4 ms·

CEL is a token，FTT is a token, SafeMoon is a token, the T in NFT is for token. 3AC didn't list a token but they were an investor in obviously stupid token schem

CEL is a token，FTT is a token, SafeMoon is a token, the T in NFT is for token. 3AC didn't list a token but they were an investor in obviously stupid token schemes - 20% inflationary APY with an algorithmic "stable"coin. The facts are that a lot of money was poured either directly into stupid/fraudulent tokens or into enterprises that made a big deal out of issuing their own stupid/fraudulent tokens. "only reputable teams were able to raise money" is simply not true. >the situation was much worse in 2010-2016 That might be true, but the people being scammed with lambo dreams in 2016 were a fraction of those getting scammed in 2021.

ETH_start 3y ago
Of those only CEL was involved in a token sale, and it wasn't an obvious scam at the outset, so the fact that it attracted capital wasn't unreasonable. It had known functionaries, and that meant that they could be arrested later on when it became clear they were engaging in fraud. Celsius and FTX (FTT) also attracted much of their capital because reputable and established exchanges like Coinbase were prevented by regulatory gatekeeping from providing competing products. The SEC ordered Coinbase to cancel its LEND program that would have competed direct with Celsius for example. >>but the people being scammed with lambo dreams in 2016 were a fraction of those getting scammed in 2021. I have no idea what the basis of your claim is. In any case, a proper comparison is to look at what fraction of token sales were fraudulent at the beginning of the token sale era, and at the end of it, in 2018. That tells us whether free market development works to create a progressively better functioning market.
- charleslmunger 3y ago
  Terra had an ICO in 2019. SafeMoon had its pump and dump in 2021. NFTs were sold at auction directly to the public. 3AC is the existence proof that token investors were not all sophisticated. >CEL [...] wasn't an obvious scam at the outset From the Celsius website: >Earn up to 17% APY and get paid weekly when you HODL your coins with Celsius It is not possible to pay 17% on deposits in a time of historically low interest rates while taking the low level of risk Celsius was claiming. The specific mechanism that was claimed, namely that they were taking a lower spread than banks, was obviously absurd. On the same website there is a diagram that is literally a circle explaining how CEL returns work. >reputable and established exchanges like Coinbase Gemini is supposed to be reputable and established. How are investors in its Earn offering doing now? My point was that the total number of people who gave away sovereign currency in exchange for cryptocurrency they did not intend to use directly (i.e., buying a pizza, publishing smart contracts, etc) was much larger in 2021 than 2018. I think we probably have different ideas about whether speculating in a manipulated market rife with fraud counts as getting scammed, but surely we can agree that crypto had much wider reach in 2021.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Terra wasn't one of the tokens you mentioned, and in any case —while fatally flawed in its design— was substantially less obvious in its shortcomings than so many of the projects that successfuly raised capital in 2016. As for Gemini, it did traditional lending. Coinbase Lend used Compound to do algorithmically enforced loans that are over-collateralized. Compound, along with every other well-regarded DeFi app, survived the crash with all loans paid back. In any case, if you're looking for anecdotes negating my point, you can find them. The point I'm making is that a much higher proportion of large token sales were baseless in 2016 than in 2018. I observed rapid improvement. I did not say that by 2018, every investor was sophisticated, and every project that raised capital was well-run, or responsible with the investment capital they received.
    - charleslmunger 3y ago
      >20% inflationary APY with an algorithmic "stable"coin Was a reference to terra and the anchor protocol. And while it's true that its flaws were less obvious than some truly stupid tokens from 2016, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the problem. In some ways it was actually a more obvious failure than dumb 2016 tokens. If I announce a perpetual motion machine, you don't need to actually analyze its schematic to know that it can't work the way I say. The same is true of a self balancing token pair scheme. A high school economics class is all that's required to understand why it can't work. An overcollateralized loan is traditional lending. It's a software-implemented mortgage. How reliable it is is dependent on the risk profile of the backing assets and the creditworthiness of the borrower. A liquid market is a workable but imperfect way to assess value. It cannot measure risk - the information simply is not there. Volatility is not risk. As for what portion was baseless... I think that's a fundamentally subjective question. From my perspective, the vast, vast majority in both years was baseless. I look at the entire cryptocurrency space as a place where interesting tech could have found value, but it's so infested with fraud and speculation that it can't.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        We can agree to disagree. A significant fraction of the successful 2016 capital raises had almost nothing in the way of a plan for how to achieve their goals, and were set up to make it trivial for the fund soliciters to scam the investors. Having anonymous project leads makes an investment proposal indisputably worse, and that was case for many of the early token sales, to give one example of a feature that investors demonstrably learned to avoid. Terra had actual development, a viable ledger, actual deployed dApps, and decent wallet software and consensus infrastructure integration, in being a Cosmos blockchain app. Terra was bad, but when the totality of the projects is examined, nowhere near as bad as what was once common. >An overcollateralized loan is traditional lending. It's a software-implemented mortgage. How reliable it is is dependent on the risk profile of the backing assets and the creditworthiness of the borrower. The protocols that now constitute DeFi primitives survived completely unscathed in the recent crash, while numerous centralized lenders both inside and outside crypto became insolvent. When loan contracts are enforced transparently and in accordance with terms that are immutably encoded, there is virtually zero risk of fraud and mistakes.

ETH_start 3y ago

Of those only CEL was involved in a token sale, and it wasn't an obvious scam at the outset, so the fact that it attracted capital wasn't unreasonable. It had known functionaries, and that meant that they could be arrested later on when it became clear they were engaging in fraud. Celsius and FTX (FTT) also attracted much of their capital because reputable and established exchanges like Coinbase were prevented by regulatory gatekeeping from providing competing products. The SEC ordered Coinbase to cancel its LEND program that would have competed direct with Celsius for example. >>but the people being scammed with lambo dreams in 2016 were a fraction of those getting scammed in 2021. I have no idea what the basis of your claim is. In any case, a proper comparison is to look at what fraction of token sales were fraudulent at the beginning of the token sale era, and at the end of it, in 2018. That tells us whether free market development works to create a progressively better functioning market.

charleslmunger 3y ago
Terra had an ICO in 2019. SafeMoon had its pump and dump in 2021. NFTs were sold at auction directly to the public. 3AC is the existence proof that token investors were not all sophisticated. >CEL [...] wasn't an obvious scam at the outset From the Celsius website: >Earn up to 17% APY and get paid weekly when you HODL your coins with Celsius It is not possible to pay 17% on deposits in a time of historically low interest rates while taking the low level of risk Celsius was claiming. The specific mechanism that was claimed, namely that they were taking a lower spread than banks, was obviously absurd. On the same website there is a diagram that is literally a circle explaining how CEL returns work. >reputable and established exchanges like Coinbase Gemini is supposed to be reputable and established. How are investors in its Earn offering doing now? My point was that the total number of people who gave away sovereign currency in exchange for cryptocurrency they did not intend to use directly (i.e., buying a pizza, publishing smart contracts, etc) was much larger in 2021 than 2018. I think we probably have different ideas about whether speculating in a manipulated market rife with fraud counts as getting scammed, but surely we can agree that crypto had much wider reach in 2021.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Terra wasn't one of the tokens you mentioned, and in any case —while fatally flawed in its design— was substantially less obvious in its shortcomings than so many of the projects that successfuly raised capital in 2016. As for Gemini, it did traditional lending. Coinbase Lend used Compound to do algorithmically enforced loans that are over-collateralized. Compound, along with every other well-regarded DeFi app, survived the crash with all loans paid back. In any case, if you're looking for anecdotes negating my point, you can find them. The point I'm making is that a much higher proportion of large token sales were baseless in 2016 than in 2018. I observed rapid improvement. I did not say that by 2018, every investor was sophisticated, and every project that raised capital was well-run, or responsible with the investment capital they received.
  - charleslmunger 3y ago
    >20% inflationary APY with an algorithmic "stable"coin Was a reference to terra and the anchor protocol. And while it's true that its flaws were less obvious than some truly stupid tokens from 2016, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the problem. In some ways it was actually a more obvious failure than dumb 2016 tokens. If I announce a perpetual motion machine, you don't need to actually analyze its schematic to know that it can't work the way I say. The same is true of a self balancing token pair scheme. A high school economics class is all that's required to understand why it can't work. An overcollateralized loan is traditional lending. It's a software-implemented mortgage. How reliable it is is dependent on the risk profile of the backing assets and the creditworthiness of the borrower. A liquid market is a workable but imperfect way to assess value. It cannot measure risk - the information simply is not there. Volatility is not risk. As for what portion was baseless... I think that's a fundamentally subjective question. From my perspective, the vast, vast majority in both years was baseless. I look at the entire cryptocurrency space as a place where interesting tech could have found value, but it's so infested with fraud and speculation that it can't.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      We can agree to disagree. A significant fraction of the successful 2016 capital raises had almost nothing in the way of a plan for how to achieve their goals, and were set up to make it trivial for the fund soliciters to scam the investors. Having anonymous project leads makes an investment proposal indisputably worse, and that was case for many of the early token sales, to give one example of a feature that investors demonstrably learned to avoid. Terra had actual development, a viable ledger, actual deployed dApps, and decent wallet software and consensus infrastructure integration, in being a Cosmos blockchain app. Terra was bad, but when the totality of the projects is examined, nowhere near as bad as what was once common. >An overcollateralized loan is traditional lending. It's a software-implemented mortgage. How reliable it is is dependent on the risk profile of the backing assets and the creditworthiness of the borrower. The protocols that now constitute DeFi primitives survived completely unscathed in the recent crash, while numerous centralized lenders both inside and outside crypto became insolvent. When loan contracts are enforced transparently and in accordance with terms that are immutably encoded, there is virtually zero risk of fraud and mistakes.