Conversation

Replying to
21) That's a lot! Giving up 20% of value based on an emotional, error-laden tirade to a single large voter for one of the lesser risks of the protocol. Because some people don't believe in borrowing (on a borrow-lending protocol, none the less!)
1
31
22) So, yeah, this is a pretty crap-tastic proposal. That being said -- I think some variants would be reasonable! Want to decrease collateral to 40%? Want to cap any single asset at 20% of the total supply? IDK if those are right, but they're totally plausible.
1
14
23) But this one-- --this one throws the baby out with the bathwater. Without having done its homework.
2
16
24) If that's what you want for CREAM--fine. But also then why use CREAM and not Compound? If you want a small, neatly curated list of assets in a static system, that's what Compound specializes in. In CREAM, I see a dynamic, broader protocol, for better or for worse.
3
28
25) But, idk, in the end this is the community's decision. Or, you know, 0xDa495C2Ab0a91623564126778D5AB20fA87C1DFc's. Either way.
6
33
26) Anyway, we just voted to keep FTT as it is now. We would be happy to vote for a reasonable alteration--a moderate decrease in collateral weight, or 20% cap on a single coin! But the 'partial' option here is massively under-specified (as is the voting process for 3 options).
20
35
Replying to and
I think the problem here is perception. You control a massive amount of a single coin. Enough the you can borrow all of the liquidity on cream and sell it all short. For people who finally “have a say” I think it’s natural to be against being controlled by whales.
1
13
Replying to and
BRB Sam, creating vaporware erc20 where i control 99.9999% of the supply. Gonna pump it in a couple trades to 500mil mcap. What, wait? You don't want to short it? Weird. Which one of these is not like the other.
Image
2
3
Show replies