zlacker

>>mkeete+(OP)
UST, a stable coin not even pretending to be backed by the very thing it was pegged to fails. Unlike USDT, USDC or GUSD, there was a documented plan of attack to take UST down 6 months ago, someone just raised enough capitol to execute it.

>>trixie+Ta
While there was a proposed attack, there is no evidence it (or any other attack) was executed.

Which would be weird. Attacks on blockchains usually have detailed analysis within days, the blockchains are public and any evidence would be right there for people to examine.

All evidence is that UST simply collapsed on under it's own weight because it's algorithmic nature was never stable. As soon as the price of LUNA started falling, it created a feedback loop which drove the price of LUNA to zero, destroying the very thing backing UST.

>>phire+Eg
Yes the attack was a loophole in the algorithm not the blockchain itself.

>>trixie+sD
Yes, but the (alleged) attack on the algorithm would have happened on blockchain, and would have been recorded as transactions in the blocks.

Ironically, some attacks on blockchains themselves (like 51% attacks) are actually harder to analyze, because part of the evidence lives in blocks that were deliberately orphined from the blockchain, and the p2p network doesn't have any incentive to share those blocks. I've analyzed such attacks and you actually have to examine the caches and logs of nodes that were running at the time to find evidence.