Conversation

Replying to

yeah hear you on that, just think the uniswap datapoint was wrong also FTT does have a lot more support than it looks like but that's not obvious from anything easy to tell

Replying to

and

like not saying your point is crazy here--it's not! just that you're overplaying your hand a little bit, like playing as if your point is 2x stronger than it is

Replying to

and

I really don't think I am, 25% of the entire $FTT is on Cream, that's 39x the daily volume and 40% of all collateral on Crean No matter how you paint this, it's incredibly risky for users, depositors are already having issues withdrawing their funds due to a lack of liquidity

Replying to

guess we're going to have to agree to disagree then, not saying you're totally wrong here just that there's nuances to it, but if you're not willing to give any ground here then :shrug:

Replying to

and

You haven't really made a counterargument tbf

Replying to

and

so: 1) uniswap was a bad datapoint 2) otc market is really deep for FTT 3) I personally am happy to buy a bunch 4) coins with buy/burns etc. tend to have away deeper liquidity 5) there's a flip side to this: the more you cut down on lending, the less usage the protocol gets

Replying to

Hear both sides, Only question I have is, Hypothetically if $FTT had 50% drop in price, how cream will handle this?

Replying to

so I think a big thing to think about here is -- if FTT drops 50%, what happened to the rest of crypto? If everything drops 50% then it's fine b/c both lending and borrowing sides dropped the same. Historically FTT has a low-ish beta, so an overall market move wouldn't do it.