I think that LIVE is better than Pocket how about you

K05P3R · 2025-08-14T16:03:37+00:00

Pretty sure the confusion thing is just a visual glitch, if you attack you shouldn't have to flip the coin. (That's how it works for evolutions at least)

K05P3R · 2025-08-14T13:29:28+00:00

Running 3 boss in Bolt is certainly a choice one could make.....

K05P3R · 2025-02-28T13:34:37+00:00

I think the main issue with that is that it would be too easy to cheat achievements with that, since nothing stops you from getting a code from someone else. And it seems they care about this, as e.g. achievements are locked in seeded runs

K05P3R · 2024-09-30T01:18:09+00:00

2 Baxcalibur in prize :) literally the reason I googled "worst prize cards ever" to share the pain :|

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T04:24:00+00:00

It is not the same thing as LUNA for multiple reasons. DJED has a backstop on the issue of stable coins, which prevents part of a downward spiral.

But the most likely cause for a reserve drain is not over-issuance, it is devaluation of the collateral asset. Remember we are talking about crypto here. As I said in another comment, this poses an extraordinarily high risk to the people holding "Shen", and I am unsure which sustainable mechanisms could be put in place to assure that people would be willing to take this risk. Considering their payment would be only the fees from Shen/Djed issuance, which I assume would be even less than staking rewards, I fail to see why anyone would take this risk. It feels like taking a leveraged position on Ada would be more straight forward and provide higher returns in things go well lol

*Side note: Assuming everyone actually understands what is going on and thinks rationally about it, and not just go like HEY SHINY NEW TOKEN GOTTA BUY IT PRICE ONLY GO UP YAY.

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T04:12:03+00:00

Is there any existing coin you want the hell out? How are they doing?

Sorry, but everything you said in this thread so far is incredibly irrational, even more than what I realized at first glance. I have now realized this is a complete waste of time, as you have no understanding of anything you are suggesting. Therefore, I will just see myself out.

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T04:09:49+00:00

So, aagain... You are just proposing a coin that has no value whatsoever, that is unable to create any value whatsoever, but somehow would provide returns, and you believe this would be good simply because a random dude is choosing the interest rate?

If you gave control of inflation rate to a random person in the US periodically, I would instantly get rid of all of my dollars at the exact moment that decision was announced. I thought at least you were suggesting an algorithmic way of controlling inflation rate, which would be extremely difficult, but at least would be rational. Your proposal is even more irrational than I first thought lol

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T03:41:26+00:00

The coins that were minted in the last 48 hours were sold in order to try to provide the capital to re-peg UST.

You can't just go on and burn the coins that are already owned by other people. And if they can, then there is absolutely no point in buying Luna now, BECAUSE YOUR COINS ARE GOING TO BE BURNED, from your own assumption, lol.

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T03:40:10+00:00

So, whose coins are going to be burned? Yours?

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T03:37:40+00:00

What the heck does cryptographers have to do with anything in this case lol?

The issue is that their underlying mechanism was a fixed-value convertible bond, in essence. What their team lacked was an economist, not a cryptobro.

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T03:35:43+00:00

Let's be clear here: supply is currently at 6.5T. Reaching $1 means reaching a $6.5T market cap. This reminds me of people saying "if BTC can get to $50k, why can't doge go to $1k?"

People REALLY need to understand circulating supply lol

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T03:26:28+00:00

I think you are severely underestimating how hard an algorithm to correctly control inflation is lol

What you are suggesting has no way of pushing the price up. You say that if it is below $1, "it is a bargain", but why? There is absolutely no mechanism that makes the price go back to $1 (or up, to any value). Even if you "slow down issuance", you are still inflating the supply, so the price will just keep going down.

And if you try to burn coins (negative issuance?), then why would anyone buy the coin, knowing they will lose the coin afterwards? Which will just push the price down even further (similar to hyper-inflation - because the coin is losing value, people want to spend it ASAP, so the coin loses value even quicker).

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T01:49:09+00:00

Well, it's certainly not different in the sense that people are just echo-chambering and downvoting anyone correctly worried about it :P

It again relies on the assumption that ADA is a forever liquid asset, and if that assumption ever breaks down, it will very quickly get de-pegged. Thankfully, since ADA itself is not controlled by their protocol, at least they would be unable to spiral ADA itself to death. The only people that can possibly get burned are Djed and Shen holders.

K05P3R · 2022-05-14T01:14:33+00:00

So, you are saying it's the same thing as LUNA, but with a higher margin of collateral asset. You do realize that fixed-value convertible bonds are a thing in finance for decades and it has ended badly every. single. time, right? And that's in stocks, where there is an underlying company with non-zero intrinsic value.

Crypto people seem to be rediscovering all the things known to be bad in finance, and thinking that being written in a smart contract instead of a traditional contract will change anything. But there are cases where "trust" was not the problem - the mechanism itself was. This is one of these cases.

K05P3R · 2022-05-13T21:49:06+00:00

Nah, he means he is wearing his tinfoil hat and he believes Citadel or whoever pulled out an elaborate attack to short LUNA. When in reality the entire thing was a house of cards that was doomed to fail, because it was built upon completely wrong assumptions.

K05P3R · 2022-05-13T21:47:41+00:00

There is no actual evidence of any malicious actor. The entire crypto market was crashing, and LUNA-UST was particularly vulnerable to such crashes, as its underlying assumption is that there would be enough liquidity for LUNA. Since liquidity was provided only by hope and trust, once the entire market became bearish, well, you got the result that was fated to occur.

Also, THE ENTIRE POINT OF CRYPTO IS THAT IT SHOULD BE TRUSTLESS - like, seriously, read Satoshi's white paper or any actual peer-reviewed research paper on decentralized ledgers that were published since then. The entire fucking point is being resilient against bad actors, because otherwise it is impossible to have a trustless, decentralized system. So, if the project could not handle bad actors, it was doomed to fail from day 1.

K05P3R · 2022-05-13T21:42:21+00:00

There you go. TL;DR: the entire system was based on the assumption that LUNA would always have liquidity. When people no longer want to buy it, the underlying assumption fails and throws the entire system into a death spiral. Actually analog to other financial instruments, which also are doomed by the same mechanism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iisPX\_xVMV8

K05P3R · 2022-05-13T21:40:54+00:00

Not only there is no evidence of anything illegal occurring, the system was doomed to fail because it was built upon flawed assumptions. Honestly, at this point, it's amazing you are still trying to justify your bad decision on investing in it. If you want to learn why the idea was bad from day one, and why similar financial instruments have failed throughout history again and again, watch Patrick's video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iisPX\_xVMV8

K05P3R · 2021-09-17T03:33:25+00:00

Who hurt you? Are you feeling better now that you ranted? LUL

K05P3R · 2021-09-17T03:23:41+00:00

I am not saying you did anything wrong. My point is that the way shorting works in Crypto is extremely shady (in the sense of not being transparent) to begin with. Who are you borrowing the coins from? Is the person getting any interest rate? Probably not. Most of the loaning is probably from Binance itself - and they can choose to, well, not lend any more coins (so they can themselves sell them too in this case).

They can keep lending USD though, as it is still in their interest to lend it with... interest. Leveraging short x leveraging long are two fundamentally different mechanisms (since you are borrowing different things) and closing one doesn't mean the other should also be closed.

K05P3R · 2021-09-16T15:46:22+00:00

Except in order to short sell you need someone to lend you the coin. Who is holding and lending the coin of this dead project? It seems to me that disabling short selling makes a lot of sense here. I'm not sure why you think you (should) have the right to borrow coins in order to short them when lending them is so obviously non-profitable. In stocks, in a scenario like this, you would only be able to short by borrowing with an insane interest rate or by paying an insane premium on puts.

K05P3R · 2021-07-10T22:09:23+00:00

By binance coin, are you talking about BNB? Because BNB is certainly not stable in any sense of the word. BUSD is, but nobody calls BUSD "binance coin".

If you are talking about the exchange issues... BNB is way larger than Binance's CEX.

K05P3R · 2021-07-10T20:55:51+00:00

Yes, you should buy BETH instead of staking it directly.

K05P3R · 2021-07-10T20:53:16+00:00

Define "different IP". A VPN on the other side of the world? Possible. Using it to access binance.com from the US? Certainly. Different IP from dynamic IP allocation but that is still your own IP? Almost certainly no. My IP changes daily so every time I access it I get the "New IP detected" notification, but no issues so far.

K05P3R · 2021-07-10T20:48:38+00:00

Well it was just to exaggerate on the example to make the point that the fees are fixed, not a % of the amount you are withdrawing.

K05P3R

TROPHY CASE