[hristov]

It is a ponzi scheme. There is no production to provide for this 19.5% yield. It is all taken from incoming investments into the system. And it is well known that ponzi schemes collapse when the influx of new money starts becomes insufficient to pay the yield. It is very natural for ponzi schemes to collapse even without any government involvement.

I think the article should have examined that possibility in addition to speculating about an attack.

It is very possible that the $2 billion that was removed on the weekend was simply a holder that having seen worldwide retreat from risky assets had decided to pull his/her money out.

[nightski]

Except those incoming investments are all matched by an equal amount selling . That’s not something you see in a Ponzi scheme.

[vkou]

The selling is just smoke and mirrors that obfuscates the fraud a little.

Anything promising risk-free 20% YoY returns is either a printing press, or a fraud.

[kristjansson]

Or extremely risky!

[beefield]

Not sure if there is sarcasm there, but it is pretty much a definition of fraud if someone claims that an extremely risky asset is risk-free.

[kristjansson]

Missed the risk-free in GP comment…

[hristov]

That is not true. The supply of luna coins kept increasing, which means that new money was being pumped in without corresponding sellers. Furthermore, while on one side luna coins were being destroyed to support the tera peg on the other side new supply of luna coins was being created and new money brought in. This new money went to the luna foundation which used it to pay the yield on the anchor protocol.

[nightski]

So anything with inflation is considered a ponzi scheme in your eyes?

Just want to mention that I in no way support algorithmic stable coins, I think they are a joke (including luna/terra). But I also don't agree crypto currencies are generally a ponzi scheme (there may be a few exceptions).

[johntb86]

It's the impossible trilemma - you can't have

* a fixed foreign exchange rate

* free capital movement (absence of capital controls)

* an independent monetary policy

As a stablecoin, they claimed to have

* A fixed exchange rate with the dollar

* Generally free movement in and out (except for the 21-day redemption period, etc.)

* an interest rate untethered to risk-free rates you could get on USD

so it was impossible for it to work.

[hristov]

I am not talking about crypto in general but the ancor protocol in particular. The ancor protocol provided 19.5 % yield without having any asset that actually produces that kind of income. It provided the yield from new investments coming in, which is the definition of a ponzi scheme.

[wlll]

> It is very natural for ponzi schemes to collapse even without any government involvement.

I read it as government involvement would stop the collapse of ponzi schemes by regulating them out of (legal) existence rather than by somehow propping them up.

[shawabawa3]

It wasn't a Ponzi.

Yields came from outside investment. It's closer to Ubers incentives in new markets than Ponzi

[nomad225]

What outside investments?