zlacker

>>mkeete+(OP)
What's funny about this is that I can recall discussions here and elsewhere from only a few months ago questioning the "guaranteed" super-high returns. I forget who said this but someone awhile ago said in finance said that if someone is promising you consistent above-market returns it's either a scam or there is unknown or undisclosed risk.

And the Crypto Andys were all like "you just don't understand DeFi!" to which the retort is "No, you just don't understand finance".

Finance is the way it is for many reasons. There are thousands of years of lessons that have made the system the way it is. I get the innovator mentality of sweeping away the old but there seems to be a fine line between innovation and ignorance.

I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching people relearn all the lessons of finance the hard way, some because they think they understand finance because because they understand merkle trees and consensus protocols but really most just want to get rich quick.

>>jmyeet+hg
In the linked Terra Revival post there's this gem of a term:

> Pre-attack Luna

I love how we went straight from "what happened" to "it was an attack."

>>zamale+zm
I'm not surprised the attack narrative is so popular and rarely challenged. Whether there was an actual attack or not, the attack narrative gives everyone a convenient out. The creator can disavow responsibility for creating a stablecoin that doesn't work and the investors get to feel like they weren't taken in by a con but we're instead attacked by an outside entity.