no. "the global price" is actually hard to define for a variety of reasons. See:

Uniswap TWAP's are actually very interesting though.

a blockchain app can't just grab the price from coinmarketcap... there really isn't any debate here. compound used a specific market (and didn't hide this fact), that price was reported correctly, people got liquidated. the only question is, should they fix this design and use multiple price sources? I'd say yes.

And you can bet there's a lot more DAI offered above peg and above 1.13 now that this has already happened.

So HIVE blockchain technologies is basically a 3x ETF for eth? The way RIOT is going I'm thinking of a LT position

Thanks for the advice! I will research this as I would like to understand how the bot ecosystem works on these Defi exchanges. Any links or recs to study would be helpful.

Probability that Ethereum falls to BSC at some point in the future?

If EIP-1559 doesn't get through soon...

it won't. bsc will have the exact same issues ethereum is having right now if there was much activity on bsc.

the reason all these other chains are cheaper and faster than ethereum is because they are basically ghost chains with no activity. if they were ever to reach the same level of demand, they'd face many of the same issues.

BSC can support much more activity cheaper than ETH because its very centralized. There is a trade off.

ya it's all about the tradeoffs.

I don't buy that, long term, users really care about centralisation vs decentralisation. They care about what they can do with the network and right now fees on ethereum are prohibitive to everyone except whales or people comfortable using L2 solutions.

Yes this is making me wonder about bsc vs ethereum. Another defense for ethereum has been all the development on that network but the ‘copy and paste’ dapps seem to be undermining that too? Must be hard as a developer to balance the ‘open source’ vs protecting intellectual property problem

Wrong thread... still love you tho ETH.

And ETH broke 2k!!!

ETH 10k by October?

Heading to the moon?

~0%, BSC is not much different than a centralized database and IMO it's just a sleight of hand way for Binance to get around KYC, and CZ can pump his bags along the way.

Fun fact, EIP-1559 isn't going to make gas prices cheaper. It:
1) improves UX via lower variance in gas fees
2) moves a portion of the ETH paid in fees back to ETH holders instead of miners (via burning the BASEFEE, creating deflationary pressure)

This may actually make gas prices worse. The best way to lower them quickly is to raise the gas limit from 12.5MM (BSC is at 30MM, which they're able to do because all 21 validators are run by CZ. Unfortunately for them, if people continue to use the chain it's going to get very expensive and there's no emission to help cover their costs). However, there's a tradeoff wrt state growth and it's not known if a further increase in the gas limit is safe.



Peter, one of the 4 maintainers of geth, is against raising it ceteris paribus.

Strong disagree. Users don't care about decentralization until centralization hurts them (ala Robinhood wallstreetbets). All of the users who were here during the bear building care A LOT about decentralization and will continue to evangelize its importance to new users. It's the raison d'etre for blockchain in the first place.

Exactly and Ethereum is basically Google Sheets but slower, more difficult and infinitely more expensive : )

Not at all but good try, keep following your BTC maximalist thought leaders for great investment advice like shorting .02

Honestly I've spent way too many hours of my life thinking about and leaning about ETH, I probably should have just blindly followed the 'thought leaders', would have been much easier and I still would have reached the point.

You do you, I'm certain your crushing. ETH maxis more toxic than BTC maxis these days and I actually respect it.

There is a lot of salt about BSC, imo justified because 1) they lie about decentralization and don't acknowledge the actual tradeoffs BSC makes 2) it bastardizes the values of blockchain 3) they're faking txs and volume and possibly also spamming ethereum. I don't think any of us should want to live in a world where CZ controls consensus and can censor txs. Whatever you think of Vitalik, he objectively can't do that and IMO is extremely motivated by ideals and not by profit like CZ.

IMO I think the biggest difference between "eth maxis" and toxi-maxis is that the latter regularly call ethereum and everything on it a scam, while the former recognize BTC's merit, but just think it's the wrong architecture (not flexible/expressive on L1, going all in on Lightning for scaling for the last ~5 years) for the highest value use case of blockchain. The ETH people are more intellectually honest, and it's not close. There's also a lot of hypocrisy with the original ethos of "down with the banks/central banks/tradfi lords" vs now celebrating/egging them on into allocating to BTC. All BTCers talk about these days is companies/institutions and central banks (eventually) allocating to BTC. "Hai Guyz we hate you but please pump our bags!!1!" The majority of talk is about price; read the BTC thread here for evidence. Ethereum circles are far more build-centric and idealistic, which is cool.

The problem with BTC maxis is less about toxicity (I mean, that is a problem, "HFSP" trend is not cool or funny) and more about their proclivity to deliberately spread misinformation and use hyperbole. One thing that especially comes to mind is Adam Back's repeated comparisons of Vitalik to Elizabeth Holmes and Ethereum to Theranos. All his blockstream cronies pile on. This is intentional to rile up BTCers and get them to fling poo at ethereum. Textbook smear campaign against their greatest competition.

ETH is up vs BTC since inception (about 70x), YTD, last year, trailing 1 year, and down vs BTC since the literal ETHBTC top. So they're mostly just salty, imo. It's okay to like both. I have double digit %s of my net worth in both. It's also okay to love bitcoin despite its worst people, ie hating the toxi-maxis and Cuckstream but liking bitcoin in spite of them.

All fair, if a little toxic : )

Many bitcoiners predicted what is happening now extremely early on. They knew (hoped?) it would trend towards becoming a reserve asset and seeing that play out now I think it's fair to celebrate how far everything has come.

Well executed maximalism is hard to pull off, I'm essentially all in on BTC and yet I have to mute/block everyone from Blockstream and hundreds of other BTC talking heads on Twitter because I agree they are unbearable.

I admit I do like Udi, he has a certain charm and then there's the more eloquent ones like Tuur who I have a ton of respect for.

personally find Udi more insufferable than Adam and that's saying a lot. Just the fact that he's an extremely belligerent troll, idk. Those 2 up there in the class of Dan Held, Francis, Jimmy Song, Saifedean. Would say Nic Carter is my favorite mostly BTC guy, but still think he's completely blind to Ethereum.

Tuur is the classic village idiot, if you plot his public short ETH calls on ETHBTC chart it's actually hilarious how bad they've been. At this point I honestly wonder if he intentionally posts the short when he's actually long because he knows a lot in the market countertrade him and Max Keiser/see them as bottom signals.

Anyway, I'm glad to see your view of liking BTC in spite of these people becoming more popular. Crypto and the world in general needs more moderates. Too much extremism/polarization these days

I've bought both BTC and ETH every week for the past 3 years but i'm thinking about no longer adding to my BTC position and going exclusively ETH from here on out.

Anyone else made this decision?

I'd diversify into eth, dot, ada.

there are several issues with eth network like gas fees, bugs in smart contracts etc, so you never know...

Also I'm very biased to ADA anyway, can't stop watching Charles on youtube, Cardano is like a religion

First, gas fees = demand for blockspace = product-market fit. Period. Hopefully ethereum scales enough such that not as much use is priced out by the fees. People are working very hard on this without adding centralization (which chains like Cardano have traded off for more scalability). Fees are a great metric for demand because you literally have to pay; in that sense you cannot fake them or do artificial things to make them look higher-- they just are.

Second, Cardano doesn't even have smart contracts yet, so it's fairly hilarious you mention "bugs in smart contracts" as a flaw for ethereum. Ethereum has several contracts with $1B+ dollars in them that have not been exploited. Cardano has no smart contracts.

Q: If and when it does have smart contracts, will they be more or less secure than their ethereum counterparts?

A:Lindy Effect

Cardano may pump because markets are thin, trend is up, and there's a lot of marketing and hype behind it leading dumbs to buy, but there's ~no smart $ in it that wants to own it for the long haul. Its market cap/FDV are absurd on a comparative basis to ethereum when you juxtapose their traction. Fwiw I think DOT is also pretty wild too, but there is plenty of smart $ in that, and one such reason why it makes sense is because there are a large amount of DeFi projects launching on it that have received VC funding and it's obvious they will be farmable for DOT holders / DOT LPs (ie, X/DOT LP tokens).

(I'm not long or short ADA)

I would continue as you've been doing.

you really can't think of the aggregate of prices across exchanges (a la coinmarketcap and coingecko) as a valid definition of "the global price"? why are you pretending to be stupid?

yes, everyone in crypto knows a blockchain app can't grab the price from coinmarketcap. that doesn't mean that a workaround around this is to use a single price feed and pretend it's fine when it wildly deviates from the global aggregate. nobody's saying that it didn't function in the way that it supposed to. doing so is just a tautology.

look, you can repeat the mechanism of action of compound liquidations all you want, but it doesn't invalidate the claim that it's not right that those liquidations get triggered at a price way higher than the aggregate. again, "well that's just how works and it was built that way just look at the contract bro" is not a valid counter-argument.

ah, there it is! okay, now we're finally getting somewhere.

you can't have all of these positions simultaneously:
1) compound is lindy because it's 2% risk/year
2) compound liquidation mechanism is fine
3) compound should fix the design and use multiple price sources

You're trivializing 1) defining a good tamper-resistant price 2) implementing something so a smart contract can use it for critical functions. It's nowhere near the same problem as building a price checking site. There's an inherent tradeoff between complexity of code changes/additions and security. In general, you should expect Compound Labs to prioritize security of the entire system (liquidations being just one part of it).

Compound is Lindy because it's had 8-9-10 figures in it for years without funds being drained or bricked. Full stop. It's fair to conclude Compound is a good risk-adjusted bet because of that measured against the edge lending USDC. If you disagree feel free to not put your money there.

It sucks if people got liquidated because they thought it worked in a way that it literally does not. If it was some black box contract your point may hold water but that's simply not the case.

Hilarious that you think my 2% risk/year comment has anything to do with liquidations. People have been liquidated in one block. That's Darwinism. Only a subset of Compound users have *ANY* liquidation risk. If you don't borrow you can't get liquidated, and if you recursively borrow and resupply the same asset in proper ratio you also cannot get liquidated due to market price movement.