Controversial opinion:
How many days/months before we have a similar hack because we didn't really got better on security after the KelpDao hack?
This DeFi United is getting a bit too much virtue signaling tbh.
Lz and Kelp should have cover 70-80% of the hack and close.
In crypto and defi (ie in honest markets), when a component fails, those closest to the component—whether wildly negligent or innocent victim—suffer the loss, and are burdened with that responsibility. Unequal, but proper.
In tradfi and banking (ie in coercively manipulated markets), when a component fails, the entire society is forced under the burden of its resolution. Costs are socialized. Equal, but improper.
The former, with time, becomes self-correcting, self-improving, and crucially, retains vitality. The latter, regardless of time, becomes stagnant and soulless, and here everyone can wallow in an equivalent grey.
Any man of agency should prefer the former, taking care over that to which he is proximate. It is from this that the virtue of markets emerges.
@binji_x So undercollateralised credit?
Or what is used to collateralise the credit line?
Afaik there is not a decent way to perform undercollateralised credit yet.
So imho the bot would need to issue tokens with a certain promise of return so the party accepting the risk knows the risks