You should be cautious betting too much if any of your retirement on any sort of blockchain or blockchain asset or token. They're all experimental.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You should be cautious betting too much if any of your retirement on any sort of blockchain or blockchain asset or token. They're all experimental.
I agree.
I am gambling on the blockchain, but also diversifying in real life.
Being in the US, California specifically, things look very dire with the traditional model, so a little experimentation is necessary.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Before luna i read a dozens of tweets about "HBD is risk free"...
So I'm not the "bad guy" all the time :D
I think many of us understand that crypto is still wild and anything can happen.
Anyone who tells you any investment is risk free is just being silly - nothing is "risk free" even the money I invested in buying seeds for my garden is a "risk" investment.
HBD is not risk free. There are risks with it. It is, however, low risk.
The biggest risks are the blockchain stops along with the ending of the backing of HBD by HIVE. Obviously the second is being discussed and worked on. As for the first, each has to access on his/her own.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
DAI = king algo coin. Nothing comes close to it. HBD should become a DAI version
One thing I like about the haircut is that it tells people HBD is not risk free. You are being explicitly told that you are taking risk. If HIVE fails to hold enough value, there is no nonsense about how printing trillions of HIVE is going to save you.
Of course, you do need to understand what you're buying, and it isn't necessarily clearly explained all the time.
That's not the only risk, but once you have one explicit risk, it isn't claiming to be risk free.
Any real reason why not remove HBD and make a DAI out of it? DAO could easy pay in hive connected to $ value of hive.
I think this would scale better to some higher level
I'm not even sold on DAI being better in any useful way. For one thing, a lot of its collateral is USDC (used to be the majority, but less than that now). What's the point of that?
Until you show me a collateralized stablecoin with only on-chain assets as collateral demonstrating clear superiority l don't see the point in a major revamp. This has been done before, of course. DAI originally did that, but didn't perform that well, leading to the current situation. BitUSD was the first I think.