So is this presented as "evidence" to suggest there was an attack on Luna, that its depegging into a death spiral was intentional by some person or group of people?
Absent a central authority that determines legitimacy, it's not clear why we should simultaneously accept the cryptocurrency community's churlish attitude towards financial stability and the crocodile tears around being the victims of said volatility.
It has been known for years that algorithmic stablecoins cannot survive a bank run so maybe Wallet A knew that their withdrawals had a probability of triggering collapse, but I still wouldn't blame them.
The run is indeed a self-fulfilling and a positive feedback loop, since a small disturbance in price could trigger some of the conservatives to withdraw at a tiny loss, and this could snowball.
But it is also possible that someone intentionally did it, like soros did for the english pound back when it got depegged. But i imagine you'd have to be able to borrow large amounts of luna and/or UST, sell it short, then trigger this run, in order to make profit. Is there any evidence that someone did such a large borrow?
The depeg of UST is more akin to a short of Herbalife than the Soros GBP attack. Remember the weakness of Terra was orders of magnitude easier to expose than that of a national currency.
Literally everyone who sold first, that is, the $hundreds of $millions of dollars that were sold on Saturday, May 7th, as described in this article.
That's the thing about bank-runs. The *first* person to sell benefits. As the whole community slowly realizes what is going on, they all rush to sell at the same time. This causes the death spiral.
The people who actually benefited were those who earned the 18% interest from Anchor, which was funded by the suckers whose "investments" went to zero.
These people would have been better served if the whole scheme continued rather than killing it by a run.
The loss of the masses who invested into 18% APY accounts is equivalent to the profits that Anchor made from this scheme.
That confuses the issue somewhat. 5 years ago, UST didn't exist.
Sometime in the last 2 or 3 years, Do Kwon started to sell millions, maybe billions, of UST to people, 1 UST for $1 USD. In fact, maybe he sold them for less than $1 USD, maybe he sold UST for 80-cents (to fund over a year's worth of time of 18% APY promises).
Everyone who sold UST, over the past 2 years for real USD, got to keep the dollars. The UST bag holders are... well... the bagholders. They have nearly nothing left now.
Even those who sold UST at 80-cents or 60-cents last year or two years ago benefits by selling before everyone else did.
> The people who actually benefited were those who earned the 18% interest from Anchor, which was funded by the suckers whose "investments" went to zero.
The opposite. A bunch of people sold UST to a bunch of others for 82-cents, maybe 90-cents (since it took less than a year for a UST to disappear).
Thanks for your dollars, here's a bunch of UST that soon became worthless.
they might've benefited from the interest during the rise of Luna+UST, but they don't benefit from the crypto-run. They even have a chance at a loss due to not being able to sell early!
no, those selling due to the bank run don't really benefit from the run (aka, they don't make profit). They just _don't lose as much_ as the last to sell.
I'm talking about whether anyone made a profit from this run, like https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-ban... , in which he managed to short sell the pound and gathered enough capital (his and others') to sell the pound to cause it's value to drop (and force the central bank to sell foreign currency to buy the pound, in order to keep the pound peg).
https://beincrypto.com/terras-ust-de-pegging-a-brilliant-sor...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
Shorting in itself isn't all evil. It prevents stock from ballooning too hard. It's very risky since in case you lose, your losses can be astronomical.
There was a lawsuit a few years ago, but Jump was able to convince the courts that they could not reveal their source code because it would damage their business. Citadel was never able to prove that their code was stolen.
Ken Griffin could certainly be strongly motivated to employ such an attack. And if he did... you have to admit it was pretty brilliant. This is something straight out of "Billions".
Hoping to add more accuracy to the information available