I’m not sure getting more use of UST by ANY means necessary is a good idea. There are limits. Would you like if a terrorist organization started using UST to fund their illegal activity? No? But I thought it was supposed to be permissionless. What happened to the ‘code is law’? By the way it is a very strange saying, since a HUMAN had to write the code in the PAST to decide what happens in the FUTURE.
1 Like
Does it shock you that I don’t care who uses UST and for what they’re using it for? Drug cartels have used the US Dollar to fund themselves, I don’t see anyone not using the dollar because of that. Crimes should be prevented and criminals prossecuted to the full extent of the law, but controlling who can and can’t use money isn’t the way, hasn’t been and won’t ever be, it can and will always be abused. We don’t need to go much further, the GoFundMe scandal going on right now, they had the power to stop the money flow and they’re not abusing said power for something they believe is wrong.
People love controlling things, makes them feel powerful, if we control the money we can stop terrorism! No we can’t, they’ll fund themselves some other way, let them use UST and then use the traceability of UST to find who’s funding them.
So yea nothing happened to permissionless, and “code is law” there’s nothing strange with that, are you employed right now? Did you sign a contract? That was written in the past and now decides what happens in the future. The good old laws? Written in the past… Controlling the future. That’s how time works, you do stuff now and time keeps ticking… Would you deposit your life savings into a system that you would only know the rules of in the future? I wouldn’t.
1 Like
That’s how it is with Anchor, though. 99.9% of users have not read the code. Cannot read the code, as they are not programmers. There is no ToS or AUP that sets out the rules in human readable form.
So, with Anchor it is very much the case that you have several Billions of dollars of deposits that have made a deposit, based on good faith assumptions on what the rules are (a reasonable one to make is that obviously scammy things just by the name of it, like “degen-anything” or “magic internet money” will not have anything to do with Anchor, which is supposed to be about stable savings and borrowing, not scams and Casino-style games), and are now in for a rude-awakening and are finding out that the rules are very different from what they though it is. Why? Because there is no basic ToS/AUP, so there is no way for a normal human to actually read and understand the rules. If TFL/Anchor were interested in transparency, they would have a human-readable simple rule sheet that lays out the rules, that would be available before you deposit (e.g. have to check box that you’ve read and agreed to it). All it has to be is just an explanation of what the code is intended and designed to do, what you can and cannot do using the protocol.
1 Like
Seems you haven’t read the terms and conditions of service, since Anchor is packed full of them.
Not quite as permissionless as you expected right?
1 Like
And to think, all that it would take to stop MIM and any other imitators, is to add looping, “depositing” the same funds multiple times in Anchor, or any other gaming to get higher yield than intended for one’s actual funds, under section 9, Prohibited Activity.
If TFL wanted to stop it, they could easily do so.
1 Like
You have the documentation explaining every detail, if you believe that or not it’s entirely up to you.
You do realize that’s the ToS for the website right? The protocol has no ToS… I can create a website and make it available to a certain country only, won’t change the protocol. The website is hosted centraly, therefore it needs to abide by laws and rules of the country it’s hosted in, if they decide to release a version say on Akash or IPFS, or any decentralized provider, the ToS can be removed.
You really ought to make an effort to understand what’s going on behind the scenes, protocols can be accessed without the website, sure it’s harder and required a degree of technical skill but it’s far from impossible.
4 Likes
Does anyone have any information about EthAnchor being deprecated?
If this is the case, who has decided, when and is there going to be any discussion or poll regarding it? Also how is it going to be done since all previous discussion suggested that it was impossible.
It appears the Abracadabra team are already preparing their Degenbox users.
https://abracadabramoney.medium.com/an-important-update-on-the-degenbox-ust-strategy-8675049ee435
Well to be clear, it is hard to blacklist just smart contract addresses and that was what was originally proposed. Then it was proposed to shut it down, which shutting ethAnchor down without notifying the teams that built it and use it was not smart.
It’s going away because it becomes redundant when Eth xAnchor launches soon and no one will use it. No vote was needed to build xacnhor because anyone can build it. Eth & Sol xAnchor are actually being built with mostly support from Aperture.
3 Likes
Nice to see their implementing a management fee. Looks like capitalism does what it does best and efficiently allocates scarce resources.
2 Likes
This. Exactly. Crypto promised to be a significant improvement over traditional finance. We got, too often, instead scams and manipulation without accountability. And too many support this as fair market play.
1 Like
I agree, Real1. Imagine having to have enough pharmacological and medical knowledge first to understand the technicalities of physicians’ and pharmacists’ health care language in order to get medical aid. But DeFi’s common advice to potential investors is “read the white paper in detail” or don’t invest… I don’t think this will work for the masses DeFi claims to want on board.
2 Likes