Hacker News Reader

Comment by lottin | Hacker News Reader

I don't know, you're declaring victory because applications didn't stop working during the downturn, but I don't know that the problem was that applications stopped working during the downturn but rather that various service providers ran into financial trouble.

View on HN

The goals of DeFi and web3 is to create structures that do not rely on centralized service providers, and are able to resist control of single bad actors and provide certain clear and transparent security guarantees. In that they have so far succeeded.

I wouldn’t call it victory yet. We still have years of figuring out which blockchain, DEX and DeFi models work and which will fail, most of this new tech is only a couple years into development. But the long term 10+ year vision seems clearer.

DeFi really is just a series of distributed (not necessarily decentralised) applications that enable parties to enter into agreements involving virtual tokens without the need for a contractual agreement between them. Not relying on contractual agreements places enormous constraints on what DeFi can do. For example, DeFi can't handle counterparty risk at all. Therefore DeFi doesn't remove the need for conventional financial institutions that rely on contractual agreements, such as so-called "centralised exchanges" and "lending platforms". It's disingenuous to say DeFi is fine because it didn't fail unlike those centralised exchanges, because DeFi doesn't (and can't) provide the same services that centralised exchanges provide (namely, custodial services and trading that isn't limited to virtual tokens).

DeFi never claims to provide the exact same fiat and off-chain services as CeFi and CEX. It has specific goals, like replacing custody with non-custody, or replacing a centralized exchange with an automated market maker that no single party can control.

This has different risks and trade-offs, obviously, but users who opted for Uniswap instead of FTX as their crypto exchange are probably pretty happy with their decision.

This is like telling someone who got a terrible haircut that they should have shaved their head instead. If they got a haircut it's because they wanted a haircut not a shaved head.

Your analogy makes no sense.

There are many users who just want to hold crypto and perform basic lending and exchanges, and would be willing to spend fractionally more in gas fees to achieve this with higher security guarantees.

Everybody at Barber CEX got a surprise head shaving the other week, meanwhile Barber DEX is still cutting people's hair normally even though it is more expensive and harder to find.

What? No, you don't get it. You're making the same exact flawed point that you made before. DEXs are no substitute for CEXs.

For some users and use cases, they are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com