Here's why: just game out the future if the foundation sets a precedent for bailing out the dao when the dao is ultimately responsible for inflating the token and releasing v3 and migration and anything else. oops! we f-ed up again, better call the foundation and ask for some more money! it's not going to happen because it would basically absolve the dao of any reason to act responsibly in the future.
Didn't the foundation fund the marketing of 100% IL protection though? How are they absolved of all responsibility?
I don't think you understand, they were coming from a technical perspective, i.e code balancing out, not backing up with liquidity *funding* from the foundation, that would have made it a CeFi not a DeFi.
Yeah unfortunately, we wish that was disclosed from the start, instead of marketing 100% IL protection. Should have stated 100% IL protection, but no one is owed for unrealized loss if the project can't organically fund the IL. The latter part was never mentioned anywhere
Ethereum forked to recover dao hack and then never again. So, empirical evidence of precedents not being set and no slippery slopes to slide on. Later on, Gavin Wood lost a billion worth of ETH in parity bug that locked it away forever and they didn't save him.
Yeah, it was likely an oversight and things like this happen. Thats why the people working on it are called developers. Success is not a perfect line straight up it is a succession of failures that when remedied work to harden the product over time.
I'm gonna need a bigger dataset to be convinced.
I just wish that less was spent on marketing and more was spent on the actual mechanics and mathematics behind a sustainable model. I literally saw so much advertisement for Bancor at every crypto conference I went to. These were everywhere with the biggest booths. They funded a research piece on Uniswap as well which they marketed the hell out of.
You're making the affirmative claim so the burden on proof is on you. You need to show a pattern of bail-outs failing to be one time only and thus leading the funder into inescapable insolvency/failure from repeatedly being pushed into bail outs
You are out of your fucking mind if you think we don't have the math to back up the protocol. Here is 20k words and 70 pages of math for B3. https://gov.bancor.network/t/bip15-proposing-bancor-3/3445
I wish black swans didn't exist too. There is no malicious intent here and acting like there is wont help.
Because you won't get any new LPs. The same reason why struggling companies will pay back their debts so that they still have access to new capital. The same reason why people try to uphold their credit score.
Not there’s an idea, a credit score system for defi.
Обсуждают сегодня