Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by stingraycharles | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

stingraycharles

I know that it’s the plan, do they have any evidence (like transaction ids) that it actually happened?

I haven’t followed this a lot but from what I gathered there’s not a lot of transparency around this. If so, why not?

View on HN

There are transaction IDs to the exchanges

There wont be transaction IDs after that because its not onchain

You and the community could ask for an audit by an accounting firm like Deloitte, like the rest of the business world uses, itll come out a quarter or two from now leaving us all in exactly the same spot for now. The transparency expectations make almost no sense or lack inspiration.

Please explain why I should believe that the money was used for this purpose in a field where every other example I can find is a scam.

It seems incredibly unreasonable to assume that these particular people are goodies, when everybody they are with are baddies.

1) Not everything bad is the same bad thing

2) Try stepping outside of your filter bubble. There are some websites that let you browse the internet within a different filter bubble to see how different it is

I see you haven't given a single reason to think this actually happened. I suppose there must not be one.

Alright. Fine, I'll concede its fine to be skeptical of their actions, I just don't care enough because of the other bigger ways that it doesn't make a difference for the burned user.

Okay, people are out for blood from someone they trusted that did a bunch of dumb things extremely transparently while undiscerning users chose to ignore that. So they want to find a bad opaque thing now to justify their anger and legal or extrajudicial retaliation, which won't help any recovery of assets whether the opaque thing was bad or done properly.

Interesting season arc. I guess. It would be way more interesting if it was used to bailout whales or pocket for himself.

> difference for the burned user

They could've used the money to reimburse UST holders at the time the peg was broken.

That’s an interesting point. It might indeed have made a difference what they did with it… at least for a little while.

Oh, I couldn’t care less, personally. It means nothing to me. I lost nothing because I assume essentially all crypto is a scam. I was honestly curious if there is any reason to assume this wasn’t just another scam.

That was the impression i initially got from you

Not everything bad is the same bad thing

It’s just the irony of it that is interesting to me. I personally don’t think UST was a scam; but I find there is a real possibility they saved themselves in the end. Like you said it doesn’t really matter much, but it’s interesting that all these revolutionary ideas who attract so many people end up back at square one all the time. It’s like a communist who gets some money/power and becomes basically the same or worse than a normal capitalist kingpin. I think people need to be a bit more humble and understand that Rome wasn’t built in a day and certainly not by a single person.

The point is that, when all is said and done, we’re supposed to trust them that it’s alright. But wasn’t that supposed to be the exact problem that blockchains were supposed to fix, remove trust from the equation? Why is it that people are so willing to trust them all of a sudden? It is contradictory and seems to me like pure tribalism. In the lack of evidence either way, I think we should assume the worst, not the best. This is what would happen if the same thing was done by a non-crypto company who disappeared with the money.

P.S. If anyone ever reads/replies to this comment I can predict that the answer will be: “yeah but that’s what wall street does, so what” So what, first of all it actually isn’t, but let’s assume it is: people invest in blockchains with the promise of descentralized trustless, so this means the promise was broken, because at the end of the day the whole thing is actually supposedly backed by a centralized trust-based fund (which failed horribly even so). In case people wanted to invest in centralized trust-based funds they have a myriad of other options with actual security features in them, and not just “I promised to do the right thing, cross my heart”. Now tell me something: what would you call a company that disappears with US$ 2b and promises to do the right if it wasn’t crypto?

The blockchain removes the need for trust when the blockchain is involved completely and without obfuscation

The need for trust doesnt stay removed magically because someone in the blockchain space was involved

Which is exactly what happened and we seem to agree. Thanks!

They could have used a decentralised exchange, but didn't. I guess that is telling in and of itself. The tools were there for them to use, without trust, but they weren't used.

There are things they could have done, out of those other possibilities, decentralized exchanges probably wouldn't give them the best price at those amounts, and different ways for others to frontrun them, ensuring they got an even worse price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com