> Blockchains mathematically prevent fraudulent misuse of deposits > SBF would not have been able to defraud millions of depositors on a blockchain where every

> Blockchains mathematically prevent fraudulent misuse of deposits > SBF would not have been able to defraud millions of depositors on a blockchain where everyone self-custodied. Does the TerraUSD count? People self-custodied, but the blockchain was built in such a way that it went to 0 easily enough. Was that profound custodial negligence? It seems like blockchains that fail in such a way are a dime a dozen, and the end result doesn't seem vastly different from "$company running $TKN has gained a lot of money, and all the holders self-custodying $TKN have lost practically all their money even though $company assured them $TKN was safe". Is that any different in a useful way from "FTX has gained a lot of money, and all its customers have lost practically all their money which the company assured them was safe"? Practically every crypto "pump and dump" follows this scheme of a custom token ('blockchain' if you will), a company saying it's not a pump and dump, and users self-custodying right until they lose all their money. Perhaps blockchains prevent "fraudulent misuse of deposits", but enable "users exchange money for $TKN, which is definitely 100% worth something, and then it isn't", which really seems quite similar to me.