip, it scared away all of the scammers, paper handers, and generally people that did not contribute to this space. This is the time where innovation will thrive rather than "get rich quick schemes".
- Tao3300 4y agoAs a rule of thumb, I distrust anyone who refers to blockchain as a "space".
- ls15 4y agoI distrust anyone who lumps together all of crypto and blockchain and then bashes it based on the worst apples. If cryptopunks and the latest NFT scammers are treated like they were the same, then that is at best uninformed, more probably intellectually dishonest and at worst propaganda.
- miguelazo 4y agoRight, because after all these years, and virtually infinite funding, the killer app / use case is just around the corner!
- nradov 4y agoThis is good. Hopefully all of those scammers and grifters who "invested" in cryptocurrency will end up bankrupt. I have zero empathy for their problems. Hopefully their misfortune will serve as an object lesson in the importance of making good choices.
- charlie0 4y agoComing from relative poverty, I can say that, counterintuitively, a lot of people way down on the socioeconomic ladder would rather gamble on a moonshot to riches rather than invest in an index fund. One large part of this is simply lack of education. The other part is the realization that if making close to minimum wage, investing in an index fund would still take quite a very long time to go up significantly. Give the choice of waiting 40 years for not a huge payoff or gambling your 5K-10K of savings for a potential 10x return in a year or two, it's easy to rationalize the latter. Of course, now I'm fortunate enough to be a well paid SW. The marginal utility of every dollar above 75K is low in the present, so I can put all that in investment funds.
- jjav 4y ago> Give the choice of waiting 40 years for not a huge payoff or gambling your 5K-10K of savings for a potential 10x return in a year or two, it's easy to rationalize the latter. Indeed. For someone who can save $25/month, if they invest it on an index fund for 40 years, assuming 8% average/year, by the end they have about 87K. Adjusted for inflation 40 years from today, that's won't be much money. So if you all have left is $25/mo, it's almost more rational to buy lottery tickets with it. Sure you'll almost certainly never win but the investing won't get you much either.
- chii 4y ago> gambling your 5K-10K of savings for a potential 10x return in a year or two, it's easy to rationalize the latter. which is why it's overwhelmingly large number of lottery buyers are poorer folks.
- effingwewt 4y agoToo true. This is why lottery tickets are called 'poor people savings'. It's especially bad in Mexican communities. I've seen so many buy them, scratch them at the counter, and go back for more. Sometimes they don't even play the 'game' they just scratch the barcode and scan them. No method, just hope. You can see the fever in the eyes sometimes, no different than casino slot pullers, or a drug addict getting a fix. Some of my family members (on the mexican side) spend insane amounts, $20/card and lost constantly. Easily spending thousands but all they seem to remember are the times they won $20-200. I've thought about this a lot, and think a better idea would be for people to pool money together, and using a program to choose several winners a day. once you've won you can't again for X days. once you've paid so much without a win you're guaranteed $x or something. I think it's along the lines of what insurance was supposed to be in theory. Without admin costs and some random people leeching money from the top (C-suites) maybe it'd work better.
- Animats 4y agoUh oh. Heavy withdrawals at USDT.[1] Half a billion dollars pulled out today, all at once. Almost four billion in the last week. The market cap for USDT has dropped from US$84 billion to US$63 billion in the last month and a half. Looks like we're going to find out soon what assets really back Tether. [1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
- SilasX 4y agoWithdrawals are supposed to reduce market cap.
- Sprite_tm 4y agoUntil liquidity runs out.
- SilasX 4y agoGreat, then you should cite evidence of declining liquidity if you want to support the thesis of Tether being about to blow up. FWIW, I agree Tether is flaky and worth avoiding (to the point of having a short), I just cringe at attempts to cite market cap as a meaningful figure on its own.
- Animats 4y agoThat's because market cap is one of the few numbers that can be computed from the outside. If they issued audited financial statements quarterly, we'd know more. Yes, there is their rather vague backing report.[1] [1] https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/1np5dpcwuHrWJ4AgUgI3Vn/e0dac722de3cea07766e05c52773748b/Tether_Assurance_Consolidated_Reserves_Report_2022-03-31__3_.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/1np5dpcwuHrWJ4AgUg...
- SilasX 4y agoYou can also look at how closely it maintains the peg, and whether it’s at a premium as much as it’s at a discount. (By which Tether does poorly.) It’s misleading to look at the market cap with the implication that it’s fluctuations are due to loss of value per unit (the usual cause for non-stablecoins). You might as well say that your bank lost $500 when you made a $500 withdrawal (while neglecting to mention the deletion of $500 in liabilities).
- macshome 4y agoThe Onion has a pretty good article to cover this sort of thing. https://www.theonion.com/man-who-lost-everything-in-crypto-just-wishes-several-t-1848764551 https://www.theonion.com/man-who-lost-everything-in-crypto-j...
- worik 4y agoWhat were they thinking? 20% yield?
- filleduchaos 4y agoThere are legitimate passive investments that can give you a 20% yield, but they're typically quite clear that they are risky.
- artdigital 4y agoI can explain my thinking about why I put money into anchor. I never expected it to last long and had a clear date set in my calendar when I would cash out, but to me it sounded like their decision to pump VC money into rewards. Lots of companies do that, see PayPay in Japan which used to give you 20% cashback on EVERY PURCHASE you made, with every 10th purchase in the system getting a 100% caschback, just so they can grow faster than others. It was bonkers and burned so much money, but now they are the dominant payment app in Japan. So for me, put money in, ride some of that 20% while VC money is still around, then bail. I also regularly monitored the reserve dashboard how much reward money was left, the ongoing proposals, and how the APR was supposed to change month by month until it reaches a fully self-sustainable rate. In fact, when reserves for anchor dry out, it was supposed to automatically reduce the rate to the sustainable rate which was like 4-5% or something. I also put money into UST on Binance to reduce my exposure to onchain Terra, because I trusted Binance more than I trusted the protocols. Well, long-story-short, about a week before my cash-out date Terra collapsed and I lost 90% of my investment. That was a lot of money for me and it will take a long long time to re-save that.
- _HMCB_ 4y agoCrypto is a _____.
- timcavel 4y ago
- andrewstuart 4y agoThere's nothing at all wrong with crypto if you understand it is a ponzi scheme and nothing more. With that understanding, you now know how to play the game - which is to say you MUST get out before the ponzi collapses. Your job as investor/gambler is to get in while the house of cards is starting to be built, and to get out before the Jenga tower collapses - and it definitely will. If however you play crypto and tell yourself how it's changing society, crypto has real value, the blockchain will change the world and all that sort of garbage, then you'll lose because you don't understand the fundamental system at play, which is the ponzi mechanism, with nothing at all underpinning the "investment'. If you truly understand it is a ponzi scheme then it's quite exciting - an open, legal, consensual, highly organised globally distributed ponzi scheme - that's something entirely new.
- pcthrowaway 4y agoInteresting take. I mostly agree, but I do think there is legitimate value in the foundation. Every time the ponzi collapses, the next jenga tower has a slightly higher foundation
- Balgair 4y agoI've gotten confused in the metaphors here. Do you think that with the collapse of every ponzi scheme that the next ponzi scheme is somehow less ... scheme-y? I'm not even sure what that really means, but it seems to me that ponzi schemes, by definition, always go to 0 in the long run. There are no foundations, just greed and misery. Can you clarify?
- pcthrowaway 4y agoThe ponzis are being built by people on top of slowly evolving layers of useful technology. Of course the actual building isn't tied to the hype cycles, but from the perspective of most people it's just ponzis swelling and bursting. There is real innovation happening though, fuelling the FOMO every time another bubble forms.
- deebosong 4y ago
- 1024core 4y ago> In the coming days, investors burned by the crash may receive funds in a new cryptocurrency, partly compensating their losses. Mr. Kwon and his fellow developers have said they are creating the new cryptocurrency as part of a reboot of the Terra blockchain network. Great. Whatever few cents are left will now be lost to this new scam from "Mr. Kwon".
- gonehome 4y agoLots of noise in the crypto space and the HN comments are always bad. BTC and ETH are the interesting and worth putting a small percentage of your holdings into (BTC [0] as an international store of value that has benefits over gold, ETH as the core programmable token that backs anything that stores stuff on chain to manage decentralized state). Vitalik is earnest and his writing is pretty great. Everything else I'd probably avoid (except to play with). ZCash's privacy protections are pretty cool. Outside of that risk is extremely high. Lots of bad actors, but also a pretty cool new technology with a new capability for self-custody. If someone tells you you can make 20% risk free returns, they're lying to you. I feel bad for people that lose everything making dumb bets. It's why all the institutional investor rules exist. It's why there are restrictions on trading with leverage. Still, it's annoying that I'm prevented from making bets (or investing in startups) because of people like this. I understand the purpose of the regulations and clearly there's a need, but it's still annoying. [0]: https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skeptic https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti... [1]: https://vitalik.ca/ https://vitalik.ca/ Somewhat related this article was pretty interesting: https://www.lynalden.com/what-is-money/ https://www.lynalden.com/what-is-money/
- merek 4y ago> BTC and ETH are the interesting and worth putting a small percentage of your holdings into At what price?
- gonehome 4y agoProbably any price for now, but psychologically easier when it’s down. If BTC does become a real international settlement layer then it’ll be worth a lot. It’s basically an asymmetric bet on that (which is why small % is good enough). Similar for ETH being the default for programmable token.
- ddorian43 4y ago> BTC and ETH are the interesting and worth putting a small percentage of your holdings into Extremely no. It's FOMO and no real value all the way down.
- miguelazo 4y agoWhy do media still frame the TerraUSD story as unique? A similar story awaits all of crypto. Sure, the particulars will vary a bit, but at the end of the day the assumptions that underlie their perceived “value” will crumble just as easily.
- SilverBirch 4y agoI think we really need to start talking about the broader "why" of why crypto. There's a good reason that we're seeing /r/antiwork and people throwing their last pennies into crypto. People have seen that those with assets got rich and those that work get poorer. There's no point aspiring to a better life through work. In reality what has happened is inflation that we don't measure. Assets are inflated by easy money but the government thinks this is apparently a good thing. Now inflation in the broader economy is coming, and the government response is going to be push us into a recession. So in the boom times the rich get richer, and during the bust the poor get poorer. This is not a sustainable economic settlement.
- pastacacioepepe 4y agoI've been working real hard for the past 10+ years and I have very little to show for it yet. In the meantime a couple of friends who never worked got rich(er) just because they bought a few thousands $ (money borrowed...from their family) worth of crypto at the right moment. What is this bullshit? Why am I even busting my ass trying to create value, when I could just buy shitcoins and become a millionaire? I don't think this is healthy for any society. I don't even want to get rich with a fucking lottery. I want to earn it, to provide something to others and get something in return. No, I don't consider "making a market more efficient with my investments" as providing value. It's just speculation.
- pototo666 4y agoI would argue that crytpo is not pure lottery. It's a risky investment. As every assets, crypto can be over-valued or under-valued. As someone from China, where central government limit foregin currency exchange, Bitcoin is a god-given tech. I'm not arguing for its value and i don't mean to persuade anyone. This is my opinion. I believe in its value. And guess what? I miss the crypto train too. And I have zero crypto investments. Because I don't want to take unncessary finantial risk when I cannot. I didn't borrow to bet on Bitcoin. In fact, I didn't bet at all. I didn't envy those who bet and win. Because there 100 losers for each winner. Hard working provides higher expected return than betting. Wise investmens and hard working provide higher expected return than hard-working alone. Just my personal thoughts.
- marcus_holmes 4y agoSo, what are we going to do about this? We've known that the whole crypto scene in general is a fraudulent, cynical ploy to get rich at other people's expense. Any conversation with anyone involved in the industry quickly reveals that their goal is to get rich from asset speculation. And that means for them to win, someone else must lose. The thing that the article describes is an inevitable consequence of this process. This story will play out again and again - gullible people getting their lives ruined by "investing" in crypto because they believed a bunch of blatant lies about it. This is fraud. There needs to be consequences, and the liars going to jail for deliberately destroying other people's lives.
- bowsamic 4y ago> Any conversation with anyone involved in the industry quickly reveals that their goal is to get rich from asset speculation. Do you really think if you ask Charles Hoskinson (creator of Cardano) this, then this will become clear? If so why bother with so much peer-reviewed academic research? Is that all part of the scam? Similar question about Vitalik > This is fraud. There needs to be consequences, and the liars going to jail for deliberately destroying other people's lives. I guess you haven't kept up on the news of how the South Korean government are dealing with Do Kwon and co.
- marcus_holmes 4y agothey have all profited by destroying other people's lives. It's possible that they didn't know that's where the money was coming from. But unlikely, because they're smart people and they have extensive knowledge of this industry. Where did they think the money was coming from, if not ultimately gullible individuals whose lives are being ruined by this?
- bowsamic 4y agoOkay so if I ask them it won't become clear? You seem to have changed this from "they will make it clear they are scammers" to "I think they are scammers" Also, there is a lot of VC money in Cardano and Ethereum
- randomran01234 4y agoSo we can establish that Terra's ridiculously high 20% yield was only sustainable so long as investors continued to put massive amounts of money into the protocol, but if a de-peg ever occurred it would create a death spiral that would send it nearly to zero and collapse the entire system. Let this be a signpost for future investors to avoid high yield promises and assume it comes with extreme risk. But the comments here are wrongly equating Terra to the rest of crypto such as ETH, and assuming everything will collapse just the same. The value of ETH is not that the price will go up or provide predictable yield - its primary use is as a gas token in order to interact with the network, like trading any token or depositing value in a smart contract. The price of this fuel can go up and down, but the asset will always remain in demand for as long as people still wish to continue to do these things on the network.