Most token governance systems suppose their voters have "skin in the game". But what if attacker borrowed gov token to participate in the voting?🤔 They won't lose a penny in case of a token dump #DeFi
14
13
64
Conversation
Some lending systems could allow borrowing LP tokens, for example, recently allowed to use LP tokens as collaterals: defirate.com/aave-uniswap-m
1
1
9
Well, that's why the LP tokens have to be staked for some period of time.
2
1
Of course this creates capital inefficiency, which means additional direct costs
2
3
This is a really tough topic!
1) you still lose if you borrow them if you were overcollateralized, but not as much
2) I think it's a real problem!
3) This is one of the reasons that 's governance is restricted to things that can't steal or destroy Serum.
1
1
3
How do you intend to govern the token bridge between ETH and SOL?
1
OR can distinguish between real and fake blockchain histories on-chain via preprogrammed smart contracts, so you can just let everyone go wild claiming what happened and let the program find the real history.
1
(just have the program filter out invalid chains and then choose the longest remaining)
So the "consensus" mechanism here is "if any single person is honest then the right thing happens" which is pretty sweet.
E.g. you yourself can guarantee it by submitting the real history.
And if there is a chain split on SOL and both things happen?
1
Yeah chain splits are nasty here, and there isn't really a *best* answer.
Note, though, that Solana doesn't really have competing chains the way PoW often does unless there's a real breakdown/malicious actors/etc.
1
Show replies
So the longer answer is: when a cross-chain tx happens, all nodes (and anyone else) can submit a history, and if anyone is honest the smart contract will deem it so.
Nodes are them rewarded if they're chosen (so rewarded if they told the truth).