[idiotsecant]

And yet decentralized exchanges exist that have been operating successfully for years. Survival of the fittest is a good thing in this case. I would trust a defi exchange that's had people trying to break it constantly for years much more than I would trust, for example, the security of my money in a local bank. People get their money stolen in confidence scams and other exploits every day and that money is just as gone.

[archontes]

The more robust a system, the more spectacular its eventual failure.

[pksebben]

I think that depends on the flavor of robustness. spectacular failures occur with systems that have high interdependence of parts, high centrality, and recursive effects. There's also a relationship between cascading failure modes and complexity.

Systems that are robust due to being simple, flexible, highly independent tend to peter out over the long haul, as their failure is often an effect of a changing environment rather than some internal fracture.

Anything that's made "robust" artificially (like propping up a bridge with a loose piece of lumber, or injecting bailout money to maintain bank's solvency) is now completely dependant on that artificial prop. if the bridge is allowed to carry more traffic after being propped up this way, you can expect a catastrophe equal to the one you averted + everything that's been added since.