😞"Trustless" is Hopeless
The terms “wild-west” and “very risky” accurately describe crypto and are supported by numerous examples.
DLT does not remove the concept of trust. The advanced skills required to build DLT are centralized in highly skilled individuals who the majority of users must rely upon to access the benefits without truly understanding the underlying construction and possible flaws and “bugs”. This compounds the additional risks and actually increases the perils of DeFi by concentrating access and architecture onto fewer individuals.
DeFi without legal definitions of a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that accompanies rules of transparency creates a plausible excuse for anonymity and easy ploys for misplaced confidence.
When DeFi & DLT are applied to concepts of financial markets that are already inaccessible and overly sophisticated: hyper-visualization of user interfaces, plus disparate terminology used by specific system creators are inflated with sector jargon, i.e. “trustless networks,” which somehow implies security by using an anachronism as an evasion tactic.
Rarely have the consequences of “tokenomic” reward structures been considered regarding value creation and stability; these tools have mostly been applied improperly since the creation of BTC:
Mining & Emissions are unnecessary, adding to poor resource usage and creating “busy-work” that is futile and has no long-term sustainability.
“Tokenomics” halving events create price instability and are self-defeating.
Regulation is not the only answer; usually, too much government oversight causes inefficiency and creates different problems.
Thus far, most DeFi projects have been designed to encourage practices that create additional risks:
Gamification
Anonymity
Reliance on networks requiring more energy and maintenance than traditional options.
The trade-off between TradeFi & DeFI is speed and scalability of communication to make data-driven, "objective", decisions.
Last updated