[dmak]

It's strange to attribute failure to the blockchain in this case. There was no visibility into how much leverage was taken on by Alameda because they aren't borrowing through DeFi means. This a traditional finance problem where a hedge fund takes on too much leverage and no one finds out until they explode.

No visibility leads to no accountability.

[LeafGuild]

No blockchain can ever guarantee there's any visibility or accountability. Defi means are only useful to trade cryptos for other cryptos, and you only have visibility if no one launders the money through crypto mixers. Once you want to cash out and trade your cryptos for any real assets, like buying a pizza, you instantly lose visibility again because all that has to happen off chain. Just because something is a tradfi problem doesn't mean it also can't be a defi problem. In this case, and in a lot of other cases, it's both. Blockchains cannot solve this problem in any meaningful way because you can never force everything to go through that chain. Fraudsters will just move it off the chain and lie about it, and that instantly puts you back into a spot where blockchains aren't doing anything for you.

I argue this is what they wanted out of blockchains. I remember all the rumblings in the days of Silk Road and Mt Gox. The enthusiasts that are responsible for propagating this system into today wanted it to be a wild west where anything goes. They said all the same things back then. I heard people saying it was good that Mt Gox got hacked because it meant all the scammers got what they deserved and they learned their lesson. Well, they didn't! It continued to be a wild west and more scammers just showed up. They'll keep scamming and they won't stop as long as they can make money from it. I don't know why crypto people are so reluctant to acknowledge this. Scammers seek out anywhere they can latch onto and they don't leave until forcibly removed. If a malicious person finds a risk-free way to get free money from unsuspecting victims, with no downsides, why would they ever want to stop?

[100001_100011]

> No blockchain can ever guarantee there's any visibility or accountability

Visibility or accountability of what? Many blockchains are public.

I find you not only misinformed but possibly intentionally trying to mislead people.

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Paul Kedrosky

[caminante]

> Visibility or accountability of what? Many blockchains are public.

I don't know how you ask these questions if you read the parent's post.

Clearly, the parent lays out situations where going off/on blockchain dilutes visibility.

The cross-collateralization of FTX assets wasn't on blockchain.

[100001_100011]

I read the parent's post.

"No blockchain can ever guarantee there's any visibility or accountability."

Ever? Any? Clearly this sentence is false. It takes only one counterexample to prove it.

Here's the counterexample. If someday all the world's money are on a single blockchain and there are no banks, the blockchain guarantees visibility and possibly accountability.

Do you see the meaning of ever now?

Please don't be gratuitously negative. It's to your benefit to be precise. You sell yourself short when you cut off possibilities.

[caminante]

>Here's the counterexample. If someday all the world's money are on a single blockchain and there are no banks, the blockchain guarantees visibility and possibly accountability.

Fine. Let's agree to two premises:

1. all the world's money are on a single blockchain

2. there are no banks

Your conclusion, doesn't necessarily follow!

The problem is I can still contract rights to the blockchain outside of the blockchain, e.g. where on the blockchain did it track FTX's cross collateralization? That's not visible unless I express my right somewhere in the public record.

This scenario (and others) underly the broad point made by the parent.

As far your ad hominem on negativity, I have no idea what you're referring to.

[eric_cc]

> I find you not only misinformed but possibly intentionally trying to mislead people.

This. Brand new account spreading blatant lies.

[100001_100011]

11 months old isn't brand new.

The way I find the OP isn't a blatant lie. It's the truth: how I find the OP.

Now I'm wondering about you.