Trust is the most important thing in crypto, exchanges are making billions in profit, not covering a $320m loss could generate billions in damage by crypto prices plunging, so it makes a lot of economic sense to avoid that.
There are investors holding billions in Solana crypto, so it's in their interest to avoid a Solana loss of trust.
That’s not what the crypto shills have been saying for years. It’s supposed to solve everything because it’s trustless.
Validity of execution and order of execution.
Without considering smart contracts that's basically enough. With smart contracts there are many valid states that are very undesirable (e.g. pegs breaking, manipulation of prices to liquidate positions) this one would be a peg breaking that subsequently would trigger a cascade of liquidations, at the current state of solana that would also flood the network in people racing to try and grab the liquidation fees[1]
[1]: (a quirk of all of the smart contract platforms I know is that there is no way to ensure that X happens under Y conditions, so instead what people do is set up there systems such that if Y there exists riskless profit for anyone who can make X happen. So once collateralized positions become undercollateralized (e.g. backed by 1.1x) anyone that can return the lended assets (which need to be liquid & fungible) gets the collateral)
No it is not and neither should it be. Blockchains are 'supposed' to be trustless with no need to trust a particular group or some group of keyholders. Otherwise, what is the point?
There is no point in promoting decentralization when the whole chain was reversed due to a hack (The DAO hack) or users still resorting to using centralized exchanges rather than 'decentralised' ones or even running most of the nodes on a centralized server.
I hope you have not proven that you have misunderstood the point of their decentralization claims. It makes it very easy for them to dismiss your comment.
Is this realized profit in real cash, or book profit based on valuations?
Who puts real money into crypto by billions? I somehow doubt that enough actual physical people come to buy crypto. Is this money "invested" by funds?
This whole ethereum thing sounds like the old joke "we exchanged a dog worth 1 million for 2 cats worth 0,5 million each".. yet now they try to find someone who will buy this stuff at those bullshit valuations - to be the one left holding the bag.
Also if so much real money is generated then where are the billionaires? Actual ones who divested from crypto (to lower risk) and bought unsexy real world stuff. I understand that in theory crypto is always growing, but who is coming to buy that 1 BTC for 36k usd? To get billions it would have to be a lot of people.
> Binance generated at least $20 billion of revenue last year, according to a Bloomberg analysis of its trading volume and fees.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-01-09/binance-c...
> Also if so much real money is generated then where are the billionaires
Same article:
> With $96 billion, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao is closing in on tech titans including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
What? I thought the whole point was to be trustless?
It does create a morale hazard if that was indeed what happened - at this point just speculation.
Why hello J.P. Morgan.
So can we stop pretending that cryptocurrency is anything but an attempt to recreate the financial system in a way that facilitates ignoring banking regulations?