[yt-sdb]

Let's say I start an exchange to trade magic beans. The beans are worthless, but lots of people like trading them. In my terms of service, I say I won't use user funds for anything else and won't rehypothecate user beans if posted as collateral. I claim to make money off fees. Then I do both, lose all the money, and people lose billions of dollars---which they realize when they ask for their money back. You may think magic bean trading is dumb. You may think the people trading them are dumb. But what I did would still be a crime, and calling it a crime doesn't necessarily mean you're delusion about beans.

Put differently, it sounds like you think people who put money into FTX are dumb. Fine. But the law still protects dumb people, as it should.

[scoofy]

Not dumb. I just think this result should have been part of the risk-adjusted value calculation.

One of the main reasons I hesitated on DeFi, and I probably read a dozen white papers, was my concerns over not being in control of my assets when off exchange. The staking rates always seemed insane.

Certainly not as concerned as when I didn’t understand the Luna white paper and my friends who were rich off it couldn’t explain it to me, but still concerned.

[TimJRobinson]

As someone that loves DeFi I think that take is reasonable. If you don't understand it don't put your money in it, and only invest an amount that is equal to the risk of that protocol failing.

Because code is immutable you can simply wait until a protocol is a few months / years old and if it hasn't been hacked you know it's going to be safe.

This is why regulation isn't as needed, because the code can't secretly change like humans at opaque financial institutions can. Immutability + Transparency + Time is the regulation.