Alice (alice.co / @alice_finance) is another prominent one that may have lost customer funds, which was also using the Anchor protocol. It’s unclear how much they lost, but it’s interesting that Do Kwon’s name is still an actual logo listed on their home page.
And Vertex Protocol (vertexprotocol.com / @vertex_protocol) recently raised $8.5m to launch a trading platform based on the Anchor protocol, but because their Phase 1 beta had just closed and the open launch was not planned until this summer, it looks like they may have just barely dodged the bullet?
What I’m really curious about are the new and (of course) unregulated “insurance” products meant to cover catastrophic crypto depegs, as happened to Terra/Luna. Unslashed (https://app.unslashed.finance/cover) is supposed to kick in after fourteen days, I believe. We’re not quite there yet, it’s barely a week so far. But I’m sure with this kind of implied loss reserves, it’ll be fine…
https://mobile.twitter.com/CurveFinance/status/1416392630754...
That being said, calling these platforms "ponzis" isn't correct, the most you can say is that they were front ends for a ponzi. It would be like setting up a front-end to receive investments, and then depositing the money with Madoff. I'm not saying that it is a legitimate business, just not a ponzi.
And I'm not defending these companies either, a very light DD [2] made it obvious that the LUNA-UST mechanism was broken and the collapse was inevitable. It's really messed up that they put clients' money at risk, and that they lost it. I also think that YC is somewhat responsible for this.
What makes the situation even worse is that the collapse didn't happen from one day to the next, they actually had time to pull the money out at a 0.5%-5% loss, but they still decided to wait and see if it would repeg.
[0] https://twitter.com/josusanmartin/status/1478185473499615233
[1] https://twitter.com/josusanmartin/status/1478188494463848448
[2] This DD took me less than 1 hour: https://twitter.com/josusanmartin/status/1524323026942242818
Umm, once it's not a legitimate business, it's fraudulent. Exactly what type of fraudulent is a somewhat secondary issue.
[of Boiler Room scams of old] "... often rely on high-pressure sales tactics, such as aggressive cold-calling, misinformation, and extravagant promises to assure buyers that they are buying "a sure thing." [..] The SEC requires brokers to adhere to strict standards when selling securities. Brokers may not misinform or omit material facts when selling securities; nor can they exaggerate their own track records. They are also required to have a “reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for a customer.”"[0]
Ring any bells?
Do we think customers are really giving informed consent before putting their savings into these platforms?