|
| woah wrote:
| It's funny to see the Economist try to view crypto through a
| traditional finance lens. The companies rescued by SBF are
| idiotic, promising to provide stable returns using extremely
| risky investment strategies. They are the bottom feeders of
| crypto, as well as being one of the most boring things about it.
| The Economist seems to want to make crypto reporting part of
| their purview- why don't they look at some of the interesting
| developments such as AMMs, algorithmic stablecoins, DAOs, etc?
| pru567 wrote:
| Aren't algo-stablecoins a refuted concept after IronFinance and
| Terra/Luna?
| bhouston wrote:
| Refuted means you can conclusive prove something. You can
| only say these attempts at algorithmic stablecoins failed but
| it doesn't mean they are destined to always fail. The devil
| is in the details and honestly Terra was run incompetently
| and for greed rather than as a true professional endeavor.
| clpm4j wrote:
| There are still some notable people in crypto who want to see
| the concept succeed. I imagine we'll see at least a few more
| try (and probably blow up) before they get regulated out of
| existence.
| lumost wrote:
| The concept is pretty interesting if there were real assets
| behind the coin. Problem is you would need a good
| counterparty... which means you need a good custodian...
| which means you might as well just use the counterparty and
| custodian.
|
| The only real benefit of the coin in this case would be
| programming derivatives without further intermediate
| custodians and counter parties. This could be useful for
| some back office finance activities outside of scams.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| Archived : https://archive.ph/Q3S7D
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-05 23:00 UTC) |