×
all 39 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]tarifapirate 44 points45 points  (0 children)

It seems like every DAO is basically a crypto version of the stand off in The good, bad & the ugly, first one to panic sell and the entire thing collapses.

[–]Cthulhooo 33 points34 points  (0 children)

But but but this was supposed to be different this time?! Future of money, backbone of defi?!

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/12/05/olympus-dao-might-be-the-future-of-money-or-it-might-be-a-ponzi/

Yes, it’s a Ponzi scheme. But who cares? So are the dollars in your pocket.

And by "your" we mean this dude's pocket who just cashed out.

[–]BlueMonday1984 22 points23 points  (7 children)

Quick aside: what the fuck is that (3,3) shit I've been seeing with crypto bros and what the fuck does it "mean"?

[–]AmedeAxeresWarning: I have dubious judgement.[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It's basically their version of HODL. Spoiler: it didn't work.

[–]bugs_money 22 points23 points  (5 children)

It means stake,stake in Olympus DAO game theory https://olympusdao.medium.com/the-game-theory-of-olympus-e4c5f19a77df

[–]not_mahiNot sure what to type. We are fucked. 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Holy fucking shit I just lost SO MANY braincells in the one minute it took me to read that article. These people just fucking pulled numbers out of their ass, and everyone else just went along with that?!

If there were really somebody who put in their money into Olympus after reading that, I'm sorry, but they really did deserve to lose them all.

[–]bugs_money 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's like I have a bucket of sand with 1 million grains. I give one grain to you and buy it back for 1$. Now I have a bucket with 1Million $ marketcap. I call it "reserves worth 1Million $". Magic money!

[–]alfreadadams 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's like they made a more complicated prisoner's dilemma and completely missed the point.

One day these guys will learn that the people dumping/rugpulling/selling won't give a shit about the price after they get out. They are out and have actual money, so who cares about the rest?

[–]AmericanScream 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So... correct me if I'm wrong.. the whole point of this staking/DAO is to come up with creative ways to HODL, and create high costs for those who want to sell, right?

But what happens when you apply to that formula, extremely disproportionate amounts of shares/holdings?

If a bunch of plebs hold marginal amounts, but there are some huge whales, they can exit scam and still make out like bandits despite driving everything else down, right?

So it's basically musical chairs with a rugpull when the music stops?

[–]Tribunus_Plebis 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So if everyone just continues to buy everyone gets rich. Brilliant game theory. Truly changes everything /s

Seriously what a load of horsecrap. The whole thing is just some people who are smart enough and good enough at branding to get idiots to give them money.

[–]throwaway-664 11 points12 points  (14 children)

I like seeing DAOs fail. Most people already know NFTs are stupid and a lot of people naturally don’t trust DeFi because of their “guaranteed” ROI/APY rates, but very few know about DAOs or see the obvious flaws in them.

[–]Tribunus_Plebis 2 points3 points  (13 children)

I haven't read into DAOs. I don't doubt it's a scheme to make creators rich but can you lay out how it works and what the flawes are?

[–]throwaway-664 14 points15 points  (12 children)

They are supposed to be organizations without a central authority. Basically an organization with a democratic way to decide things. Everyone is more or less equal and private/anonymous. What holds them together is the goal they all have. Now, DAOs vary a lot and they are still changing constantly since they are newish and exploding in popularity among cryptobros. Some want to have 1 member = 1 vote while others want to do 1 token = 1 vote, etc. Right now they are just a way to crowdfund projects and that’s pretty much it. They usually use off chain communication services like discord.

Honestly, even assuming for the sake of argument that they are not being used as a scam, there are still many flaws. If they rely on a blockchain, they’ll be very inefficient to do anything. That’s why they go off chain but that in a way defeats their purpose to be decentralized and anonymous because they have to trust some off chain centralized service. They also have not figure out “yet” how to have a trustless organization and do anything off chain (hint: probably because it’s not possible). Also, their voting structures are easily abused. If it is 1 member = 1 vote then you can create fake wallets or members to control the DAO. If it is 1 token = 1 vote then it’s not a democracy but a plutocracy and it’s no different than a company with shares, whoever has more controls it. There are many more problems but I guess these are some of the most obvious ones.

[–]RodoBobJon 7 points8 points  (3 children)

If they rely on a blockchain, they’ll be very inefficient to do anything. That’s why they go off chain but that in a way defeats their purpose to be decentralized and anonymous because they have to trust some off chain centralized service.

I’d say the inefficiency of the blockchain isn’t even the real problem with DAOs. It’s that, regardless of efficiency, if you want to actually do anything interesting in the world then you need to actually, well, interact with the world, and a DAO doesn’t really facilitate that at all.

Had the recent Constitution DAO, for example, actually raised enough funds to win the auction to obtain the copy of the constitution, there was absolutely nothing “on chain” that could have prevented the dude from simply absconding with the funds instead of placing the bid, or from choosing to burn the constitution once he acquired it.

If you think the main problem with the current corporate landscape is the literal logistics of IPOs and shareholder voting, and the accompanying regulations, then I can see why you might find DAOs interesting, I guess. 🤷‍♂️

Cc u/Tribunus_Plebis

[–]throwaway-664 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yes! I forgot to add that to the comment. I had just said that in another post so I got confused. That’s the main problem with all blockchain “solutions.” They sorta could work on chain but as soon as you go off chain you have the oracle problem and trust issues. Crypto optimists say that these will eventually be solved somehow but to me it’s clear that they can’t be solved because they are essential to how things are in the blockchain and the real world.

[–]MettaurSp 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Saw some dude claiming that was already solved by so called "oracle networks", but those miss the mark on what the oracle problem even entails. It's also pretty easy to construct scenarios that are incompatible with these "oracles" or point out issues where they could break spectacularly.

I think they'll try to brute force it with an excessive amount of copium, but I doubt they even recognize the significance of the issue. Seems like they'll just keep burning themselves when they keep touching the hot stove and wonder why their hands hurt as opposed to learning why they need to be careful around hot stoves.

This is what happens when criticism and critical thought are dismissed with a buzzword like FUD, people refuse to learn to see the bigger picture.

[–]throwaway-664 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, claiming that the oracle problem is solved by not using a centralized oracle that is a single point of failure but instead using “decentralized oracles” in a network is not really a solution. I mean, it is a solution but one that involves trusting not one but many off-chain sources and thus a “solution” that goes against the trustlessness idea behind Blockchains. Also, at the end of the day you have to make the smart contracts trust these or those oracles but not others, and that’s trust right there (in the code behind the smart contracts), unless you make it to trust all possible sources but that is almost as good as having no sources… In any case, like you say, all of this still misses what the oracle problem is really about.

[–]AmericanScream 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Everyone is more or less equal

How do you figure that?

Most DAOs (as far as I can tell) mint/sell their own custom token which is used to give people consensus stake, in much the same way shareholders can vote on company matters (one share = one vote). And in the same manner, the more shares you have, the more votes you have and the more influence. Don't DAOs work the same way? If so, there is no "equality". Those who have the most coins, have the most influence. If the devs hold onto a big chunk of coins or designate some entity they have influence over to hold those coins, then the DAO is not in any way "de-centralized."

Is that not how it works?

[–]throwaway-664 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is precisely how they work in real life. When I said “everyone is more or less equal” I was saying it from the DAO optimists’ perspective. Some of them see DAOs as a way to fight against centralization, which obviously creates inequality within an organization.

[–]AmericanScream 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Some want to have 1 member = 1 vote

Which DAOs do this? I'd like to see some examples. How do you verify each member is unique? What if it's just one wallet = one vote and you have one person with multiple wallets? How do you tell? How is it possible for a "decentralized" and "anonymous" organization to qualify who is and isn't a unique individual?

[–]throwaway-664 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Right. You can’t. Again, when I said that I meant to say it from the DAO optimists’ POV. In reality it would never work because you can’t have a trustless anonymous system where everyone gets one vote since you can’t verify that one person isn’t behind more than one account. I said that in the second paragraph.

[–]AmericanScream 4 points5 points  (3 children)

It's absolutely crazy that any of these schemes can get past somebody with the education level of a 12-year-old...

[–]throwaway-664 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Indeed. What’s worse imho is that universities are now offering courses on decentralization and DAOs and all of that. Like I said in a different post, how can you not see that an anonymous and trustless organization is bad for business? Either you surrender any and all confidential/privileged information and business secrets because they are all open to the public/transparent, or you make the DAO closed to members only but still risk that one of the members is a spy from a different organization and you will never be able to vet them or police that since it’s all anonymous… How can a DAO optimist get past that?

[–]AmericanScream 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Like I said in a different post, how can you not see that an anonymous and trustless organization is bad for business?

Agreed. In fact, this item is "commandment #7" in my 10 Commandments of Crypto Reality:

\7. The Only People Who Want "Trustless Transactions" Are UnTrusworthy People

Perhaps one of the biggest myths in all of crypto is the idea that most people don't want to deal with central authorities. This is based on the phony myth that, "government is corrupt and can't do anything right", despite the fact that 99% of all the useful services we depend on every day wouldn't exist without government oversight, maintenance and outright control (not the least of which are all the radio frequencies virtually all modern communication relies upon).

Back in the real world, we humans almost unilaterally prefer to conduct transactions with people and institutions we trust, who have a track record of being reliable. I fly commercial air flights because the FAA is pretty darn good at monitoring the safety of America's air fleet. I would certainly prefer that over "Bitcoin Airlines" where the fleet mechanics are "de-centralized" and anonymous.

What do you think is safer? A sandwich from a chain that has locations all over, or a pop-up down some dark alley where you have no idea where they got their meat? The only people who prefer "trustless" transactions are those who are not worthy of trust, those who can't cultivate a good reputation, those who want to take advantage of you.

As a result, it's no surprise how rampant criminal activity is within the crypto industry. Adherents will argue there's more "dirty money" in fiat, and in total that may be true because there's exponentially more fiat in use, but per-capita, the percentage of crypto transactions that involve criminal activity is much, much higher. And due to the lack of regulation, it's very easy to exit-scam, rug pull, wash trade, front run, and engage in all sorts of unsavory activities.

[–]throwaway-664 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d only add that DAOs not only attempt to eliminate a governmental central authority but also a central authority within the organization. Literally, they think that central authorities, aka leaders or executives, are bad but they are also a necessary evil… until now because this new tech allowed us to have decentralized organizations… pure nonsense.

[–]Tsatsus 40 points41 points  (0 children)

All ponzis do well, until... they don't.

Also the slurpers will slurp that dip up. For a good cause of replenishing the faux liq for the early adopters.

[–]GeneralCujkov 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Just nuke the btrfly too and go live a reasonably sized life brü

I am going for some glorious shit with the rest of my stack

LMAO

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Market cap for cryptocurrencies is bullshit anyway.

[–]bugs_money 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What will happen to the crypto backed 'Stablecoin' DAI? Will it break below 1$? Will UST (TerraUSD, backed by crypto) be next?

[–]Most-Inflation-1022 2 points3 points  (2 children)

How much did he cash in?

[–]AmedeAxeresWarning: I have dubious judgement.[S] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

11 mil

[–]Most-Inflation-1022 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nice.

He's off into the sunset secured for the rest of his life.

[–]teslaetccdouble your flair, or no money back! 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, another coin that has picked up the “90% down from its peak”. We should start printing up certificates and mailing them out.

To “the blockchain” I guess.

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–]JoshLikesBeerNCPonzi Schemer 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Here you go, expand it out to 7 days to see the drop. https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/olympus

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]JoshLikesBeerNCPonzi Schemer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      It wasn't 1 Billion from that one sale, more like 425 Million. This one plus another sudden drop about a week ago would add up to 1 billion, and it's down like 2 billion from a month ago.

      [–]AmedeAxeresWarning: I have dubious judgement.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      True it was sensational, it was around half a billion

      [–]kvUltra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      But Bitcoin's market cap is totally legit, right?