Hacker News Reader

Comment by kravvall | Hacker News Reader

Yes, and it can't hold it's peg, that's why we are here. So apparently this is not a functioning project that is working (as in "can solve its proposed use-case")

View on HN

Total non-sequetor PoS and stablecoins are two orthogonal arguments, one has no effect on the other.

This is like arguing that electric cars are better than diesel, and you retorting: but this tesla crashed into a wall, see electric cars suck!

As a disinterested bystander, it sure seems like, "this coin failed" is a reasonable rebuttal to the argument that this coin is an example of success.

You may be disinterested, but you're not informed. The people above you are not arguing about whether LUNA is a successful coin in general, but over how it reflects on "proof of stake" vs. "proof of work" protocols. If you think LUNA losing their peg is a good argument against PoS, you don't know enough about cryptocurrency to judge these arguments. LUNA's peg to the dollar is ensured with a scheme that has zero to do with either proof of stake or proof of work. Saying Luna's failure redounds on proof of stake protocols is like saying that AOL's failure redounds on the HTTP protocol.

I think stablecoins are more or less a scam, but that has absolutely nothing to do with PoW vs PoS.

Do you think real existing stablecoins are a scam, or do you think stablecoins by their very nature will be scams?

The USD stablecoin, backed by proof of army, is a fiat fraud propped up by gov't contractor known as "Federal Reserve".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com