Hacker News Reader

Comment by yieldcrv | Hacker News Reader

yield farm has a definition in DeFi that includes a software where "disabling withdrawals and undergoing restructuring" is not capable of happening. (withdrawal control could be in the codebase, its purpose would be entirely different)

I wouldn't call this a yield farm, except in a hyperbolic and pejorative concatenation of words "since it has a lot of yield products"

at least in the DeFi version, any impropriety would be known instantly and its effect would be known instantly, users with insurance would be able to make a claim pretty quickly and get paid out, users without insurance would know their loss and be along for the ride or move on

View on HN

I think a lot of the people discussing all the crypto news (even here where people normally tend to have high technical literacy) have never bothered to try yield farming or using defi, to understand the distinction.

Which is a shame, because whatever your feelings on crypto are, I'd rather see well-formed criticisms from crypto-literate people than critical or supportive comments from people who actually don't know anything they're talking about. $5-20 is enough to get an understanding of what defi is (fees on Polygon and Fantom are fractions of pennies), but it does perhaps require an investment of 5-20 hours as well.

I think the best things news organizations can do is highlight more mundane things

Like how someone was immediately reimbursed by an insurance protocol following an exploit

Instead of a news article only about the exploit and losses

I don't need to invest 20 hours into learning about astrology to know that it's obviously bullshit.

i think a lot of people who are too heavily invested in crypto tend to take all the crypto marketing way too seriously. hardly any defi plaftorm or cryptocurrency is actually decentralised in a real sense apart from maybe the top 3.

as an example, terra luna was a "decentralized" platform (ignore the anchor ponzi for a moment). Even its critics generally focused on anchor and did not question the decentralization part.

And yet such a decentralized platform very quickly disabled withdrawals (UST peg) as soon as it became clear that their ponzi had collapsed. now we can go in depth as to whether the mechanism they used was legitimate or whether the validators were factually independent of mr kwon but it really does not matter

that is why people dont and shouldnt take any such claims very seriously. its primary purpose is marketing only.

You're spreading misinformation here. Decentrlization is not binary, it's scalar.

Terra paused IBC bridging capabilities. This action has specific validators needed to execute it.

It also did not stop you from trading UST away, on the terra Blockchain itself.

>Decentrlization is not binary, it's scalar.

never claimed otherwise. its just that this scalar value is very very low, might as well be zero for most defi

>Terra paused IBC bridging capabilities. This action has specific validators needed to execute it.

thats fine. i am not convinced that these validators acted independently of mr kwon. functonally the whole terra ecosystem may well be a dictatorship under kwon

Reply on news.ycombinator.com