> Now if only there were mainstream news articles about all the things that go right in crypto.
Legitimate question. What things have gone right in Crypto? I'm excluding individuals getting rich as that can happen due to gambling, etc.
Legitimate question. What things have gone right in Crypto? I'm excluding individuals getting rich as that can happen due to gambling, etc.
The tools that allow that stuff to occur onchain are pretty phenomenal. Bridges, farms, yield aggregators, yield optimizers, AMMs, the rapid evolution of standardized classes in the codebases (really was a mess before OpenZeppelin). It is capital formation and that is valuable for many people, a lot of capital formation improvements in tradfi never caught on for failing to address more important pain points people encountered.
For the aforementioned tooling, many of these services get hacked and take a lot of the capital inside of them, and many of them function really well and still are to this day. The velocity of permissionless deployment lets the market/conscious quickly see which ideas work well, and become a building block to try something else with. (I say "conscious" because the developers often aren't the market).
The best example of a recent reporting asymmetry would be all the stablecoins that aren't failing, functioning seamlessly, and what can be done to improve even them for a model stablecoin. Reporting about active proposals and the progress being done. This stuff is reported, just not in mainstream news sources and it would be an okay fit as some of them also have dedicated crypto sections already.
Another example would be the function of the insurance pools, or loss mitigation measures that work well preventing or during or after an attack.
Speaking of Tether, it's lost 25% of its market cap since May.
It’s a stablecoin, so market cap is simply the amount printed.
I would personally improve some UX and governance and less relevance of the team’s reputation, but its working
I like that the collateral is all interest bearing (backed by volume and transaction fees of their respective protocols), and pays off their debt over time
MIM creation privilege is too conservative for my tastes, but redemptions based on sentiment and collateral asset value has been seamless. Its pretty much what MakerDAO/DAI would have been if MakerDAO wasnt launched in 2017 and instead in 2021
I think there is still opportunity for this style of overcollateralized stablecoin to be done even more autonomous and better.
I like the idea stablecoins that cant freeze balances in addresses and also aren't collateralized by a balance at a bank or brokerage firm, the ones using onchain interest bearing collateral are the best model so far. Just need to improve creation and goverance and relevance of the team.
If phrased in reverse, what would you lose if you lost the Internet? Now, what would you lose if crypto as a tech disappeared? It seems more akin to a niche technology than a transformational one (at the moment anyway).
I would lose a permissionless development platform that allows me to pay once for deployment and have to cover no overhead costs from then on, because all the compute nodes are pay once host/execute indefinitely with free read privileges
I dont have an alternative for that, when deployment is done the payment is in crypto which regulates the complexity of the deployment, and other overhead costs are covered by the consumer who also pay in crypto which regulates the complexity of the operation to attract consumers
Competing compute nodes are much more complex and have much more complex pricing models and compete primarily on how arbitrary those pricing models are
When searching I mostly found results on crypto news sites (naturally), but here are some mainstream sources:
https://time.com/6155209/ukraine-crypto/
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-cryptocurrency-tec...
As far as I can tell the reason they bought a bunch of stuff with crypto is because crypto fans gave them a bunch of crypto, not because they need to route around actual problems with the banking system.
Of course Ukraine would make noises about how much they like crypto, because anything that encourages crypto holders to donate is good for them. Even if they prefer fiat they probably won't complain- making crypto donors feel good about giving them money (because it is acting as an advertisement for crypto generally) is a good idea for Ukraine.
> Chobanian says vendors are stepping up to accept crypto in exchange for supplies and crypto is proving to be more efficient than traditional payment methods.
> “It's really difficult to [send money] using traditional methods. First of all, it takes a lot of time. Secondly, it's a lot of bureaucracy and so on. Here, we are really fast. So we receive money and we spend it almost immediately,” Chobanian said.
https://www.yahoo.com/video/least-14m-26m-donated-crypto-215...
> “We're doing it really efficiently,” Chobanian added. “The majority of spending is actually done in crypto.”
It's impossible to imagine a crypto exchange founder saying anything different.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/business/russia-sanctions...
To be clear, the Ukraine government posted payment information by March 1st:
https://bank.gov.ua/en/news/all/natsionalniy-bank-vidkriv-sp...
You are tilting at a windmill.
https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/1496817739419295751 ( https://archive.ph/Q1y7l )
It tweeted a BTC address on February 26, but it took a little while before people were sure they hadn't been hacked:
The traditional banking infrastructure works just fine in Ukraine. You can send money in and out.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-crypto-is-helping-ukraine-r...
> He noted that since “the national bank is not really operating, crypto is helping to perform fast transfers, to make it very quick and get results almost immediately.”