Doesn't mean there isn't potential liability. Maker, for instance, is highly centralized behind the scenes in how they are run and governed. I wouldn't want to go after everyday users either...but those who run and control and overwhelmingly benefit from it? Why should they be given OUR deposits to keep?
The decentralized nature of these protocols means that the development team behind it has no access to the funds stored in the contract and are unable to pay it back. Although some protocols could technically make this happen through a governance proposal it is unlikely that anyone would vote in favor. Maker and other DeFi protocols have not been given “our deposits to keep” they have simply been given back the funds that they lent to Celsius, and in exchange Celsius has gotten back our deposits which was used as collateral.
not just the development team, it is governed effectively by a small group of people who benefit significantly from it. A dry, boring research paper on it if you're interested. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2203/2203.16612.pdf
Yes, it is no secret that Maker DAO is less decentralized than it should be, but that doesn’t mean that the whales would vote in favor of inflicting the protocol losses.
Обсуждают сегодня