Hacker News Reader

A part of what was not mentioned is that it is used as a gambling chip. Plain and simple. Sure, not the cheapest lottery ticket you can find but hey, your chances of making money are probably higher with crypto than the average lottery.

Is gambling useful to the society as whole? Probably not. But it does make things interesting and alas, Bitcoin (and other cryptos) intersect in a most curious way where you are gambling but also have a very easy method to move those assets around.

And I think cryptos do save money when making larger transactions between entities. So there is something real there, although it's not very tangible. For the average Joe, I agree. I don't think they really provide that much value except your average thrill at the casino (with better odds, sure).

> The real problem in lending is to ensure that the borrower can afford the loan and uses the money on what he says he will.

So the lender pays the money into a multisignature 2-of-3 wallet, gives 1 key to the borrower, and if when the borrower signs a transaction with that key to spend the funds is buying what they are authorised to buy, countersigns, else does not. And then you wrap this up in a smart contract, call it DeFi, have a liquidity pool for people to loan out a token for car financing, and if those people don't want to perform the check themselves, plug in an oracle like chainlink to deal with the real world part. On the repayment side, if repayment not made, a company can buy the debt and chase it, or can be hired to chase it. Wall torn down around car (insert asset here) financing..

While it is interesting that you can implement this on block-chain this is a perfect example of how block-chain does not provide more than just being trustless.

(personally I like having trusted third parties)

The repossession is the hard part. Let’s say I lend ten grand to some wallet so they can buy a car. They do so. Now they’ve got a car. They now move all their wealth to other wallets or fiat and refuse to pay me back. I need some mechanism of repossessing their car, which only works if I have state infrastructure and a legal system attached to my contract.

“Btc bounty hunters” isn’t a good enough explanation.

Now I'm wondering if software contracts have ever been legally tested. I'd enjoy a lawyer reading out the relevant if statement to the court.

I certainly don't think it is impossible. But the "defi will let everybody make 8% on their savings accounts by loaning cash to people around the world with no barriers" folks need to provide some evidence that I'm not actually going to lose everything to people just refusing to pay me back.

Your correct to say the debt would need to be legally recognised, before it could be sold on to a legally registered debt collector. Aave for example has a UK Electronic Money Institution license, you might need some legal entity to take part in what I describe until laws catch up with innovation. Self driving cars, uber, Airbnb, face similar issues with regulation needing to adjust, that doesn't invalidate the innovation.

I think the comparison to airbnb is revealing.

Airbnb allowed individuals to rent their home to other individuals. But this is done through a centralized service. Scams and abuse exist, but the centralized service offers some nice benefits like reviews and bans for abusive participants. The innovative part was the new model of what you could rent, not the how of how you rent it.

In comparison, the defi loan innovation is "how" rather than "what". As a borrower I still get some cash and pay interest on it. Same as with a bank. As a lender I still deposit some cash and obtain interest on it. Same as with a bank. And a centralized service provides some nice guarantees about checking that my money isn't going to criminal organizations or that I have some guarantee that I can withdraw my money when needed and risk is amortized. Like with airbnb, I'd expect a centralized model to be more appealing to many people than a decentralized model. And we already have a centralized model. They are called banks.

Airbnb succeeded because it created a product that didn't exist before.

I only think that the defi loan system is interesting if it enables a ton of people to obtain a different thing than the thing they can already get from a bank. This matters for people with bad credit and people without access to banking institutions... but how many people are super excited to personally lend to those people?

I suppose, with software eating the world, I want to believe we will collectively own and operate that software, rather than a particular company, that it will be open source, and if those who own it charge too much someone will fork it and outcompete them.

That might be nice, but it isn't a feature. Vanishingly few people consider "the product is collectively owned and open source" to be a feature that they are willing to prioritize over other things. As such, it is hard to support any very large endeavor just off this thing. There is a reason why Blender shows up over and over and over and over again on "lists of awesome FLOSS apps" and that is because it has damn good features. Decentralization is not itself a business strategy outside of niche cases.

I think you're conflating two things. Collectively owned, as in how large companies are owned by their shareholders. Decentralized, as in instead of a company, its a piece of software, that we are collectively funding the development of and profiting from. As more business can be done with software, with less people, I see this as a way for us to own that software, and contribute to it. If some group of owners charge too much, it can be forked, similar to how a business can be undercut by a competitor if they charge too much.

At the moment DeFi loans are fully collateralized, with the loan to value ratio affecting the interest rate you pay. If your collateral drops in value you have to recollateralize the loan, or are liquidated.

I don't understand. Why would I need a loan for $X if I already have $X to put up as collateral?

I have been trying to understand this too. Best I can figure, it's basically a short sell on USD.

The key element is that the loan is not denominated in BTC, but a stablecoin pegged to fiat. DAI is one of these pegged 1:1 to USD.

Say you are holding Bitcoin and think it's going to the moon. You tie up your Bitcoin as collateral and take out a loan of roughly 75% of its value, in DAI. Then you spend that DAI to buy more Bitcoins. Now you are exposed to Bitcoin's price movements on two ends: the BTC you bought with your loan, and the BTC you put up as collateral. If Bitcoin's DAI price goes up by more than the interest rate on the loan, you can sell and have more than enough to repay the loan. The extra is pure profit and plus your collateral grew in value in the meantime too, so you're a winner on both fronts.

On the other hand, if Bitcoin's price goes down by too much and you can't repay the loan, your collateral could be liquidated and become property of the lender. You lose everything.

Color me surprised that the amazing decentralized finance, the future of banking, etc. is... yet another way to speculate on "number go up".

If what you are saying is true then this is literally the housing crisis with variable rate loans and a collapsing market putting everybody underwater. If the value of the item used as collateral sinks then you go from fine to broke in an instant.

The total being used as collateral can be seen here https://defipulse.com/defi-lending, and https://nexostatistics.com/loans/. A small proportion of market cap, and these loans have low loan to value ratios - typically 20%; no-one wants to risk liquidation.

But then we are back at the original problem, which is that I have no ability to repossess a nontrivial amount of property to handle a default and this system is explicitly constructed to be outside of the bounds of things like credit scores.

Regarding the auto financing. Traditional lenders will typically have no ability to repossess secured assets themselves, they will send out a colourful letter and if that doesn't work, sell the debt to a collection agent. DeFi in the form currently available doesn't need a credit score as it is secured against collateral, but a credit score would likely be needed in this case. New cars sold in the EU are likely trivial to repossess; I believe they have built in location trackers.

DAI is mostly minted from ETH, at a rate of $150 collateral to $100 DAI. https://daistats.com/#/. The $200m DAI minted from WBTC represents 0.02% of Bitcoin's market cap.

Is what I outlined still basically correct in terms of describing the utility of an overcollateralized loan? That is: Use crypto for collateral to borrow stablecoins, to buy more crypto, to make profit (hopefully exceeding loan interest) when the crypto price goes up.

Or do I have that all wrong? I really am not sure that I grok how this works, at all. I'm trying to figure out what is going on in this space and you seem to know a lot more about it than I do. I couldn't figure out another good reason to use an overcollateralized loan but it's clearly something people are interested in and using as a selling point for DeFi.

What actually happens if the borrower defaults on the loan? Do they "just" lose their collateral, or can they be held to account for the DAI somehow too?

If loan repayment is not made, or the collateral falls in value sufficiently that the loan becomes undercollateralized, the collateral will be sold to cover the outstanding debt. The outstanding debt can be invested on a new business, stocks or gold - its not restricted to buying digital assets.

Incidentally, it is my hope that once laws change the collateral can be any type of asset, not only digital assets. The collateral could also be some sort of tokenized reputation issued by a collective, whom have decided you are worthy of credit. Perhaps they are affiliated with your employer or have enough knowledge to assess the stability of your income due to their knowledge of your skillset. The lenders would then be paid by them, by proxy - allowing those capable of assessing risk, and those with sufficient funds to lend, to be distinct. Incidentally, this is all bleeding edge, let's see what is actually built and what works with all this new possibility.

To avoid triggering the taxes (and in many cases, never paying them).

> If the gold price crashed I'd be very interested.

Imo central banks are in a tough spot now. They've issued huge amounts of bonds, and cannot raise interest rates. If inflation rises, they will be unable to raise rates - unless they want to pay incredible amounts of interest to the banks. If they do decide to do so, they will need to sell large quantities of gold to help pay for that, which will be a heavy downward pressure on the price of gold. More likely is they allow fiat to devalue, in turn making the loans easier to pay off in the future, with the side effect of averting any trouble brewing in the stock market - people won't exit their positions to cash if stocks continue to climb (even if it is due to a devaluing currency). Just my opinion.

Central banks do not issue bonds. What they've been doing is buying bonds issued by national governments. Usually on the public markets, not directly. Where do they get the money to buy the bonds? Why they just magically create it. That's their job.

Central banks do not care, per se, if they have to "pay incredible amounts of interest to the banks" since they literally create (and destroy) money. Central banks do not need to buy or sell gold to create money since money is no longer gold backed. Operationally, central banks can create any amount of money they want anytime they want. Obviously, there are political considerations though.

"More likely is they allow fiat to devalue", yes. That is exactly what they will do if inflation increases substantially. Though not because it will make their loans "loans easier to pay off" since central banks have no loans to pay off; instead they get paid coupons and principal on they bonds.

Thanks, your understanding is better than mine. Its the national governments who would have to pay the incredible amounts of interest, and may fund that by selling the gold they own (https://www.usfunds.com/investor-library/frank-talk-a-ceo-bl...). Interested to hear whether you think gold will increase or decrease its value, over the next years.

Rising interest rates will only make new debt more expensive for governments. Existing debt will actually become cheaper as rates rise. If rates rise high enough, they could actually call (buy back) the bonds early for less than face value. This is because most government debt is fixed rate.

To use an example, you issue a 10 year bond with a face value of $100 with a 1.00% coupon (i.e. you need to pay $1/yr for 10 years and then $100 at maturity after 10 years). Fast forward 5 years -- rates have risen for similar risk debt rise to 5.00%. You've paid out $5 so far in coupons... but that bond (now 5 years to maturity) will cost $84 on the open market. So you simply buy it back for $84. That means you spent $84 + $5 = $89 for $100. Woohoo!

One financial strategy for governments would be to 1) issue excessive debt when rates are very low, 2) don't spend all the money, 3) buy back some of the debt when rates go up for less than you issued it, thus further lowering the cost of debt for the portion you did spend. Sadly, most governments have trouble with step #2.

As for gold, I have no idea. Historically, gold was an inflation hedge (i.e. it's price rose with inflation). But so are a lot of other things. At this point, there's nothing special about gold except that it stays shiny forever.

Rising stock price due to currency devaluation is already happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYOpxzpNQJE&t=70

>A store of value should have some reserves behind them or some physical asset

Nope. This is old people thinking. Young people are used to digital items being worth money. People spend real money on cosmetics in video games despite there being nothing physical about them. These "imaginary" things spawned into existence can have value.

Have you considered that your use of the term "real money" undermines your position a bit?

People spend money on things with little tangible value all the time. The benchmark, IMHO, is whether others accept these things as payment. It's generally pretty hard to pay your utility bill with Farmville coins, or buy groceries with Angry Birds Mighty Eagles.

You can't pay your utility bill with Apple stock, or buy groceries with crude oil ETFs. You have to convert them into money first. Does this mean that they are not a store of value?