The interface looks sort of like InstaDapp. There are a lot of "amalgam" protocols, so to speak. Not sure if this is one of them. I do agree with the sentiment that the materials out there are not really clear.
Growth lead @Holdex — hacker & UX guy 🇻🇪. Making the home of Crypto bigger and better everyday!
The team may be having something on the works but may first be waiting to see in which protocol do their cross-chain assets become more used as they are also in EOS , for example.
I'd worry more about certain protocols like Curve which are over-zealous of their governance and have mechanisms to block collective voters like PowerPool.
Ha Ha you are right it is a really captivating reason. However, the technical differences between $LINK, $TRB, , , and others elude me. I'd rather let the team answer this themselves and hope they do.
My brain has been beaming with emotion since I found about you guys. Perhaps that's why I have this dumb question ...
A few months ago, a controversial article written by a Ren competitior detailed a number of security concerns in other protocols. Naming BitGo and Ren in specific.
Maybe this is already in the making but a confirmation would be great. Monolith is currently available in the UK and the EU. Other providers like Wirex have expanded into Asia–Pacific. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe, at the moment, there is no other interest-bearing account with a Crypto credit card that is issued widely to people in the region.
I can see you manage the liquidity mining for $DF in stages (from looking at your Medium page). Do you have an emissions schedule? Perhaps not a sort of table with an exact promise of emissions but is there a set amount of $DF that is going to be given as liquidity mining rewards? Or, a deadline when $DF will no longer be handed as liquidity mining rewards?
This also really puzzled me. I understand the language barriers with certain big markets like the "CJK" – China, Japan, Korea – and Russia, as well as sometimes Latin America. This can lead to success stories in both the centralized and decentralized worlds (basically 99% of exchanges and wallets out there are forks of some codebase marketed to a local audience). The thing is, I notice markets quite heavily in English. Therefore, surely there was a deeper reason for forking , particularly so early in the life of the protocol.
Alex, which one is no.1? Now, I am curious. Is this data also from the Cambridge study?
My understanding is that Uniswap and SushiSwap and countless other clones function on the automatic market maker (AMM) model which is based on a constant product formula to make a pool. This, traditionally, has not sat well with market makers because of impermanent loss (IL). However, in Ethereum, due to high transaction fees, operating a fully on-chain orderbook DEX was going to be a very slow, very expensive proposition. AMMs are cheap. With Uniswap proving the AMM model at scale, we can now see that retail is willing to take on IL as normally they wouldn't get to market-make as that is a sophisticated and competitive financial service.
That sounds interesting but also a bit confusing. So, it looks like
OGN is a rewards token the user can also use for payments inside Origin apps, which are e-commerce things. Whereas
OUSD is some sort rebasing-yieldcoin. Maybe at some point, if the Origin team is migrating to DeFi, they will launch a governance token for the but at the moment we wouldn't add OUSD for the same reason we wouldn't add BUSD, HUSD, or the gazillion other stablecoins without decentralized issuance and governance.
As the author pointed out, the TVL numbers are still going up in DeFi. I am not sure the Historical In/Out of the Money considers the yield users receive as lowering their entry point in the positions. Maybe the indicator could use some tweaking to adapt to DeFi.
I think a lot of users confuse capital cryptoassets, like
MTA, with currency like commodity-money
BTC and utility-money
ETH. Inflation is a monetary concept. The relevant concept for capital is issuance. Maybe Proof-of-Commitment is a wonderful technical solution, but it is focusing on the wrong issue.
Thanks for your kind words, JaGiC 😉. I've got to say it is like apples and oranges. Surely, lots of projects have a Telegram. It's a great way to stay connected, maybe raise an issue. I would say it is not a great channel to learn anything. Teams should know the limitations of their tools and channels. I hope it's only a minority of teams trying to do everything in Telegram (or even in Discord, which is a better chat option), but certainly, I've seen many teams overdo it.
Same as everything. Most people in the stonks also buy and and don't know the first thing about electric cars or e-commerce – they don't even know those stocks pay dividends, they just look at the price charts. 🤷🏻♂️ The point isn't much about the beliefs of the normies, but that the more savvy users understand they are participating in improving their lot, due to potentially increasing protocol fees and profitability.
Hi discipulus. Check out this review and beginner's guide to Uniswap . Any question you have, you can ask it there as well. Cheers.