zeroclip

I'm not sure you are replying in good faith.

But, you are still making the claim that a decentralized smart contract protocol would be better replaced with a centralized traditional database on a Raspberry Pi. We disagree.

Uniswap is a good application of smart contracts. Your comments explicitly suggest that Uniswap would be better run on something like sqlite, which needs a centralized owner, which is functionally the same as replacing a DEX with a CEX.

> in every single case would be more efficient and better served by Visual Basic running on a single Raspberry Pi from a sqlite database

Your point is that centralized financial services on sqlite is good, decentralized protocols on a blockchain is bad? If that is your point, it's a funny one to make in a thread about a CEX collapsing.

Do you really feel that Uniswap is better run with sqlite on a Raspberry Pi? If so, you are advocating for putting your money into a CEX, because somebody has to own and control that database and physical device.

Uniswap, AAVE, MakerDAO traders will disagree with you.

I am one of these people: I had funds locked into a CEX, was lucky to pull them out some days before turmoil but others not so lucky. During that time my DeFi holdings were fine. I would now rather take on protocol risk of something established and proven like Uniswap, instead of risking with an unregulated CEX.

Depends where you look. Solend and Uniswap have different risks, to use comparison AAPL and some new hot unknown tech stock have different risks. Uniswap does not have code to pause withdrawals, does not have a DAO or governance structure to change the contract.

Risk profile in Uniswap and established DeFi protocol is more transparent than FTX. You cannot verify and audit a CEX, you have to trust they are doing things right, or trust the third parties who audit them. If you are skeptical of Binance or Tether audits then you understand the want for open source DeFi.

> In that way, "DeFi" feels the same about the finance industry.

How? DeFi protocols are behaving predictably and not pausing user withdrawals or hiding billion dollar black holes in their balances.

A protocol is just code, code can have bugs. Another risk is around governance. Some protocols use proxy contracts, so a single developer or team can upgrade them. But they can accidentally push out a bug in a new version. Other protocols like Uniswap opt for non-upgradeable contracts, users have to opt-in to the new version.

Yes, it's a risk. If a contract or protocol is several years old, processing billions per day, and the code is un-upgradeable, you might say the risk is lower.

I'd rather gamble with Uniswap protocol risk than FTX human fraud and greed risk.

Different category of risk.

CEX and DEX can both have hacks. An open source DEX can be verified, formally tested, and made immutable and un-upgradable on chain, like Uniswap.

Uniswap V2 contract is 2 years unchanged, $3.8B TVL and $1B daily volume, close to 10 year old Coinbase CEX. Not bad for being a joke.

A lot of crypto investors are day traders or naive hodlers who have no idea what blockchain and DeFi means. But DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Aave are holding up fine and are incapable of pausing user withdrawals.

A lot of day traders on FTX are learning first hand the value of DeFi and self custody.