RaketenStadt

Good to know. Can you explain the difference between a permissionless transaction and the economic theory of supply and demand?

> Every "permissionless transaction" is an action of supplying and demanding.

Of course it's not, it's simply a transaction; it doesn't need to be between two separate parties. I don't think you understand Bitcoin as well as you believe, you have it confused with an economic theory.

Reading "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" will do you good.

Your dev team needs meetings? Sounds pretty disorganized.

Our team is productive, manages their time well, and communicates without meetings. Did anyone actually need a meeting, ever?

No, the values are the "full-flowering date" not the "first"

> I’m a climate change denier

> I don't deny it

So, you're not a climate change denier

According to paragraph 3 of TFA it's not collateralized similarly

> Other on-chain stablecoins like DAI are over-collateralised. For every $1 of DAI, there’s ~$1.75 worth of crypto assets in the DAI system.

No, this isn't a Ponzi scheme. That's the only thing I've said. I think you believe "Ponzi scheme" and "scheme" are interchangeable.

Usually the go-to lazy catchphrase is "we're just arguing semantics!" but "semantic definitions" is new.

So why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"

>I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes.

Do you know who Charles Ponzi was or why Ponzi schemes are named after him?

Do you know what he did or what Bernie Madoff did? They operated the Ponzi scheme. That's why they were a critical part.

This money really was going into the smart contract, wasn't directly given to old investors, wasn't being siphoned directly into the operator's pocket, all unlike a Ponzi.

You don't know what a Ponzi is and you're trying to save face, I get it.

> $272 million worth of USDC is still locked up in in the contract. Why hasn’t everyone recovered their 74 cents?

Why didn't the masterminds behind this scheme walk away with that cash? Because it was a mistake. Not a genius scheme being run in the shadows.

A definition so broad it's meaningless. There was no Bernie Madoff here, no fraudulent scheme, just very poor design and outright mistakes.

What you're describing is what they tried (and failed) to avoid. How can you make it to the "I’m wondering if this can last mathematically?" part of this article and still think there's a mastermind behind all of this?