[ricochet11]

There is no reason that the third-party cant be a contract with globally accessible permissionless apis, that let you borrow peer2peer or peer2protocol against your assets, and that upon you not repaying your debt liquidates your position (by other people/protocols bidding for the assets that are out of position, usually over-collateralized at 150% min).

Most of defi is structured in this way and it is working fine, it works because it IS being integrated and made compatible with existing finance.

This is "futuristic" because anyone in the world has opportunity to lend/borrow to anyone else in the world, to write code that automates savings accounts by rotating these positions, to write business logic of their startup to borrow money when they need and pay it back when its the best time for them - scaling their finance on demand like spinning up an ec2 instance. A system where you have more voice and opportunity for your work/savings/co-op/club, compared with whatever the state of banking is in wherever you happen to be born in the world.

Concrete example: I asked my bank to borrow some money and showed them my bitcoin, they predictably said no because their system cant handle it. I wrapped it onto ethereum, deposited it in aave, borrowed usdc, withdrew to my bank account and carried on with my life without needing the banks permissions. The people lending that usdc to aave to lend out to me know it is safe and I cant run off never paying back my debts and interest (otherwise they get my over-collateralized btc).

permissionless global p2p lending and borrowing. it isn't futuristic, it is the present. ill never understand why "hacker"news doesnt find that amazing.

[lottin]

You don't seem to get it. If the borrower has to put up 100% collateral it means that their buying power remains the same. Borrowers borrow money in order to increase their present buying power (at the expense of future buying power). You can't do that with overcollateralised loans, smart contracts, or blockchain technology.

[mywaifuismeta]

> You don't seem to get it

No, you are only describing a part of what borrowing is about. Your use case is valid, but it is just one of many use cases. Consider the following:

I own a a long-term retirement account, but I need to pay an emergency medical bill and don't have cash at hand. Obviously I don't want to liquidate my savings account, but I can put it up as collateral to go to a bank and get a cash loan. If I'm unable to pay the account may be liquidated. That's an overcolleralized loan. It's useful. The same is happening when you put up your house as collateral, or arguably even your reputation.

The blockchain equivalent of this is the same. You put up one asset as collateral e.g. Bitcoin, and you can get another more liquid asset.

Another use case for this is simply market exposure and hedging. You can put up Bitcoin as collateral, still having exposure, and then use the loan to buy another asset to get exposure to, creating a more complex structured exposure. This has nothing to do with blockchain, it's the same in traditional finance.

[lottin]

An overcollateralised loan is equivalent to a swap (a type of derivative). Swaps have their uses, and are used in finance, but they don't provide financing. The point is if blockchain technology can't be used to do financing, and it definitely can't, just don't call it the "future of finance", because it is not. It can't perform the basic function of finance, which is financing.

[carlosdp]

How is a mortgage not financing, and how is a mortgage not just another over-collateralized loan?

Every loan has some form of collateral. Even credit cards do, it's just less tangible: you are staking your credit score, which they'll start chipping away at as soon as you start defaulting.

[lottin]

A mortgage is indeed a form of financing because the lender does not keep the collateral until the debt is paid off in full. If they did, there would be no financing going on. It would be equivalent to saving for 30 years and then buying the house.

[dannyw]

Mortgages are overcollateralized loans.

Credit cards are loans based on future income streams (which can be securitised in fact with crypto technology -- think a defi bank automatically getting 20% of your future income until it is repaid)

[lottin]

The problem isn't overcollateralisation itself but the inability to seize the collateral in particular, and assets in general. A mortgage depends crucially on the bank's ability to seize the collateral in the event of default, and the same applies to credit cards. The problem is blockchain assets are unconfiscatable, which means any form of financing involving such assets is unworkable.

[dannyw]

No, blockchain assets can be confiscated. Maker, Aave, confiscate and liquidated billions of assets in the past few days.

Smart contracts are Turing complete and you can build anything with it. You can even build an opt-in judiciary system with the power to reverse transactions.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised if you look at how DeFi actually works.

[lottin]

No, Maker & Aave haven't confiscated anything in the past few days. Either you don't know what 'confiscate' means or you don't know how Maker & Aave, and DeFi lending in general, work.