Iron Finance’s DeFi bank run – and how Mark Cuban got ‘rekted’(forkast.news)
forkast.news
Iron Finance’s DeFi bank run – and how Mark Cuban got ‘rekted’
https://forkast.news/iron-finances-defi-bank-run-why-mark-cuban-got-rekted/
79 comments
Anyone that knows the tech and can see how disingenuous these coin sale schemes are from the beginning don't assume good faith
I'm honestly amazed by their ability to attract so much capital after so many failed attempts.
Why does the simplest possible thing - you give me a dollar, I put it into my bank account and give you a token, you give me a token, I give you a dollar from my bank account back - not work? Why is this extra complexity necessary to maintain a constant exchange rate of one?
If you can get a token for one dollar, no buyer should be willing to pay more than that, if you can sell a token for one dollar, no seller should be willing to sell for less than that. Sure, there will be some imperfections, there will be transaction fees, people might want to buy or sell some tokens faster than wiring money around, but can this really push the price significantly up or down? If, how? Some chain of arbitrage opportunities? Would the price at least stabilize or is there a runaway tendency without active management?
If you can get a token for one dollar, no buyer should be willing to pay more than that, if you can sell a token for one dollar, no seller should be willing to sell for less than that. Sure, there will be some imperfections, there will be transaction fees, people might want to buy or sell some tokens faster than wiring money around, but can this really push the price significantly up or down? If, how? Some chain of arbitrage opportunities? Would the price at least stabilize or is there a runaway tendency without active management?
That is exactly what USDC is.
People were attracted to this because it promised returns for using their stablecoin (IRON) if you put it into liquidity pools that allowed others get IRON.
People were attracted to this because it promised returns for using their stablecoin (IRON) if you put it into liquidity pools that allowed others get IRON.
Actually, I was mistaken. This is not even what USDC claims to be. What they claim, at the moment, is this:
"US Dollars held in custody accounts are the total balances in accounts held by the Company at federally insured US depository institutions and in approved investments on behalf of the USDC holders at the Report Date."
So the money is not in actual dollars. It is in entirely unspecified "approved investments".
"US Dollars held in custody accounts are the total balances in accounts held by the Company at federally insured US depository institutions and in approved investments on behalf of the USDC holders at the Report Date."
So the money is not in actual dollars. It is in entirely unspecified "approved investments".
What USDC claims to be. It has not been audited, and we do not know for a fact that this is true.
I don’t understand why this comment was downvoted. USDC is just as undercollateralized as USDT. Everything you’re reading about USDT also applies tO USDC, just lagged.
Can you show the proof of that or a good reason existing audits cannot be trusted?
No audits exist, so this is a meaningless question.
Attestations exist. They are not the same as an audit, and do not show quite what you seem to think they show.
Attestations exist. They are not the same as an audit, and do not show quite what you seem to think they show.
I can’t even find any existing audits. If you know of any or have read any I would be extremely interested.
Here are the attestations as of April. https://www.centre.io/usdc-transparency
Again, attestations are not audits.
There's a monthly audit by a third party:
https://www.centre.io/usdc-transparency
https://www.centre.io/usdc-transparency
Also, have you read the report they issue?
This is what it says, for March 2021:
"US Dollars held in custody accounts are the total balances in accounts held by the Company at federally insured US depository institutions and in approved investments on behalf of the USDC holders at the Report Date."
This is what it says, for March 2021:
"US Dollars held in custody accounts are the total balances in accounts held by the Company at federally insured US depository institutions and in approved investments on behalf of the USDC holders at the Report Date."
I'd be surprised if that amount of money was actually held in cash rather than some investing. The important thing from my point of view is that the total value is claimed to cover all of the usdc.
But point taken about the attestation -vs- audit. I'd have to read a bit more about the practical differences.
But point taken about the attestation -vs- audit. I'd have to read a bit more about the practical differences.
The original topic of this thread is keeping the money as cash.
> Top five accounting services firm Grant Thornton LLP issues attestations
Attestations are not audits.
Attestations are not audits.
What's the difference? Is an attestation at least better than what USDT provides?
I am not an expert, I just looked it up. If I understand it correctly, an attestation is just someone witnessing a legal act like the signing of a contract and testifying that the parties signing the contract are the ones named in the contract and that nobody was forced to sign it with a gun to his head and such.
If this understanding is correct, then the attestations may just say that the company behind USDC prepared and signed those statements about their balances, but may say nothing about the correctness of those statements as they did not audit the company and therefore did not obtained independent evidence for the correctness of them.
I read one of the attestation and would read it as saying something stronger and closer to an audit but I am not an legal expert and find the language used quite hard to parse. Maybe someone more qualified can expand on this.
If this understanding is correct, then the attestations may just say that the company behind USDC prepared and signed those statements about their balances, but may say nothing about the correctness of those statements as they did not audit the company and therefore did not obtained independent evidence for the correctness of them.
I read one of the attestation and would read it as saying something stronger and closer to an audit but I am not an legal expert and find the language used quite hard to parse. Maybe someone more qualified can expand on this.
This is what they claim, in the March 2021 report:
"US Dollars held in custody accounts are the total balances in accounts held by the Company at federally insured US depository institutions and in approved investments on behalf of the USDC holders at the Report Date."
Note the "and in approved investments". Not cash.
"US Dollars held in custody accounts are the total balances in accounts held by the Company at federally insured US depository institutions and in approved investments on behalf of the USDC holders at the Report Date."
Note the "and in approved investments". Not cash.
I believe Grant Thorton is as reputable as an accounting corp can be (and funnily enough, the only ones who would be wary of them are crypto guys...).
https://www.centre.io/hubfs/pdfs/attestation/Grant-Thorton_c...
https://www.centre.io/hubfs/pdfs/attestation/Grant-Thorton_c...
They may be, but they have never audited USDC.
One problem there is that you lock up 100% of the money, which is not ideal for a lot of parties.
The other problem is related: you can’t make nearly as much money off your scheme.
The other problem is related: you can’t make nearly as much money off your scheme.
If your goal is a guaranteed exchange rate of one, then that seems to be almost the only way to do it and therefore ideal to reach that goal. Even in this case there is still some risk that you or your bank goes bankrupt but if you start investing the money of your users you either make some additional money for you - which your users probably do not care about much - or you lose some of their money. You would need an investment with less risk than holding cash in a bank account to improve the service for your users. And there is probably something to be said about negative interest rates which would obviously cause you some trouble.
That works fine if you want to be 100% collateralized in cash. Nobody wants to do that because it’s expensive.
edit: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PDNZX2nql2Y
edit: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PDNZX2nql2Y
"Ironic. They could save others from fractional reserve banking, but they could not save themselves."
I am not a banker, but I believe banks have to have assets to cover all of their deposits, and more, by law.
Fractional reserve is about how they have to have a small fraction of liquid stuff to deal with withdrawals.
The usual idea of fractional reserve banking people have on the internet is a myth, it would be an insolvent bank, I believe.
And banks don't have to have just $1 in assets for every $1 deposited, but they have to have a little more in case some of their loans go bad.
Fractional reserve is about how they have to have a small fraction of liquid stuff to deal with withdrawals.
The usual idea of fractional reserve banking people have on the internet is a myth, it would be an insolvent bank, I believe.
And banks don't have to have just $1 in assets for every $1 deposited, but they have to have a little more in case some of their loans go bad.
> Mark Cuban has called for stablecoin regulation in the wake of the TITAN collapse, telling Bloomberg in an email: “There should be regulation to define what a stable coin is and what collateralization is acceptable.”
is kind of ironic given this:
> One place that these organizations are VERY DIFFERENT is that they are not based in the USA and they are not corporations. They are foundations. They are Decentralized in their governance. NO ONE owns majority control (although the founders certainly have significant influence). This is not only because of the ethos of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOS), but also because of the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY of our regulators forcing some of the most impactful and innovative entrepreneurs of this generation to foreign countries to run their businesses.
From the original blog post at https://blogmaverick.com/2021/06/13/the-brilliance-of-yield-...
In fairness, I'll grant him that it's possible that regulating stable coins in that way is not the same kind of regulations that drive entrepreneurs to foreign countries.
is kind of ironic given this:
> One place that these organizations are VERY DIFFERENT is that they are not based in the USA and they are not corporations. They are foundations. They are Decentralized in their governance. NO ONE owns majority control (although the founders certainly have significant influence). This is not only because of the ethos of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOS), but also because of the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY of our regulators forcing some of the most impactful and innovative entrepreneurs of this generation to foreign countries to run their businesses.
From the original blog post at https://blogmaverick.com/2021/06/13/the-brilliance-of-yield-...
In fairness, I'll grant him that it's possible that regulating stable coins in that way is not the same kind of regulations that drive entrepreneurs to foreign countries.
> most impactful and innovative entrepreneurs
As per HN rules I request an example of positive, non-shitcoin-speculation impact that cryptocurrencies have had in the last twelve years.
As per HN rules I request an example of positive, non-shitcoin-speculation impact that cryptocurrencies have had in the last twelve years.
Remittance. Moving suitcases of money back and forth is hard if it is not an equal flow back and forth. Do you own every location?
Remittance is something cryptocurrencies have tried many times to do, and generally failed completely at.
To do remittances, you have to have money flowing in both directions, or you will run out of local currency. Cryptocurrencies do not have that. There are not an equal number of people in foreign countries that want to buy cryptocurrencies as there are that want to send money and convert it to local currencies.
The solution for this is, ultimately, arbitrage using the traditional financial channels. And at that point, you are paying the costs for those channels, plus the costs of the extra middlemen you have added on top of them.
To do remittances, you have to have money flowing in both directions, or you will run out of local currency. Cryptocurrencies do not have that. There are not an equal number of people in foreign countries that want to buy cryptocurrencies as there are that want to send money and convert it to local currencies.
The solution for this is, ultimately, arbitrage using the traditional financial channels. And at that point, you are paying the costs for those channels, plus the costs of the extra middlemen you have added on top of them.
Can you provide an example of suitcase-level transactions being carried out by individuals, that couldn't be done at the same cost and less complexity at a Moneygram office?
MoneyGram is quite expensive as well..
Moneygram and Western Union have been 'banking the unbanked' for decades. They actually deliver what crypto promises.
With MG and WU, they are deeply embedded in the countries they operate in; they develop relationships with the banks so customers can get their money without hassle, even if they don't have accounts there. If you send money in Country A, it's available in Country B within 10 minutes, which is approx. the amount of time it would take a human to look up that transaction and verify the customer's ID. Your recipient walks out with cash.
Meanwhile, transferring crypto peer-to-peer isn't even free, and transactions are nowhere near instantaneous. And even if your recipient understands crypto, they still have an extra step of converting these bytes into actual legal tender.
With MG and WU, they are deeply embedded in the countries they operate in; they develop relationships with the banks so customers can get their money without hassle, even if they don't have accounts there. If you send money in Country A, it's available in Country B within 10 minutes, which is approx. the amount of time it would take a human to look up that transaction and verify the customer's ID. Your recipient walks out with cash.
Meanwhile, transferring crypto peer-to-peer isn't even free, and transactions are nowhere near instantaneous. And even if your recipient understands crypto, they still have an extra step of converting these bytes into actual legal tender.
Remittances and interest generating saving accounts with rates superior to the ones banks offer
Interest generating, until they collapse and the money all disappears.
It's a risk I'm willing to take. Besides you can earn interest with USDC or other stablecoins.
Insured?
I do think that some kind of fiduciary duty framework can be applied to directors/deployers/admins so that users/investors/consumers can at least choose between services
we can all jump through an increasing number of hoops and use off shore unregulated financial products who have simply learned not to bother with US citizens, but most of us stick with the ones with fiduciary duties
we can all jump through an increasing number of hoops and use off shore unregulated financial products who have simply learned not to bother with US citizens, but most of us stick with the ones with fiduciary duties
Cuban and Musk are not savvy (crypto) investors. Just because they are rich and successful in one domain does not make them experts in others.
Perhaps they are only surrounded by Yes Men who don’t attempt to educate them or advise when they are wrong/under-informed.
Perhaps they are only surrounded by Yes Men who don’t attempt to educate them or advise when they are wrong/under-informed.
Cuban maybe but why Musk? If because of Doge - it's been pretty clear he's just meme-ing and not making huge bets on it but just playing around.
> he's just meme-ing and not making huge bets on it but just playing around
But that’s SO much worse! He’s coaxing his followers to dash out in front of a steamroller to help him — a billionaire — pick up pennies. He’s “just playing around” with peoples’ life savings.
It would be far less reprehensible if Musk held sincere but misguided beliefs in Doge but “just meme-ing” is unconscionable. Especially for someone with his exorbitant wealth to do so at the expense of those with far fewer resources.
But that’s SO much worse! He’s coaxing his followers to dash out in front of a steamroller to help him — a billionaire — pick up pennies. He’s “just playing around” with peoples’ life savings.
It would be far less reprehensible if Musk held sincere but misguided beliefs in Doge but “just meme-ing” is unconscionable. Especially for someone with his exorbitant wealth to do so at the expense of those with far fewer resources.
If someone worships Musk like he's a cult leader, that's on them.
It's unreasonable to expect someone who's been shit posting on twitter for years to stop because people are for some reason taking him more seriously after Tesla 10x'd. He's always been a shit poster.
It's unreasonable to expect someone who's been shit posting on twitter for years to stop because people are for some reason taking him more seriously after Tesla 10x'd. He's always been a shit poster.
The tweets of Elon Musk are official communications of Tesla, according to the SEC.
That's what he got in trouble for a few years back, when he "decided" to meme himself a securities fraud violation.
That's what he got in trouble for a few years back, when he "decided" to meme himself a securities fraud violation.
> He’s “just playing around” with peoples’ life savings
Not sure how much sympathy people putting their life savings into DogeCoin deserve, on the grand total diligence of a tweet no less.
Not sure how much sympathy people putting their life savings into DogeCoin deserve, on the grand total diligence of a tweet no less.
It's tempting to look at everyone engaged in these shitcoins as greed-obsessed lessers who are about to receive a comeuppance of biblical proportions when this inevitably tanks.
But looking past that, who to you has the greater responsibility in this moment? The gambler who can't stop until he/she loses everything? Or the knowledgeable CEO that runs 2 companies, and yet can't stop himself from messing with people that don't know any better?
But looking past that, who to you has the greater responsibility in this moment? The gambler who can't stop until he/she loses everything? Or the knowledgeable CEO that runs 2 companies, and yet can't stop himself from messing with people that don't know any better?
I think it's pretty reasonable to assign responsibility to both. We don't make gamblers whole again just because casinos are predatory.
Maybe it's worse, maybe it's not but the claim I was replying to doesn't apply to that.
>Cuban and Musk are not savvy (crypto) investors. Just because they are rich and successful in one domain does not make them experts in others. Perhaps they are only surrounded by Yes Men who don’t attempt to educate them or advise when they are wrong/under-informed.
>Cuban and Musk are not savvy (crypto) investors. Just because they are rich and successful in one domain does not make them experts in others. Perhaps they are only surrounded by Yes Men who don’t attempt to educate them or advise when they are wrong/under-informed.
His big plunge into Bitcoin was an obvious move of ignorance given the well known energy cost of Bitcoin mining.
There are other better cryptocurrencies for facilitating transactions, in terms of speed, fees, energy cost, etc. He should have known some of this before publicly jumping on the Bitcoin wagon.
Then when he did clue in a bit, he made the move to Doge and chirped about how it required less energy than Bitcoin. But it is still much higher consumption and much slower transaction speed compared to something like Stellar.
All this leads me to believe that nobody was educating him, and he wasn’t speeding enough time to come up to speed.
I don’t expect him to be an expert in everything, but he could have at least consulted with some experts.
There are other better cryptocurrencies for facilitating transactions, in terms of speed, fees, energy cost, etc. He should have known some of this before publicly jumping on the Bitcoin wagon.
Then when he did clue in a bit, he made the move to Doge and chirped about how it required less energy than Bitcoin. But it is still much higher consumption and much slower transaction speed compared to something like Stellar.
All this leads me to believe that nobody was educating him, and he wasn’t speeding enough time to come up to speed.
I don’t expect him to be an expert in everything, but he could have at least consulted with some experts.
Tesla accepted Bitcoin in big part as an investment vehicle/place to park money, and there's few fast, cheap, energy-efficient cryptocurrencies that you can put $1.5B in. Hell, Stellar's market cap was what? $5B total at the time?
Musk, separately from Tesla plays with Doge. As far as I know Tesla hasn't accepted or invested in Doge.
Musk, separately from Tesla plays with Doge. As far as I know Tesla hasn't accepted or invested in Doge.
Surely he had a say in that decision, assuming that he wasn't behind it himself. So to him and/or his board, it should have been an obvious faux pas; it might as well have been an investment in coal mining stock.
The people on reddit that cry about their lost life savings probably wouldn't agree.
> it's been pretty clear
Do you mean something other than “my guess is” here?
Do you mean something other than “my guess is” here?
At minimum he's never presented it as a savvy investment the way Cuban (who talks of crypto projects specifically as an important part of his investment portfolio) has and most if not every single time he's posted about it has been in a meme/joke format.
You know that old saying about scamming an honest man? The crypto space is full of people who are hoping to cash out before the bottom falls out — losses are expected and both of them are savvy enough not to lose more than they can afford.
Billionaires can afford to be stupid since they never bet the farm.
This is why extreme wealth inequality leads to wildly inefficient markets, and eventually the collapse of the market system entirely. If there exists an actor for whom the loss of money has no consequences, then the idea that the market represents an efficient allocation of resources does not hold; it is too distorted by their whims.
I get the impression that they're not really investing on any grounds more sophisticated than a pump and dump, in that they know their own endorsement increases the price. It's not really the same thing, but it's indistinguishable if you're left holding the bag.
But a billionaire presumably wouldn’t trade value of their name/brand just for small gains in a pump and dump. These guys aren’t stupid…
They are, though. We’re all stupid at times. Musk has accomplished much; he also libels random people as pedos and claims COVID will be gone by April 2020. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960
> These guys aren’t stupid
I don’t think Musk’s brand suffers because of what he’s doing in DogeCoin. Crypto and the broader economy continue to have limited connection. Nobody reasonable will turn down Cuban’s business or term sheet because someone else lost money on TITAN. The networks are mutually exclusive.
I don’t think Musk’s brand suffers because of what he’s doing in DogeCoin. Crypto and the broader economy continue to have limited connection. Nobody reasonable will turn down Cuban’s business or term sheet because someone else lost money on TITAN. The networks are mutually exclusive.
Mark Cuban is the basis of the Russ Hanneman VC character in the TV show Silicon Valley. Russ makes it a point to put his name on anything, including bespoke tequila.
That itself may be a reference to Mark Cuban appearing in an episode of Entourage as himself, promoting an investment in a tequila brand.
That itself may be a reference to Mark Cuban appearing in an episode of Entourage as himself, promoting an investment in a tequila brand.
Sure, you enter a pool with a trillion % APY and then wonder why it collapsed!?
Oddly, the article doesn't mention the LINK Oracle they used rounded the price to a number of decimals and since TITAN went too low the price returned was $0 and thus the IRON contract itself would fail since it had an assert price > 0!
Oddly, the article doesn't mention the LINK Oracle they used rounded the price to a number of decimals and since TITAN went too low the price returned was $0 and thus the IRON contract itself would fail since it had an assert price > 0!
> Iron Finance says the crash was not a rug pull — a malicious tactic where crypto developers abandon the project and run away with investors’ money — but poor tokenomics resulting in “the world’s first large-scale crypto bank run.” The project detailed the sequence of events that unfolded in a post-mortem blog post:
So what is the difference between these three chart patterns then? [0] [1] [2]
[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/iron-titanium-token/
[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/defi100/
[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dogelon/
So what is the difference between these three chart patterns then? [0] [1] [2]
[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/iron-titanium-token/
[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/defi100/
[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dogelon/
I always suspected that if US millionaires like Cuban, Musk or Ravikant and the like, eventually hop onto the Bitcoin wagon, they will have to learn some hard lessons..
Saying "rekted" instead of "rekt" - how do you do, fellow kids?
I am pointing out an insignificant detail, but it does remind that the journalist usually has no first hand experience, and they're just re-telling heard stories.
I am pointing out an insignificant detail, but it does remind that the journalist usually has no first hand experience, and they're just re-telling heard stories.
I was also triggered by this.
Ah yes, the old redundundant past tense !
Why not? You only YOLO once
Pasted tense
> that the journalist usually has no first hand experience, and they're just re-telling heard stories.
Is this supposed to be some sort of dig at anyone writing or commenting specifically about crypto-currencies needing to have "first hand experience" or do you think any journalist has to have directly experienced themselves whatever they're writing about.
In my view, "re-telling heard stories" is a good definition of journalism, in itself. But I suspect in this case it's meant to de-legitimize the contents of any crypto-skeptical article?
edit: after the downvotes I thought I'd check the journalist's history - I thought there might be some justification for the skepticism of the post I quoted. But she has a pretty solid background writing about crypto-currency economics. So the minor linguistic mistake is obviously just a simple way to discredit the opinions she's expressing as a whole.
Is this supposed to be some sort of dig at anyone writing or commenting specifically about crypto-currencies needing to have "first hand experience" or do you think any journalist has to have directly experienced themselves whatever they're writing about.
In my view, "re-telling heard stories" is a good definition of journalism, in itself. But I suspect in this case it's meant to de-legitimize the contents of any crypto-skeptical article?
edit: after the downvotes I thought I'd check the journalist's history - I thought there might be some justification for the skepticism of the post I quoted. But she has a pretty solid background writing about crypto-currency economics. So the minor linguistic mistake is obviously just a simple way to discredit the opinions she's expressing as a whole.
I meant it as a general comment on journalism. Yes, that's what journalism is, but somehow it's easy to forget it's just echoes, or echoes of echoes.
> Algorithmic stablecoins such as $IRON/$TITAN are typically built in a vacuum where in theory everything goes up. Most cannot perform in a severe stress test environment.
Sadly, this goes for the whole capitalism itself...
Sadly, this goes for the whole capitalism itself...
There is an NFT project that tried to reward people that got rekt by it by giving a free NFT. The link is: proofofrug.com
The iron finance devs have a history of failed projects (at least 4) and tbh the space between a rugpull, incompetence and a genuine mistake is a gray area.
https://www.rekt.news/ lists a lot of these cases and the cynic in me believes many such cases are inside jobs.