It's always been like this, I've seen enough industry insiders write their own laws at the local government level, just a bigger game at the national level :P
4,811 karma · joined February 10, 2012
This distance could probably be shrunk if some of the gains from matsi for meta-materials translated into fluids engineering, where some kind of "meta" fluid has certain differential properties at a given thermal load (im imagining that the side/region with the thermal load, the particles in the fluid would have some type of glassy dynamics behavior to spontaneously create a radiant barrier back toward the source, would need to talk more with my friend about this since his thesis covered quasi-1d models of glassy dynamics and spontaneous partial arrangements under various conditions on initial perturbation and at steady state).
To think of all the ops from the MIC that have been running out of Ukraine since the Obama years might just go up in smoke… good way to get rid of a pay-per trail if you ask me…
Does it?
Are these actually large capital expenses ("cash" [or credits on a bank balance sheet] is actually being locked up and transferred to the suppliers) or are these purchase orders where fractions of the cash are actually transferred at the point these long term deals are being made and some ones else is actually on the hook (i.e a creditor) securing that?
Because if its something like the latter (which I'm pretty sure it is), suppliers still run the risk of future demand cratering as well as the buyers (esp the ones that are fronting the cash and still will have that innovatory on hand until they can actually unload it on to consumers in finished products), and if Jeffery Snider who as been warning about something like this for months now and more recently in "When GDP’s Almost All Inventory" [0], I'm pretty sure those buyers are gonna get hosed with the suppliers…
[0] https://alhambrapartners.com/2022/01/27/heightened-conflict-...
I have no expectations of you personally if you wanted to protect my property rights (if i had claims on such and had a tx posted for someone to secure such), but I cannot control if an address controlled by a multisig of psuedoanons sends a tx to a contract where they provide proof that something has been secured according the rules of decentralized AMM market settlement contract and they get their payout. I cannot also control whether people make leveraged side bets on that happening or not, and I cannot control if those making leveraged side bets try to collude with the multisig that submitted the a tx for settlement.
> I live in metropolitan area with a population of 25 million people; a distributed group of vigilantes enforcing property rights is not even remotely workable here, and this is not even the largest city in the world. My in-laws live in a suburban area with a lower population density -- their town has a population around 20 thousand, and that disorganized group is not going to work there either.
I'm pretty sure that if they pay is high enough for the people that controls the multisig, and they have the skills and resources to execute, they can get where they need to be, and be gone when its finished, while accepting some risk that who they are up against may be prepared for it.
Well according to how auger has it, those people will lose their funds they had to put up as collateral to vote on a particular market dispute outcome either through proof of their wrong decision or by a network fork if many people are in disagreement on an outcome and the many people don't bother migrating over to the forks ("you permanently lose your ability to migrate your REP or REPv2 to a forked universe, making it functionally useless within the used version of the Augur Protocol, and in theory making it worthless"). Seems like those people will have to continually pay for tokens that will be worthless as the network keeps forking as other non coerced reporters do not.
> Are you saying that there should be one global jurisdiction and law? That is a completely separate can of worms.
No, many contracts may operate simultaneously, and some even over shared claims in market disputes (at least what i get from how auger describes itself as enabling). I don't dissagree that it can be of worms though, but people can be incentivized during every step of the way in a variety of different ways. I just wanted to point that it is possible now with the tools that are viable that don't need to rely on a particular jurisdictions laws.
> The law can also be changed if needed. I'm not sure how a blockchain can account for all future use-cases without changes either.
The way to change laws may or may not be compatible with someone uploading a new contract and particular protocols users agreeing to abide by it with their assets at stake on market disputes.
Auger[0] has something like this:
"Reputation (REP) and (REPv2) is a cryptocurrency, used by reporters during market dispute phases of Augur. REP and REPv2 holders must perform work, in the form of staking their REP or REPv2 on correct outcomes, to receive a portion of the markets settlement fees. If you do not report correctly, you do not get the fees. If you report incorrectly, you lose your REP or REPv2. If you don’t participate in a fork (when the network has a very large dispute over an outcome), you permanently lose your ability to migrate your REP or REPv2 to a forked universe, making it functionally useless within the used version of the Augur Protocol, and in theory making it worthless. Passive holders of Reputation (REP or REPv2) that are not using their Reputation (REP or REPv2) within the Augur protocol to stake on disputes and forks are penalized. The treatment of REP and REPv2 within the Augur protocol is governed not by the Forecast Foundation but by the protocols smart contracts as described in the Augur white paper and documentation."
Other protocols may handle things differently.
> All of this can be solved by the law (eventually escalating to people allowed to use deadly force), but at that point why do you even need a blockchain?
Assuming if the law in all jurisdictions around the world were as sufficient for all cases presently and into the future. Also this assumes that its not the enforcers of a particular law aren't also the ones that the on chain claimant wants to take action against (again, the payout would need to be high enough for those to incentivize action against a particular jurisdictions enforcers, which need not necessarily mean engaging on the property, but anything to get the enforcers to back off even going after friends and family and their property in retaliation [which is more doable in jurisdictions who databases with such sensitive information have been compromised])
Gets even more interesting when people can buy puts and calls on someones liquidation via options dex.
A few of the ex-mil people in a DAO i'm apart of are really interested in this space growing for services like that, for obvious reasons.
And are constantly bypassed in practice by those with more resources than others wrt engaging with the various legal systems (or corruption thereof) around the world.
> None of these protections exist under "smart" contracts
Not true, some people buy off chain legal insurance for a particular juridiction and only deal with protocols they have some legal recourse over. Some use multisig accounts with trusted parties.
> which is exactly why we can't and won't allow code to govern or mediate life as web3 envisions.
There is no shared we though, some individuals (and governments) will adapt to it, some wont, some contracts/cryptocurrencies will survive, some wont, and people will make the convenience trade-offs like they always have had as things change. If you are only willing to try to force someone else to do your dirty work of imposing on peoples freedoms, you'll be behind those who are willing to put you in the ground themselves to defend such irrespective of any particular jurisdictions laws.
> Your dystopian vision of "oops, you lost your retirement savings because you didn't decompile that contract before interacting with it, too bad", or "oops, you lost your retirement savings because someone beat your wife with a baseball bat until you handed over your private key, sucks to be you"--in short, the dystopia of "code is law"--flies in the face of thousands of years of jurisprudence and civilization.
Bad things will continue to happen to some people even with out smart contracts or cryptocurrencies (bad things which don't happen to most people in the course of their lifetime btw), but if you want to live your life in fear as an excuse to not learn and adapt in face of bad things that may happen, that's on you.
> Once the goldrush hype wears off people will realize how heinous the fundamental idea is and dump it in the gutter of history where it belongs.
Yeah, like when people stop being motivated by greed, like when central banks and governments stop debasing their currencies like they have through out history, like when large private banks and service providers stop blocking people from using their platforms, etc. Could happen, I'm not holding my breath.
Plenty of people don't de-compile or read the source, don't engage with random tokens credited to their address, and the ecosystem around using "smart" contracts has grown since 2015. Not my problem if people want to use/trust something else (others audits for example) without putting in any work to learn/observe themselves and engage with random stuff. That's their problem, not mine. Some learn better after going through school of hard knocks anyways.
As a society, we have expected more and more people to learn how to read and write for basic literacy over hundreds of years. Those who know how to read and write code will have a leg up for that expanding literacy set for engaging with digital things and those who don't will be left behind esp as more aspects of life are governed/mediated through code and this goes beyond the whatever is being branded as "web3".
If you don't wanna use it, you are free not to (unless in the case someone hacks your devices from across the world, you don't engage in backups, and the only way to unlock it is to buy some tokens to pay them off; then its just hard choices to make).
Did you respond to the right chain of comments, none of us mentioned anything related to ZK solutions (chains line mina or rollups or otherwise)?
For me, its only scary if one regularly interacts with tokens they haven't bothered to look up for the source code for. People really shouldn't be interacting with contracts if their first time hearing of it is from looking at who randomly airdropped them a token with a domain name in it. But hey, people regularly do stuff in crypto that i just think "wtf arw the thinking", so w/e.
Would be great if we could incentive via tokens people to run mastodon instances where people can log in with their address (and multiple chains tokens are recognized) because I personally have no desire for onchain social media like i do for onchain derivatives and exchange functionality.
A variety of credit/debt based decentralized stablecoins and dexes will take over in the long run from centralized exchanges and bank account onramp. Even centralized exchanges are trying to get exposure to defi protocols now that will eventually obsolete them for traditional functions for all but the tech laggards.
People have always had differing values, this is nothing new. When people believe that only x is ultimately valuable, and y is not, It allows for people who understand that people have always valued things differently to exploit that for their own gain.
The people who understand that not all food, all shelter, all clothing, all meds, all land, all x is valued by everyone the same will forever have the upper hand against those who are ultimately convinced of the absoluteness of their values.
Nothing nefarious, they just changed the url and hid it from the redirected page: https://cds.ihsmarkit.com/markit.jsp
They do exist, Aave allows for this, there is no one to approve the flash loan. Just that you can only borrow the funds for specific context that I described and the borrower will have to pay off the loan or the loan wont be made and will fail. You can't do this at all in tradfi.
> They're conventional loan agreements that are enforced by courts of justice.
And even if these happen traditionally, no defi involved, the borrower many not be able to pay of the loan. Risk will be eaten by someone. Courts of justice can't squeeze blood from stone. But Aave doesn't face this risk. Maybe other protocols will, but thats the risk people have to accept when they engage with the different protocols.
I understand it very well, that's pretty much the risk to be mitigated (or not) by who the loans are extended to on the protocol level (when not trying to do it in the KYC/ofchain legal agreement way which is how its done now for the most part). Pools of capital can be lent to specific actors in a non permissioned way that can be governed by the the protocols users or on/off by the on chain contracts themselves automatically when certain on chain conditions are met.
Also, for the non corporate uncollateralized lending in defi now through flash loans (i.e. via Aave), it is impossible for the borrower to walk away from borrowing the funds because the loan must be paid back in the same transaction or entire transaction reverts. However this isn't appropriate for typical consumer loans.
Currently, a lot of the centralized companies with their protocols on chain mitigate the risk just by restricting the pool of borrowers to those who they can legally go after to recoup any losses in the event of a default (just like in tradfi, but still the risks remain).
In the case of a derivatives protocol, writers can borrow against buyers deposits (instead of having to put up their own stablecoin deposits to back the writing) to open positions with the expectation that the writers can write enough volume to net out the delta most of the time while capturing a spread. If/when they (the writers in the derivative liquidity pools) can't and if enough addresses choose to withdraw the decentralized overcollateralized/centralized stablecoins from the protocol (rather than transferring/swapping their protocol credit to another address who wants to buy or write derivatives, or use as a unit of accounting outside of the protocol) and there is a shortfall, decentralized overcollateralized/centralized stablecoin yielding debt tokens can be issued by the protocol automatically (as well as raising decentralized overcollateralized/centralized stablecoin collateral requirements across the board for writers who haven't been cleared by protocols risk management contracts or by some kind of on chain governance) to those trying to withdraw who can sell it on a dex at a premium or discount to par value of the stablecoin yielding debt token.
The risk doesn't go away in tradfi with all the uncollateralized lending now, it gets spread throughout all the actors of the system in various ways, much of which isn't very transparent to all actors in the system (and even for those in the know, it is not in real time). The same (spreading risk through various actors that engage with the protocol) can be done in a DeFi context minus the opacity we have now (we all can see what addresses have/done what, regardless of whom/what is behind the address).
There isn't going to be a one size fits all approach to uncollateralized lending in DeFi. Protocols will do it differently based on what the users see fit to do with their funds and will manage the risks in many different ways (some of which will be better than others).
TrueFi, Maple Finance, and Goldfinch are the biggest and primarily have permissionless lenders and kyc'd borrowers. Some of those borrowers may make consumer loans (Goldfinch is like this).
Permissionless uncollateralized borrowing has yet to take off (even though contracts for this already exist and are live), but I suspect it will once decentralized stablecoin on chain supply gets decoupled from current centralized stablecoin supply (decentralized credit based stablecoins built on top of incentivized permissions management of on <-> off chain flows [via over collaterlized decentralized stablecoins and centralized stablecoins alike] and on/off chain risk [via derivatives]). Decentralized derivatives protocols will be key to permissionless uncollateralized lending growth imo, but we are not there yet (I think we need to continue to see global markets break down more in OTC/CCP IRD's and tradfi counterparties continue to lose trust with one another in derivative transactions for this to grow faster in DeFi).
I can see that in the next 10-20 years, 20% of the eurodollar system with be contained within (multichain) permissionless DeFi protocols as HNW individuals and tradfi institutions outside of the US abandon CCPs and typical OTC derivatives txs.
I won't have to argue with folks at ihsmarkit like I do now for making EOD CDX data public (like it was before they were acquired by shit & pee global), when I can pull it from on chain contracts in real time.
For nov:
> "We have seen a $7Trn+ increase in the Open Interest of RFRs in JPY and CHF due to CCP[0] conversion processes."
> "73% of JPY risk was versus TONA" (Tokyo Overnight Average Rate (TONAR) is an unsecured interbank overnight interest rate and reference rate for Japanese yen.)[1]
> "62.2% of CHF risk was versus SARON" (SARON stands for Swiss Average Rate Overnight and represents the overnight interest rate of the secured funding market for the Swiss Franc (CHF). (Swiss Average Rate Overnight) is an overnight interest rates average referencing the Swiss Franc CHF. It is based on transactions and quotes posted in the Swiss repo market. SARON is administered by SIX.)[2]
The context behind this is that for almost for over a decade now, large parts of the IRD market have refused to use anything besides LIBOR and have conducted trades outside of CCPs.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_counterparty_clearing
The problem is that there is a bunch of people out there that don't want others to be able to do this and will constantly shout about perils of permissionless DLT systems without acknowledging such (or without mentioning the many ways which permissioned non DLT systems have and continue to fail for increasingly more people [or without having any ideas on how to approach solving such problems in general that individuals can adopt for themseleves], which is really fine to me, because those people can't really stop what has been underway for the past 13 years [and often want somebody else to stop it for them, without even understanding how the systems they want to stop work, or putting any work in themselves to stop it beyond open throat/think piece operations])