> Not using their custody doesn’t fully protect you from their actions.
Sure, but this is market risk, not counter-party risk, and is unmitigated in traditional markets as well. Just look at how Apple stock was affected by Lehman Brothers’ failure.
> Cryptocurrency does not settle instantaneously, in fact credit cards are usually faster.
Come again? If you pay me for goods using crypto, I can spend that money immediately, pending finalization.
> Nobody is “waiting” for settlement. The transaction is done very fast.
Can a merchant spend its customers’ money immediately after running the credit card? No.
Money from a credit card transaction processed on a Friday will hit the merchant’s account on Monday or Tuesday.
> Defi collateralised loans have actually had several instances of losing money and whole schemes failing - ‘whales’ holding illiquid assets have taken out massive loans with no intention of repaying, and the collateral is sometimes only “over” on paper.
OK. Yes, if your underlying collateral is worthless, or if there isn’t a meaningful pricing mechanism or liquid market in which to sell the collateral, automatic liquidation of the loan won’t work, and a different approach must be taken.
Like with anything in the world, there are some basic preconditions required for the thing to work. “This technology is inappropriate for these particular use cases” is not a very strong argument against it.
That being said, I am unaware of these particular cases that you are referring to. If you could point them out to me, I would appreciate it.
Yep, but with cryptocurrency the entire market is a shitshow. Unless you can somehow prevent these folks from playing their games, you haven’t improved upon the situation you complain about.
> Can a merchant spend its customers’ money immediately after running the credit card? No.
I see you’ve never used Square, the answer is “Yes”
> Particular cases
There was the near-collapse of Solend, and shenanigans around it earlier in the year. Looks like they had another problem with bad debt due to oracle manipulation recently too. BendDAO, had issues earlier in the year.
Moola Market and Mango Market both experienced some sort of collateral manipulation attack that drained reserves.
New Free DAO lost a million or so in a flash loan attack…
There have been a lot.
Thanks for sharing these cases. And you are right to point out that they represent a real problem in DeFi currently, which is that some protocols are poorly designed.
These examples are best categorized as hacks, though, which are important to distinguish from losses incurred due to bad debt.
The distinction is important because the question at stake is whether DeFi in general has value. If you look at more mainstream protocols like Aave, you don’t see these same problems. In the mid- to long-term, after the technology has stabilized, all the benefits of DeFi will accrue to users without the risks that you are pointing out.
With regards to Square: yes, you can get your money wired to you at the end of the day—if you are willing to pay an extra 1.5% fee.
This is more akin to very expensive financing—having an annualized interest rate in excess of 300%!—than “instantaneous settlement”. It’s also not standard. Square’s standard settlement process is as I described:
Sure, but this is market risk, not counter-party risk, and is unmitigated in traditional markets as well. Just look at how Apple stock was affected by Lehman Brothers’ failure.
> Cryptocurrency does not settle instantaneously, in fact credit cards are usually faster.
Come again? If you pay me for goods using crypto, I can spend that money immediately, pending finalization.
> Nobody is “waiting” for settlement. The transaction is done very fast.
Can a merchant spend its customers’ money immediately after running the credit card? No.
Money from a credit card transaction processed on a Friday will hit the merchant’s account on Monday or Tuesday.
> Defi collateralised loans have actually had several instances of losing money and whole schemes failing - ‘whales’ holding illiquid assets have taken out massive loans with no intention of repaying, and the collateral is sometimes only “over” on paper.
OK. Yes, if your underlying collateral is worthless, or if there isn’t a meaningful pricing mechanism or liquid market in which to sell the collateral, automatic liquidation of the loan won’t work, and a different approach must be taken.
Like with anything in the world, there are some basic preconditions required for the thing to work. “This technology is inappropriate for these particular use cases” is not a very strong argument against it.
That being said, I am unaware of these particular cases that you are referring to. If you could point them out to me, I would appreciate it.