|
|
|
|
|
|
by dbmikus
1059 days ago
|
|
|
The collateral provably exists because blockchain code is public and ownership is secured via cryptography. Are you asking about an off-chain asset that is brought on-chain? For that, you are correct you need to rely on a socially trusted institution that attests that the off-chain asset isn't actually owned by someone else. There are some off-chain assets that are tokenized and are very trustworthy, IMO, such as USDC. And then there are a number of purely on-chain assets, such as ETH, MATIC (Polygon), and coins that power protocols like Uniswap and Aave and give the owner of those coins a right to dividends. The blockchain proves ownership of purely on-chain assets directly through cryptography. I do want to add, you are being pretty combative here towards someone that was genuinely answering your questions. |
|
|
You do see the glaring issue there right?
As for combative, I am beyond tired of the games played by crypto folks when it comes to answering basic questions they should already have the answers for.
If they don't answer the simple questions with clear and simple answers, then why should I act as though they are acting in good faith, let alone actually educated on the topics they claim the tech solves to know whether it solves a problem at all? Because from my perspective they sure as hell aren't.
Ed: oh I forgot to include the other major issue that undermines even on chain encumberance, that is the fact that a preceding off chain encumbrance takes precedent in court and thus even if the SC executes properly the funds may be taken by the courts as a consequence of preexisting encumbrance and thereby undermine the entire value proposition of the SC.