zlacker

>>donsup+(OP)
I imagine (and hope) those 5k where mostly crypto bros who knew what they were getting into. Who else expects 15% returns from a "safe" investment?

>>riffra+v3
I didn't invest because it was only 15% gains. Sad, but true. I actually read them their material & saw it was based on Anchor Protocol. When I saw that it was based on UST, and I couldn't figure how UST was backed by anything I understood, I opted out. One of the few times in crypto where I felt "do you won research" paid off for me.

>>devout+24
> I didn't invest because it was only 15% gains

I'm confused. Were you looking for a cryptocoin that was promising 1,500% gains?

Anyone promising a safe 15% return in a world where your savings account earns 0.15% interest is trying to rob you.

>>vkou+0a
Given you could get ~20% on anchor, why would you invest in something with lower return with no a priori reason to believe the returns are safer?

>>negzer+Yb
If a 20% better ponzi is better than a 15% one, again, I ask, why not a 1,500% one? There's new shitcoins born every day, promising these kinds of returns.

>>vkou+Bh
The part you're missing is that StableGains was simply parking their investors' money on Anchor, collecting the 20% APY, shaving off a quarter of it, and passing the remaining 15% to their investors.

Skipping the middleman is necessarily better because it is inherently lower risk for an absolute guarantee of 33% more upside.*

Investing in something else with even 16% promised returns, let alone 1500%, is not necessarily better because it is almost certainly higher risk.

* When Anchor (Luna/UST) crashed both StableGains and direct users of Anchor suffered the same percentage losses. But direct investors in Anchor had balances which were necessarily 33% ahead of StableGains investors due to not having StableGains shave off their interest earnings.