Pyth project could open up decentralized trading and lending, supporters say(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Pyth project could open up decentralized trading and lending, supporters say
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-worlds-biggest-traders-are-betting-on-blockchain-data-11638803023
20 comments
just be aware pyth is still in early stages. their network currently has three price feeds (probably the simplest thing you can do with a blockchain oracle) on mainnet which you can see here https://pyth.network/ and they have had at least a few problems with these where incorrect prices were reported, costing traders money. a recent one has a writeup here https://thedefiant.io/pyth-solana-bad-pricing-meltdown/
on the plus side, pyth network is in its very early days, has the backing of the FTX guy, and historically buying into what this guy is invested in has made people very rich. if pyth network ever releases a token the early buyers might do well.
as they say with crypto, DYOR.
"The creators of Pyth hope to unseat rival services to become the leading source of financial data for DeFi projects... Proponents say DeFi will cut out middlemen"
So, Pyth is hoping to become the One True Middleman, or at least the biggest one, by offering its data up for free (at first)?
So, Pyth is hoping to become the One True Middleman, or at least the biggest one, by offering its data up for free (at first)?
I unfortunately cannot read past the first few sentences due to the paywall, but the opening line says this:
-> Suppose you could buy a share of Tesla Inc. and send it to a friend in Shanghai as easily as sending an email. Or imagine placing a bet on the inflation rate at the end of President Joe Biden’s term, which would pay off in bitcoin if you were right.
Couldn’t we already do this with traditional technology? Why on earth would this have to be on a blockchain to work?
The reason we can’t do this currently is due to laws & regulations (which developed over decades to mollify various issues that arose in markets) - not because of the tech.
It seems that blockchain in this sense is simply trying to erase decades of laws and regulations and paint itself as “different”. Solving human issues (eg laws), requires human solutions, not pseudo-technological ideas.
Unless I’m mistaken, I’m always open to hearing the opposing viewpoint on why it’s necessary to use blockchain for this and impossible to use current technology. I just don’t seem to see why
-> Suppose you could buy a share of Tesla Inc. and send it to a friend in Shanghai as easily as sending an email. Or imagine placing a bet on the inflation rate at the end of President Joe Biden’s term, which would pay off in bitcoin if you were right.
Couldn’t we already do this with traditional technology? Why on earth would this have to be on a blockchain to work?
The reason we can’t do this currently is due to laws & regulations (which developed over decades to mollify various issues that arose in markets) - not because of the tech.
It seems that blockchain in this sense is simply trying to erase decades of laws and regulations and paint itself as “different”. Solving human issues (eg laws), requires human solutions, not pseudo-technological ideas.
Unless I’m mistaken, I’m always open to hearing the opposing viewpoint on why it’s necessary to use blockchain for this and impossible to use current technology. I just don’t seem to see why
It’s also just a problem I’ve never had before
Allowing people to bet on inflation would be complicated. You’d need to take payments, hold their money like a brokerage, and have the ability to payout. The blockchain let’s you implement such a scheme in a few lines of code. Definitely simpler to do on a blockchain.
This is a completely absurd take. There are bilions of dollars of inflation trades every single day in interest rates markets. It’s enormous.
The reality is that most crypto proponents have zero experience in capital markets and its plumbing. Your assertion that it’s simpler to do on blockchain is wrong is almost every single facet, and I’m happy to enumerate them if you’re interested.
The reality is that most crypto proponents have zero experience in capital markets and its plumbing. Your assertion that it’s simpler to do on blockchain is wrong is almost every single facet, and I’m happy to enumerate them if you’re interested.
I frequently find myself in talks with web3 people. The talking points are usually
- this system is broken; blockchain addresses this!
- fiat is made out of thin air; blockchain has scarcity!
All the arguments fail when you start prodding actual implementations / use cases that are used today. Outside of 3rd world countries where prepaid calling cards were a store of value not long ago, I don’t think crypto would address anything that we couldn’t do and do well today.
All the arguments fail when you start prodding actual implementations / use cases that are used today. Outside of 3rd world countries where prepaid calling cards were a store of value not long ago, I don’t think crypto would address anything that we couldn’t do and do well today.
I try to be as open minded as possible. I fully accept that web3 has enough people who are thrashing about that it’s not likely to disappear, and they may even find a usecase.
But I despise people who pontificate with obviously zero experience about incredibly complex topics like rates markets. I spent most of my career as a hedge fund trader, and it boils my blood when people with zero experience speak with authority.
And this coming from a person who has just spent the past few months building an enterprise oracle network. I’m not against crypto, but just don’t misrepresent so called “legacy” solutions because anyone with actual knowledge will eviscerate your argument.
But I despise people who pontificate with obviously zero experience about incredibly complex topics like rates markets. I spent most of my career as a hedge fund trader, and it boils my blood when people with zero experience speak with authority.
And this coming from a person who has just spent the past few months building an enterprise oracle network. I’m not against crypto, but just don’t misrepresent so called “legacy” solutions because anyone with actual knowledge will eviscerate your argument.
> Outside of 3rd world countries where prepaid calling cards were a store of value not long ago
This is still a huge market
This is still a huge market
I think we're talking about different things. I was responding under the assumption the commenter wanted to build their own market for trading inflation bets. If someone already did the work to accept money, make the market, and handle payouts then great, leverage that. That betting market exists because enough people wanted to bet on inflation prior to blockchains existing. However, there will be new things in the future that people want to bet on, and those new markets will be easiest implemented on a blockchain.
Just a for instance, I can create a betting market based on how many times my dog licks her butt during the day very easily on the blockchain. How can I do that using traditional means?
Just a for instance, I can create a betting market based on how many times my dog licks her butt during the day very easily on the blockchain. How can I do that using traditional means?
Yes crypto is attempting to shrug off at least a century of regulations that have made the world as stable as it is. If crypto ethnusiasts had their way we’d go back to the 1800s where we had a depression every generation and inflation jumped between 1 and 20% depending on the year. Most of these people don’t have a clue about finance and the ones that due have ulterior motives
> Solving human issues (eg laws), requires human solutions, not pseudo-technological ideas.
Disagree with this general viewpoint. For example I think NYC Yellow Cab laws were antiquated, rent-seeking, and anti-consumer. App-based ridesharing tech, not human politics, changed that equilibrium.
Technology disrupts pre-existing rules, laws and regulations all the time. In most cases it's a net positive for humanity. Not saying all regulation is bad, but if regulations an be easily disrupted by tech, then usually it's sclerotic and outdated.
Disagree with this general viewpoint. For example I think NYC Yellow Cab laws were antiquated, rent-seeking, and anti-consumer. App-based ridesharing tech, not human politics, changed that equilibrium.
Technology disrupts pre-existing rules, laws and regulations all the time. In most cases it's a net positive for humanity. Not saying all regulation is bad, but if regulations an be easily disrupted by tech, then usually it's sclerotic and outdated.
> Solving human issues (eg laws), requires human solutions, not pseudo-technological ideas.
Good luck changing international relations while people in developing worlds wait for their respective governments to work things out.
Property is a human right, whether the state allows it or not. If I have $1, I should be allowed to transfer it to whomever I want, otherwise I don't really own it. If a state says I can't transfer it to my relative in [bad country], then I see that as unjust and I will go around the system. If some government forbids its people to hold a certain denomination of currency, that's unjust as well and I will go around that system.
Good luck changing international relations while people in developing worlds wait for their respective governments to work things out.
Property is a human right, whether the state allows it or not. If I have $1, I should be allowed to transfer it to whomever I want, otherwise I don't really own it. If a state says I can't transfer it to my relative in [bad country], then I see that as unjust and I will go around the system. If some government forbids its people to hold a certain denomination of currency, that's unjust as well and I will go around that system.
This is a ridiculously narrow conception of rights that ignores how your property rights interact with those around you. If you transfer your $1 to a slaver (extreme example) for his goods or services, your property rights directly undermine the rights of others. Your property rights end where the rights of others begin.
>If I have $1, I should be allowed to transfer it to whomever I want, otherwise I don't really own it.
This argument requires further justification. I really don't see how spending constraints would imply you don't "really" own your dollar.
This argument requires further justification. I really don't see how spending constraints would imply you don't "really" own your dollar.
This is an advertisement for Pyth. The article starts off with claims that make no sense. Then instead of backing up those claims, it keeps dragging on and on hyping Pyth.
I do not think it is an advertisement. The author studied CS at MIT. Then was a journalist based in Moscow. Now works for the Wall Street Journals on scoops involving DARPA.
But I do think it is artificially placed. Probably an institutional propaganda push for Pyth (or at least, that's what the supporters say it could become). Perhaps these found the right lobbyists or pockets.
But I do think it is artificially placed. Probably an institutional propaganda push for Pyth (or at least, that's what the supporters say it could become). Perhaps these found the right lobbyists or pockets.
http://web.archive.org/web/20211207114124/https://www.wsj.co...