3 ms·

One of my pet gripes is how so many tech websites do a terrible job at communicating what they do and what their tech is for, and deFi projects are among the wo

One of my pet gripes is how so many tech websites do a terrible job at communicating what they do and what their tech is for, and deFi projects are among the worst offenders. I came across one the other day [1] , flashy website, flashy jargon, but it's impossible to deduce what it does by reading the website. I had to feed a YouTube transcription into an AI and do some deep research and AI chatting before I could understand what they do. Perhaps I am dumb, judge for yourself. [1] https://flare.network/ https://flare.network/

shawabawa3 2y ago
It's just a lot of industry jargon so not surprising if you aren't deep in blockchain you don't understand it - layer 1, means it runs natively on an EVM Blockchain (Ethereum, Avax, polygon etc) - data platform, it seems like an oracle service, bring data sources from off chain onto the chain for smart contracts - proof of stake, people stake funds to assert the truth of data sources to ensure people don't lie
- fallinditch 2y ago
  Yes, but you've proven my point because you missed the complex mechanism at the heart of the system. the nitty gritty is where it gets opaque, for example: a user sends BTC to an 'agent' (collateralized data provider), the btc is 'wrapped' as wbtc and then the user can participate in deFi services in flare network. The user therefore enters a contractual relationship with the agent to look after their btc while they participate in deFi activities, and everyone trusts that the agent doesn't run off with the btc.
- fallinditch 2y ago
  You're correct, apologies for my previous misinformation. On further examination: the Flare approach, in contrast to wrapped BTC, takes a 'non custodial' approach and instead wraps BTC, xrp etc as FBTC using their FAssets system of overcollateralization + enshrined oracles. So the Flare network is more decentralized than the wrapped BTC approach, but it's not completely trustless, and introduces more potential attack surface. So in comparison to the wbtc bridging systems, one risk (of custodial misappropriation) is replaced by other risks of data manipulation. It's interesting to learn about this stuff, but the Flare.network website does a rubbish job of telling visitors what it does.

shawabawa3 2y ago

It's just a lot of industry jargon so not surprising if you aren't deep in blockchain you don't understand it - layer 1, means it runs natively on an EVM Blockchain (Ethereum, Avax, polygon etc) - data platform, it seems like an oracle service, bring data sources from off chain onto the chain for smart contracts - proof of stake, people stake funds to assert the truth of data sources to ensure people don't lie

fallinditch 2y ago
Yes, but you've proven my point because you missed the complex mechanism at the heart of the system. the nitty gritty is where it gets opaque, for example: a user sends BTC to an 'agent' (collateralized data provider), the btc is 'wrapped' as wbtc and then the user can participate in deFi services in flare network. The user therefore enters a contractual relationship with the agent to look after their btc while they participate in deFi activities, and everyone trusts that the agent doesn't run off with the btc.
fallinditch 2y ago
You're correct, apologies for my previous misinformation. On further examination: the Flare approach, in contrast to wrapped BTC, takes a 'non custodial' approach and instead wraps BTC, xrp etc as FBTC using their FAssets system of overcollateralization + enshrined oracles. So the Flare network is more decentralized than the wrapped BTC approach, but it's not completely trustless, and introduces more potential attack surface. So in comparison to the wbtc bridging systems, one risk (of custodial misappropriation) is replaced by other risks of data manipulation. It's interesting to learn about this stuff, but the Flare.network website does a rubbish job of telling visitors what it does.