Terra hasn't killed crypto, but it was a narrow escape

Jan

Jan

Who's the Boss?
Staff member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
13,694
Reaction score
11,444
Location
The Rabbit Hole
Terra’s collapse could have taken all of crypto with it

Speculation that the collapse of one of the biggest experiments in decentralized finance could bring about the death of crypto appears to have been overblown.

If Terra’s implosion had happened after a few more months of growth, the resultant market impact might have created a DeFi version of 2008 — instead, high-profile algorithmic stablecoins may end up being the main casualty.
 
Holding thumbs it recovers... Guess a few of us who bought at 2c will be instant millionaires when it recovers :ROFL:
:ROFL::ROFL:
 
Jan said:
Terra’s collapse could have taken all of crypto with it

Speculation that the collapse of one of the biggest experiments in decentralized finance could bring about the death of crypto appears to have been overblown.

If Terra’s implosion had happened after a few more months of growth, the resultant market impact might have created a DeFi version of 2008 — instead, high-profile algorithmic stablecoins may end up being the main casualty.
Click to expand...
Ja, I was about to come say this.
 
Snyper564 said:
There is a massive difference between normal peg and algo peg.

I DO NOT trust algo peg
Click to expand...

From my view, ignoring whales and the like, ordinary buyers are under the perception that the peg provides them with security. Then they invest therein, staking that investment to derive an income. Some people pile everything they have into staking.

It is a gamble.

All I invest in is ETH and SOL, which both has established and workable use cases, and TON and BEAM which I hope will produce more usability. I don't gamble, I leave it in there. I have withdrawn my BTC and related crypto some time ago already.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
All I invest in is ETH and SOL, which both has established and workable use cases, and TON and BEAM which I hope will produce more usability. I don't gamble, I leave it in there. I have withdrawn my BTC and related crypto some time ago already.
Click to expand...

ETH is fundamentally strong though so it most probably will rebound in the coming weeks.

And yes, the use cases around ETH will be getting bigger and bigger in the coming years.
Web3.0, DAPP's, DAO's.
Sounds utter rubbish at first (yes there is a lot of scammy crypto crap out there), but as a developer, once you start grasping the bigger picture and you can gradually start wrapping your head around the use cases and how it can transform the internet in the next 10 years - it's really fascinating.

Blockchain is still a very immature concept, perhaps on the same level as the internet was in 1995.

I do however think BTC will remain the gold-standard of Crypto.
 
It's very easy to say now that LUNA was doomed and that algorithmic stable coins are bound to fail after this whole collapse. But it was really close to being absolutely amazing decentralised finance vehicle. In a few years this disaster will be seen as a prototype for the next LUNA type algo stable coin ecosystem that will work.

The tech and ideas behind the whole on-chain mint and burn mechanisms that UST used with LUNA to stay pegged to the $ was excellent with the major problem only seen in hindsight that only $100 million of UST can be burned for luna per day to balance the peg out in the case of a market dump.

This and the fact that by announcing how much Bitcoin they had in the reserve to back the peg, the founder unknowingly announced how much it would take for an institutional whale to mount a short-selling attack to take down LUNA.

Amateur mistakes by a brilliant, arrogant team -> hundreds of thousands of people REKT! But so close to being brilliant!
 
Sensorei said:
It's very easy to say now that LUNA was doomed and that algorithmic stable coins are bound to fail after this whole collapse. But it was really close to being absolutely amazing decentralised finance vehicle. In a few years this disaster will be seen as a prototype for the next LUNA type algo stable coin ecosystem that will work.

The tech and ideas behind the whole on-chain mint and burn mechanisms that UST used with LUNA to stay pegged to the $ was excellent with the major problem only seen in hindsight that only $100 million of UST can be burned for luna per day to balance the peg out in the case of a market dump.

This and the fact that by announcing how much Bitcoin they had in the reserve to back the peg, the founder unknowingly announced how much it would take for an institutional whale to mount a short-selling attack to take down LUNA.

Amateur mistakes by a brilliant, arrogant team -> hundreds of thousands of people REKT! But so close to being brilliant!
Click to expand...
It was not actually. As an invention it was fantastic but as a product plenty of people warned this could happen, they just didn't think it would be near instantaneous. People who invested in it invested in the rise of the value the same as Bitcoin.

There's plenty of praise and criticism going around now. Some are saying that Kwon and his team were arrogant and that's why it happened. Others are saying that he's a brilliant guy with great ideas. Fair enough, he did something nobody else ever did and I'll rather have people in this world that do things and fail than those that don't and don't get anywhere. I'll give him that.

But he isn't someone who understands the market and economics. What's going to happen will depend on their next move not only for LUNA but also for crypto in general. Their plan won't work. You can't just restart as if nothing happened. ETH tried it and there were big ramifications. What ETH had going for it was that the DAO hack was an outside event so they can be forgiven for violating the immutability of the chain as that had already occurred. LUNA does not have that and if they interfere in this case they can interfere in every undesirable event. It breaks confidence in the project and crypto as a whole. This is one of the major criticisms of EOS.

There's also no evidence so far that this was an attack rather than just a failure of the protocol and a resultant collapse of both the coin and the algo. People might think that it's unfair for people who bought sub 1c to be rewarded and those who invested in the project to be left in the cold but that's crypto and if you don't like it then get out and better yet those people knew they were risking it all when they put their entire portfolio into LUNA. Let's think about it like this, if people knew that all their transactions would be void in the event of a catastrophe they have no incentive to get in and those early investors would actually suffer bigger losses. It might sound noble to try and reward them now but the next action will have an effect on crypto as a whole. If they do go this route and a blockchain can just be restarted in the event of an undesirable outcome there's no reason for new buyers to get in in the case of a big dump so those dips will get even bigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter