Conversation

Replying to
7) Both sides put the funds in the smart contract, and once it has both and both parties have agreed to a trade, it sends each person what they bought. You can do this via pre-programmed smart contracts with no middlemen who can fuck with things. And it does what users want.
1
17
8) What else works well in DeFi? Borrow/lending mostly works as desired; see Compound, Aave, etc. But venture far beyond that and the product quality quickly degrades. For example, take stablecoins.
1
17
9) Stablecoins are basically the simplest product in CeFi. You take an ERC20 token, and you take dollars in a bank account, and you map them 1:1, with creations and redemptions. There's basically nothing tricky about them (other than holding the bank account!). How about DeFi?
1
17
10) In DeFi, stablecoins are a total fucking mess. The problem, really, is that a stablecoin is a dollar, and dollars are not on the blockchain; they're centralized in bank accounts. So if you only have the blockchain, you can't redeem for $1. But then what makes it stable?
2
23
12) But those require banks, and if you don't allow centralized elements then you're left with, basically, atomic swaps of TUSD for USDC--which depend on some outside mechanism to keep them in line and provide liquidity.
1
13
13) But it gets worse--if you really hate centralization, you might not like the fact that your stablecoin's value relies on a bank account. What if it gets frozen, or the creation/redemption facility shuts down? What is worth $1 but doesn't rely on banking?
1
18
14) There's a really fundamental tension here! So we end up with stuff like $DAI. And DAI is a total mess. It's not backed by dollars. That means you can't redeem it for a dollar bill. But in fact, you usually can't redeem it at all! What makes it "worth" $1?
1
23
15) In fact you can't create it either, really--you can just borrow it. So it's peg is really soft. And it's backed by a leveraged position, so if markets move the stablecoin's holdings might get liquidated. So to recap: no creations, no redemptions, but yes liquidations.
2
24
Replying to
18) And stablecoins are just one example. The tradeoff between centralization and usability is all over the place. Many DeFi projects need price feeds; so they use oracles, which.... usually draw from Coinbase (or Binance, etc.). Which is fine--that's what FTX futures do!
1
17
19) But it's not super decentralized; it's super prone to centralized failure or API issues. (See e.g. BitMEX and Deribit futures when Bitstamp etc. blew out.) And if you want to trade BTC on Ethereum, most attemps ultimately have a pack of judges custodying the BTC.
2
19
20) This even pops up when looking at blockchains. One way to make your chain faster and cheaper is to make it centralized--if it's just you saying what happens you can do so quickly. But of course that starts to cut into the whole point of crypto, and DeFi in particular.
2
14
21) So what do we do here? Many of the answers aren't obvious. But that doesn't mean it's hopeless. There are powerful procedures to create trustless cross-chain behavior; there are blockchains that gain speed without sacrificing security.
1
17
22) And there are ways to approach stablecoins that, while not perfect, at least do something better than DAI, and less centralized than USDC. In order for DeFi to grow, it's going to have to make a compelling case that the trustlessness justifies the hassle.
4
25
23) And that means finding pareto optima, making the best tradeoffs you can, and continuing to find ways to build out the power of the DeFi ecosystem without sacrificing its core principles.
4
35