[Question] Anchor security and product vision

Well here’s the issue. Forget all the military grade security since that is completely a none issue. How are they actually making money and producing a yield?

Who is regulating them? Where are the audits and proof of reserves? This is just a bunch of fluff with no substance.

I don’t see how your qualified to offer such an opinion. Show me anything from Anchor that comes even close to what Nexo is offering.

How is Anchor earning enough to pay 19.5%? Nexo’s doing the same thing! Lending on asset-backed over collateralized loans… which, I believe was addressed in their comments.

So, what’s your point?

As far as I’m concerned, I’m done with this conversation.


Anchor yield is 100% verifiable of which a large amount is subsidized by the yield reserve.

Nexo yield is … ?

I like Anchor’s yield reserve. However, when I look at the growth trend of their reserve vs. the amount of deposits they have, there’s a growing divergence between the two… meaning, that deposits are growing faster than their reserves are.

This tells me their reserves are not going to be able to keep up and there will be issues later.

Nexo has customer service. Where’s Anchor’s?

Nexo addresses my questions, quickly and completely. I’ve yet to hear a word from Anchor on my question which I’ve been asking for weeks!

There are MANY questions which I’ve asked about Anchor… none of which have been answered by anyone. At least Nexo is demonstrating all they’re doing behind the scenes to build a solid, stand the test of time, platform. What about Anchor? Not a single word from them.

I’m done with this conversation because you’re committed to your biased opinion and facts don’t sway you. That’s ok with me. You make your decisions with your money and I’ll make mine with my money. I feel much more comfortable placing my money with Nexo than I do Anchor.

End of story.


Sadly it can. I mean effectively, for 99.9% of users. There are only two regular user accessible front ends to it: station dot terra dot money and app dot anchorprotocol dot com. Both are web sites operated by TFL. If TFL were not to pay its hosting bill, or were there to be a DoS attack, or their hosting provider go out of business or suffer some issues, or the DNS servers to be hijacked, or the domain name to be hijacked and DNS servers changed, or a physical issue like fiber cut or natural disaster at the physical location where the server those web sites run on, or… I could go on and on, for all practical intents and purposes, all user access to Anchor would be down. (May be a <0.01% subset of users would know and be able to use to use the CLI tools to get their money. The rest? No access to their funds and total panic, which would lead to a very bad scenario when the web sites came back online.)

It is very, very concerning to me that there is no proper desktop wallet for Terra and Anchor, that does not depend on TFL’s centralized servers and interacts directly with the blockchain. And that there are no non-TFL operated mirror sites for Anchor (as there are for Mirror). Now even if someone set it up, with all the scam sites, who would trust it?

What do you mean by proper desktop wallet? Could you give an example of a proper one on another blockchain? For example, Metamask is not decentralized either, Consensys runs everything for it and can even geo block users.

Even if the frontends are decentralized, which site would you trust and why? Seems like a larger issue than just Anchor or Terra even. All of DeFi has this problem.

Sure, for example Daedalus standard wallet for Cardano. It’s a full blockchain node. Does not go through any centralized servers. You have a direct connection to the blockchain.

That is how blockchains are supposed to work - without relying on centralized web servers (which defeats the whole purpose of blockchain). If you have any real value, that is what you use. If you are a hobbyist, then a web-dependent wallet like Yoroi is fine (if we stick with the Cardano example), which is arguably faster, but relies on ‘trusted’ (i.e., centralized) servers. The point is that there should a choice. If you have small change in Anchor/Terra, use the web-based access/wallet. But if you have real money in, use the full decentralized wallet.

There would be no site to trust then. You get a legitimate (always check the checksum when downloading, before installing!) copy of the latest full wallet, install it and run it. It should be up on github and other sites for download. Not difficult to verify authenticity of the download.

But failing that, at least there should be multiple front-end sites for the web ‘dApp’, until there is such a fully functional non-centralized wallet. As for what to trust, it would have to be community based, where you put your trust where there is enough critical mass using it, and where others have audited the code that it runs and confirmed that it is the proper code without any backdoors or such inserted.

And yes, all of DeFi, that runs on web ‘dApps’ (vs. full direct-to-blockchain wallets) has a problem. How it is now, it practically bypasses the decentralizaton of blockchain. The chain can be decentralized to the infinity, but if the only access is centralized where one party is in control (so it can be taken down, censored, and also an easy target to hack), well, that is the single point of risk and failure. IMO for dApps that don’t involve real money, such web access is fine. But for anything involving real money, there needs to be a full blockchain wallet/app, which interacts directly with the chain and doesn’t rely on centralized servers.

Edit: or at least support in third party wallets. TFL really should pay Ledger to add full Terra + Anchor functionality in the Ledger Live app (it’s not like they’re short of money). That would give an alternative to the current TFL-controlled front-end, at least for Ledger users.

Well if I can say my opinion, I do agree with @narco78 there. Nexo is centralized and it does look pretty with the state of the art security and such - but in the end, it’s the same situation as tether saying they’re fully backed by USD. In the other hand, believing in anchor is believing in aUST. I believe putting your money in anchor is inherently safer because you get to hold the aUST yourself in your wallet while on other staking services you don’t hold anything. But then, if you don’t think aUST structure is sound, just don’t put your money in anchor. It is that simple.

I like the discussion, but it’s weird that people are so idealistic nowadays. No one tells anyone to put all your money in 1 protocol. Why do we have to be so tribal?

It’s funny how early on anchor was criticized for having a very low apy and it can’t compete with the other defi platforms, and when it gained a bit of traction people starts to compare anchor with traditional saving products saying that it’s not sustainable.

Guys, we are experimenting right here. There’s no right or wrong. I do believe that anchor is not a product for normies. Heck, self custody is not something normal people would do because everyone are so spoiled having the banks do it for you. I believe there will be apps for normies that they can feel safe in ignorance. Time will tell.

1 Like

You need to research the differences between decentralized finance vs centralized finance.

If you need customer service then defi is not for you.

1 Like

I know the difference between DeFi and CeDeFi. I’m going with whomever I feel will give me the best product, service and value. And, that’s not Anchor.