If you eventually do your seminar can you explain how to do this? Its not fun staying poor

Again, not an expert - but from what I saw this is far more complex to UNI and SUSHI. This complexity goes hand in hand with difficulty. So ordinary users won't end up using this but I can see it being the tool of choice for large pools of organised capital in the future.

Im undecided whether this makes it a better token than UNI/SUSHI though.

Thank you for the response.

Anyone follow beetle_crap on IG?

He released some crypto art this past December. One piece was ethereum themed, called into the ether. It originally sold for $969. Yesterday someone offered $260,000 for it.

If you go to his account there is a post giving a decent breakdown of crypto/digital art. Post was on 12/11.

-True
-Important dev
-A lot of work currently written is from 2019. Are those books ok? or is it better to wait a bit for books adapted for ethereum2?

Hands-On Smart Contract Development with Solidity and Ethereum: From Fundamentals to Deployment
by Kevin Solorio,Randall Kanna,David H Hoover

Building Ethereum DApps: Decentralized Applications on the Ethereum Blockchain, Robert Infanto


These publishers have usually good work to get started with a new tech.

I wouldn't read any books. Read whitepapers and actually use the apps (If gas too high, just setup a web wallet to browse and click around, but don't do any transactions). Work your way down the DefiPulse list.

I wish gas was lower so I could buy more stuff on Rarible.

I've been super bullish on crypto art since back in 2017 when even projects like Pepecash were pumping and selling trading cards for tens of thousands. Maecenas was another cool idea that unfortunately didn't pan out (like most tokens/icos).

If you or anyone know of other crypto art platforms being launched please share! Maybe some will move to Matic for a gas solution.

Beeple seems really cool in that you get both a physical copy and a NFT. I would definitely be interested in owning something like this so hopefully he offers something again in the future. It seems most stuff on rarible is simply digital though?

Not really interested in NFTs for profit though, I'd only ever buy something that I actually liked. I also thought the $260k bid was rescinded and never sold for that.

St. Louis Fed tweeting DeFi research with the hashtag. It's probably nothing.

Worth noting, they just published it, didn't do the research themselves. The author is Fabian Schär, a professor at the University of Basel.

Ok, I'm in... I bought 2 eth

If you had UNI or SUSHI on Dec 7, here's an airdrop for you. With gas, gonna cost you about $100 to claim it tho

https://pangolin.exchange/tutorials/claim-png

How big is it right now? Same airdrop for every account? Did they publish a list of all eligible addresses?

What's with the big Bitcoin vs ETH battle?

1) bridge is having issues
2) twitter seems to say you pay more in gas than the amount you receive

so I'd avoid this for now.

I've already spent $50 in gas and received nothing since the bridge has failed. You win some, you lose some.

KeeperDAO - I'm not super informed here, but it seems like meh risk/reward.
Nexus Mutual does offer coverage at 12%, but I'd rather just avoid putting money there.

Alpha - This should be pretty solid. APY will go up as pools are migrated to v2.

They're technically LPs, but I'd look at the Curve pools.
steth-eth ~40% in fees/Lido/CRV (Lido rewards are supposedly ending on the 13th though)
seth-eth ~30% in CRV

Also what Two Shae said about the 3x Compound loop sounds solid, but this is the first time I've heard of it. I'm not sure if/how much the position needs to be managed with changing APYs.

watch video starting at 37:00



Pretty surreal.

none of these protocols have been around for long enough to be called "very lindy." also, compound got exploited for 100mm worth of liquidations in november of 2020.


most in the crypto space underrate regulatory risk when it comes to defi. it remains to be seen how regulators deal with it. btc and eth are sufficiently decentralized. most major defi projects are not.

haha, this looks like an intern with defi bags more than a legitimate endorsement.

What do you guys think of think of proof of stake? Is it the consensus that it's needed for a scalable, low fee, secure crypto? Is it even secure?

If it's so much better, why didn't ethereum get built on proof of stake from the ground up?

This is objectively wrong, the actual amount lost (transferred, really) is the liquidation penalty * 100m. Don't be fooled by clickbait headlines.

Secondly, it was not an exploit. If you understand how DeFi liquidations work + some specifics about the Coinbase DAI market, this would be clear. Somewhat related, here is a recent article on them. If you want a deeper explanation on what actually happened, happy to share privately.

i'm not sure what you're trying to say by saying the amount lost during liquidations is not lost but transferred, but the specifics of the loss of funds itself is irrelevant to the point that i am making and so are the semantics of the word 'exploit.'

1) compound was using coinbase pro's price feed as its sole oracle
2) dai momentarily spiked 30% on coinbase pro alone
3) liquidations were triggered as a result and people lost money
4) compound tweeted out what amounted to "lol yep you should've known about the risks haha" and compensated no one

now, you can call this an exploit, a flaw or even "a transfer." but what matters is that people lost money where they really should not have and it was compound's fault. whether they lost 1mm or 100mm doesn't matter because dai was fine and therefore compound liquidations were erroneous in the context of the whole defi ecosystem.


i think we need more time to declare any of these "very lindy." is compound one of the most battle tested protocols in defi? yes. is it one of the safest in defi? yes. does 'safest in defi' mean much? no. have any of them been around long enough to be very lindy? no. exploits/hacks/transfers happen all the time. sometimes they cause improvements of systems and sometimes they break them.

what would've happened if the price jumped 100% instead of 30%? 200%? 1000%? would compound still be able to function after a colossal loss of user funds in such a scenario? would they still say that the risks should've been known by the users and that they hope we can all work together to strengthen the protocol?

why not post it here?

transfer from aggressive borrowers to the winning liquidator. 7 figure amount, not 9.

disagree that it was compound's fault or that the liquidations were erroneous. Compound's use of Coinbase pro price feed was well known, public, able to be seen if you reviewed their contracts/docs. borrowers knew the risk and still took it. It's not the first time DAI has gone off peg. Compound's oracle and liquidations functioned exactly as they should have. People who were taking less risk, but still borrowing nonzero DAI, did not get liquidated. You can say it is a bad design choice but everything worked as intended. Liquidation is a risk when you 1) supply volatile collateral and/or 2) borrow volatile collateral. DAI is not completely stable, and coinbase DAI price even less so. Also worth noting that no one who was not borrowing, or was lending+borrowing recursively, lost any money. Compound Labs also has tons of unissued COMP they could use to backstop the system in the case of an actual bug.

The rest of your argument is mostly semantic. For me, "very Lindy" is something like <2% risk/year. If you think it's more than that, feel free to put less of your money in there than I do.

Should be obvious that an alleged price manipulator could not guarantee with even reasonable probability that he'd win the liquidation. Plus the main liquidators are well-known, including the person who won. I'll leave you to figure out why someone paid > 1.13 for DAI on Coinbase.

Would devalue all current COMP holders. Not on a fully diluted supply basis, but would increase circ supply and selling pressure would increase. Not ideal recovery mechanism. Same reason pickle/farm etc. didn't just mint new pickle/farm tokens for recovery.

but borrowers still lost money when they should not have.


i said they were erroneous in the context of the defi ecosystem, not erroneous within their own poorly designed ruleset. dai never went above 1.03 globally and compound users got liquidated as if it hit 1.24.



how many borrowers do you know (besides yourself and your group of friends who are knowledgeable in defi) that actually know the intricacies of these protocols and are able to thoroughly review contracts?

let's not pretend that anybody actually does this except the very (autistic) few. the same way nobody reads the terms and conditions before they click accept. most people rely on heuristics such as trustworthiness derived from reviews of peers and how long something's been around, etc. i personally do the same. i haven't read any documentation in full in years of using defi and i've only gotten rugged once because i employ good metaheuristics. most of my friends are the same.

i think you're incorrectly conflating different categories of risk here. knowing the risk of using compound that is inherent to all of defi in the sense that a depegging of usdc/usdt/dai will be felt throughout the whole system? yes. knowing the risk of the platform liquidating your assets at a price that doesn't correspond to the average? no.

it did not go off peg to the extent that compound's oracle thought it did. it was never above 1.03! just because they "functioned exactly as they should have" because they used one price feed and it failed them is a very poor excuse.

if we had a discussion about my grievances about hypothetically getting superusered on ultimatebet, would you also be saying that their systems functioned exactly as they should have because their site was coded in a way that allowed superusers and my grievances were therefore invalid?


ya, i mean, how were they to know that they would be getting liquidated as if dai was 1.24 when it was actually 1.03?


i would but the gas fees are too high.

i'd estimate the risk of defi collapsing at around 5-10%. i wouldn't call any of the defi apps lindy at all as it is way too early.

Anyone have gas price predictions? Also, is there any good reason to trade on a different dex aside from uniswap?

I'm doing my shtcoin trading on a few centralized exchanges but also have been adding moonbags past few months on uni. For 4-5 month hold & dump I'm ok with $60-$80 gas fees, but much higher and it becomes less attractive as I'm not pushing super-whale volume (nor is this feasible due to price impact).

I'm pretty much done accumulating so mainly going to plan exits into btc, hope this is the last cycle where things are like 2006 online poker, super easy but infancy-stage platforms. Wild west out here boys.

re: invictus

this isn't really worth debating further. Compound liquidations don't occur based on the "global price". This also isn't some thing that is buried deep in the T&C. It is well-known, often discussed, and if you follow the Compound community at all, you know there are scores of Chainlink shills begging them to use their oracles. UB analogy is obviously stupid. do better. If you put money in Compound and thought it would liquidate based on "the global price" (lol how do you even define that, it needs a definition) that is on you for not understanding and pricing risk well. Also don't think it matters who knows what, it's an open system, financial Darwinism will play out (faster, now!) as time ticks on unabated.

On the whole, early users testing these systems at this stage of their existence are being well-compensated for risk.

re: VIPbuddy

yes there are good reasons to use other DEXs. When execution price is a function of liquidity, you will get a better price trading on the deepest liquidity source, or trading on an aggregator that routes through multiple liquidity sources (this will cost more gas though). Other thing to think about is sandwich attacks. If you're making trades with price impact >.3%, there is a near 100% chance you're donating to frontrunning bots.

i think you're deliberately being obtuse by pretending not to know how you would define the global price. there is a problem when the aggregate price seen on coinmarketcap, coingecko, chainlink price feeds never went above 1.03 and liquidations were triggered at the price level of 1.24. "well that's just how works and it was built that way just look at the contract bro" is not a counter-argument.