back
33 comments
> The bug caused a misplacement of decimal points when refunding pavladiv.near’s USN. Instead of returning 4.9995 USN (about $5), the smart contract bug minted 4.9995 trillion USN

Don’t worry guys, we fixed the regex in our currency conversion code, so your money will be fine now.

.. and we did so in a “decentralized” manner. Because we’re the Decentral Bank, of course, and everything is possible if you believe in it, including arbitrarily modifying and fixing bugs in “immutable” constructs in a centralized manner. Thank god we didn’t have to halt and roll back the blockchain again, that always forces Joe to put in decentralized overtime.

These people are slowly but surely building a shitty carbon copy of the regular financial system and don’t even realize it.

The ones doing that are getting fucked. The headlines are here weekly.

How does this keep being repeated?

Is Loopring doing a shit carbon copy of the existing financial system?

How about FTX? You can claim some of the same bad characteristics, but certainly not the same systemic weaknesses, and frankly, types of disrespect.

> Is Loopring doing a shit carbon copy of the existing financial system?

No, that’s a shit carbon copy of order rings to facilitate the shit carbon copy of the regular market.

> How about FTX? You can claim some of the same bad characteristics, but certainly not the same systemic weaknesses, and frankly, types of disrespect.

.. that’s a centralized exchange like any other centralized exchange, with the added bonus of absolutely no regulatory oversight, compliance requirements, transparency and absolutely no asset protection. Considering that all this boring boomer-crap exists to protect market participants (so, you), I suspect that this is a level of disrespect and systemic weakness that’s almost impossible to achieve anywhere else. Anyway, what system, there is nothing “crypto” about centralized exchanges besides the assets being traded.

You’re probably going to contemplate decentralized exchanges now, so on this note I’d just like to remind you that not even decentralized exchanges like Uniswap or DYDX are actually decentralized, and even if they will be at some point, they will not be immutable, completely negating any of the hallucinated benefits to begin with, and they will probably never be either because it’s quite literally nearly impossible.

> How does this keep being repeated?

Because people with the faintest idea about economics or what a blockchain actually is are not in DeFi, so the echo chamber doesn’t even include the most simple concepts.

I have no doubt there will be very valuable applications for cryptocurrency at some point, but this shit ain’t it.

It's always some mundane detail like a decimal point in the wrong place.
So they destroyed someone’s coins because they can’t code.

What a joke. So much for code is the contract.

Worse than that. If they are really decentralized, how come they can ever destroy somebody else's coins?
The icing on the cake is their name is Decentral Bank. What a joke.
Crypto has the worst parts of regular finance without the safeguards
and this project seems to have the worst part of crypto without the decentralization.
Yes. And this is precisely it’s benefit. This is by design. Safe guards are artificial, and ultimately distort markets. Extremely volatility is present right now, because this asset class is so new and poorly understood.

Some of us want to play with the safety off. Life is a dark forest. We pretend it isn’t with “safeguards” but they only mask its true nature.

Why does the "Decentral Bank" have safeguards and ways to modify "immutable" constructs just like any other web3/DeFi project then?

The financial system is the way it is for a reason, and crypto is not some sort of revolutionary unicorn that noone has ever thought of before teenagers wanted to buy ape pictures. Yeah, proof of ownership is cool and stuff. Meanwhile almost the whole of DeFi and Web3 is even running counter to the very core philosophy of cryptocurrency and/or decentralisation… and this comes from an early Bitcoin evangelist. I’m truly starting to believe that the crypto “investors” nowadays are the only ones not understanding this “new asset class” that for some reason is 14 years old and has CME futures. You’re not even playing with safety off, you just strapped a black stock market to a blockchain, handed the safety to amateurs and criminals and are playing with regulation off.

But yeah, the stupid nonbelievers, that’s why volatility must be present. First of all, what’s happening to DeFi isn’t volatility, and secondly I’ve heard that kind of reasoning before and it never ends well.

And a user accidentally and irrevocably getting 5 trillion coins won't "distort" the market?
The market would respond to the existence of the extra coins, inflating them to zero.

Those with long LP positions in pools with exposure will take a large loss.

No bail out, some win, some lose.

Stands to reason you wouldn't be upset by a stranger taking the tires off your car, because they were merely bolted on and that's how unregulated markets are supposed to work?
I don’t own a car, and I don’t leave things out in public that can be stolen by removing bolts. That’s how unregulated markets work.
And should I want to play this stupid game with real money?
That is a decision only you can make for yourself. Some people collect plates and spoons. Some Collect stamps. Others like unusual coins. Me, I’m all about the sats.
If only there was an equivalent unregulated food space. Wonder how many crypto enthusiasts would put their money where their mouth is. Or maybe crypto enthusiasts like regulations selectively.
Isn't that what people were doing with Soylent?
Soylent is regulated and uses an established manufacturer to make the product.
Now. It was always an open food project and spawned many other unregulated powered food makers. Some of these are regulated today. I was into it years ago in the food hacking days and also when I was vegan.

I want a world where I can buy weird powered food from hackers without the man regulating it’s contents.

"They want the ability to invest in startups? They must also want the ability to put bleach in food! Haha gotchya libertarians"
If someone wants to invest in a startup, wouldn't they prefer to use a system that, you know, isn't going to be decentralized? Traditional (or should i use the term "legacy"?) startup investing already has a huge slew of issues regarding trust, curious to know how decentralized systems are going to mitigate that and AFAIK the blockchain world is no stranger to con artists.
Most us just want the ability to invest in startups but can't because they're not rich enough to be deemed an "accredited investor" or are of the wrong nationality.

Being decentralized is useful insofar that nobody can prevent me for entering into mutually beneficial financial relationships.

Very decentralized, until we don't like it anymore, then very centralized.
"Code is law". LOL. As a software dev, I would never trust any code as the law. Nothing is ever fool-proof.
Putting the central in decentral since '22.
Oh well, de-centralizing by centralizing. Catch-22.
Do they do unit test at all?