Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Bitcoin The Almighty Buck

SafeDollar 'Stablecoin' Drops To $0 Following $248,000 DeFi Exploit On Polygon (cryptoslate.com) 94

Posted by BeauHD from the anything-but-stable dept.
The price of SafeDollar (SDO), an algorithmic decentralized finance (DeFi) stablecoin based on the Polygon (MATIC) blockchain, has plummeted to literally zero as a result of what appears to be an exploit today. CryptoSlate reports: While details are yet scarce, block explorer Polygonscan shows that 202,000 USDC and 46,000 USDT stablecoins were suddenly drained from SDO's smart contract today -- worth around $248,000 in total. As a result, SafeDollar's price -- which was supposed to always be equal to $1 since it's a stablecoin -- has plummeted to zero, according to the protocol's own website. The attack was also confirmed in a Telegram channel called "SafeDollar Announcements" today, with developers urging users to stop all operations with SDO and ostensibly promising to come up with a compensation plan in the future. Notably, this is not even the first time SDO was exploited. Just a week ago, SafeDollar developers published a "Postmortem Analysis" about an exploit that resulted in the loss of the protocol's 9,959 SDS tokens -- worth around $95,000 at the time.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SafeDollar 'Stablecoin' Drops To $0 Following $248,000 DeFi Exploit On Polygon More

SafeDollar 'Stablecoin' Drops To $0 Following $248,000 DeFi Exploit On Polygon

Comments Filter:

  • DeFi = Centralized Scams (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2021 @08:34PM (#61531908)

    Ethereum = Scams platform

    A lot of people are confusing digital snake oil with innovation...

    The persistence of the Ethereum scam is that the scam is so blatant, right out in the open for anyone to see. They don't bother hiding the 70% premine, or the DAO hack rollback, or the hundreds of failed ICOs. They just pretend it never happened, like some collective amnesia.

    Typically, most scams have a "smoking gun."

    Theranos had the grand reveal that their lab results were fraudulent. Madoff was secretly running a ponzi scheme.

    But Ethereum's leaders make no attempt to hide their graft, they just do it out in the open.

    When the fraud is completely transparent, then you can't expose anything, because it's always been right there in front of them, they just choose to ignore it. ETH holders are totally apathetic about the endemic corruption in their system.
     
    https://twitter.com/vakeraj/st... [twitter.com]

    • They don't bother hiding the 70% premine, or the DAO hack rollback, or the hundreds of failed ICOs.

      I don't think most of the people involved understand what half of that even means. At least with the actual gold rush people kind of understood that the shiny rock was valuable and that other people might want to steal it from them. People just see the huge month over month gains and turn the rest of their brain off completely.

      I think the whole thing is still worth a fair bit though since it serves as a pretty good reminder why we have a centralized and regulated system. It's far from perfect, but it's b

      • "Hey, I've got a great idea. People are nervous about investing in other Ponzi schemes because the digital tulip bulbs don't have any consistent value. What if we put the name 'Stable' in our one? Do you think the rubes would flock to our Ponzi scheme then?"

        "Dunno. Let's give it a try".

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

      Internet = Scams platform

      A lot of people are confusing digital snake oil with innovation...

      The persistence of the Internet scam is that the scam is so blatant, right out in the open for anyone to see. Phishing attacks, malware, crypto-locker, hell people from around the world can try and hack anything you put on the internet.

      But the Internets leaders make no attempt to hide their graft, they just do it out in the open.

      • No offense intended... but I don't think it's going to be possible to convey this thought without being insulting.

        That is the stupidest fucking thing I've read in probably 72 hours. And that is seriously saying a lot these days.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

          > That is the stupidest fucking thing I've read in probably 72 hours.

          I agree. That's exactly what I thought when I read it from the parent.

    • Is SafeDollar an Ethereum offshoot?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Ethereum = Scams platform

      A lot of people are confusing digital snake oil with innovation...

      A lot of people have no clue how reality works. This is just one more indicator.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The Ethereum wasn't necessarily a terrible idea, one of the shitty things about Bitcoin is that early adopters got rich and now there is little incentive for anyone else to mine it because the only people who can profit are those with real-world capital to buy ASICs and cheap/stolen electricity.

      The idea that most miners should be rewarded for processing transactions is fine, that means the effort is going towards running the network instead of just destroying the environment in search of new coins. Moving t

    • >Ethereum = Scams platform
      >A lot of people are confusing digital snake oil with innovation...

      WARNING: Bitcoin Maxima... Fundamentalist spotted!

      How the fuck is it a scam if 10's of THOUSANDS of people have become millionaires from Ethereum. How is Ethereum a scam if it's the things built on top of it that you are pointing as resulting in people losing money. Is C++ a scam because some people make viruses? ARE YOU FUCKING RETARTED?

      Sorry, not sorry. Too much dumb in posts like this.

  • ... or both?

    decentralized finance (DeFi)

    A lot of proponents claim decentralization is somehow better, because it means no single group/entity exerts too much (or the only) control.

    However there's a clear downside to that: lack of proper regulation. While a lot of people might oppose regulation, it exists in the current financial system for a reason, and does serve a purpose: to propect "regular people" from losing their shirts at the hands of manipulative banks and money managers (or what the cryptoenthuiasts likely troll about as "th

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Actually it's beneficial to have both regulated and unregulated financial systems.

      Regulated and stable is good for the essentials, receive your salary, pay your mortgage etc. It's good to know that there are checks and balances so you won't suddenly become homeless through no fault of your own.

      Unregulated is good for risk takers (ie gamblers) or people with spare cash, you might win big or you might lose big. But if you put in more than you can afford to lose you're an idiot.

      • Re:DeFi = DeCentralized or DeRegulated Finance.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by OldUserBackAgain ( 6505346 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @02:43AM (#61532630)

        Unregulated is good for risk takers (ie gamblers) or people with spare cash, you might win big or you might lose big. But if you put in more than you can afford to lose you're an idiot.

        Some regulation is needed or no-one will know if deals are honored, in your example that a bet that won will get the payout.

        People believing in no regulation ignore that there are malicious players.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by raynet ( 51803 )

        How is it beneficial? Wouldn't be better to only have regulated financial systems, then those risk takers would have to invest in to the regulated one and benefit also the non-risk takers.

      • Actually it's beneficial to have both regulated and unregulated financial systems.

        ...

        Unregulated is good for risk takers (ie gamblers) or people with spare cash, you might win big or you might lose big. But if you put in more than you can afford to lose you're an idiot.

        Problem is, 2008 was a great example of what happens when the unregulated risk spills over into the regulated markets.

    • > proponents claim decentralization is somehow better, because it means no single group/entity exerts too much (or the only) control.

      > However there's a clear downside to that: lack of proper regulation.

      Also at a more basic level, a system that isn't under control is out of control. Would you want a car where "no entity can control it"? Of course not, that's a car that crashes.

      Sure the government regulates the banking system to "regular people from losing their shirts at the hands of manipulative", b

  • This is why BTC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Monday June 28, 2021 @08:37PM (#61531916) Journal
    BTC has been a ridiculously valuable high profile target since shortly after hitting dollar parity and the bounty only skyrocketed from there yet has remained vulnerability free (unless you count the 51% intentional design characteristic as a flaw). Most of the other popular cryptos have been cracked and none has received the kind of vetting from solid security experts that bitcoin has. Exchanges have been hacked and people have been exploited but not the technology.

    That and proof of stake is a Ponzi scheme.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
      Yeah but the price you pay is huge amounts of electricity for PoW (last I heard it's on par with the entire country of Argentina). Given how heavily subsidized electricity is and how the environmental costs are offset onto the general populace that's still a lose-lose....

      • A village in the middle of nowhere could run a 50 ft' hydro drop through a bunch of salvaged washing machines and generate enough electricity to mine crypto, which will have deflation and fund development of the settlement. It's an socio-economic revolution that no one has yet realized.

        • A village in the middle of nowhere salvaging washing machines sounds like a place where mining BTC will be in direct competition with powering lights.

        • Exactly. It is good to see there are others who understand what this is really about. I've been planting seeds like the one you just planted here for decades. I've watched many of them grow into reality and many more die. Others can make millions or even billions cultivating those trees or maybe just feed their village. Every one of these speculators and naysayers just tells me it is working and someone is scared.

          Math, logic, empiricism, decentralization of power and capitalism may not be perfect. Still the
      • Coinbase does a decent enough job debunking this one. So I'll quote them. The short answer is that yes bitcoin uses a lot of power but it is agnostic to the source of that power, actually provides a great financial incentive to couple with green initiatives, and uses dramatically less power than either the banks or the gold it replaces.

        But there is an even dirtier secret. All fiat currency (government currency) is globally based on the dollar which in turn is backed by oil. Ironically the people pushing the

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          LOL @shithead retard. Excess energy has a thousand better uses before 'bitcon mining'.

        • Re:This is why BTC (Score:5, Interesting)

          by feedayeen ( 1322473 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @04:20AM (#61532808)

          This fails sanity checks:

          * https://cbeci.org/mining_map [cbeci.org]
          * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          So we have countries listed by the portion of Bitcoins mined and countries listed by what share of their power comes from renewables. Basically every functional power grid comes from a distributed supply system. For instance my electricity in California is connected to the Western Interconnection covering a third of the US and Canada. Any power production along that whole system contributes to the grid balance. That's especially true for renewables since they're inheritably intermittent sources with irregular supply capacities. There are wind farms closer to my house than coal plants, but if I'm consuming power, it's preventing those wind farms from supplying as much power to the whole grid thus increasing the load requirements on coal plants a few hundred miles away.

          The only non-fungible nature from electricity is the transmission losses and that is typically near 5% so relatively insignificant. I will make the very generous assumption that every single crypo farm is located right next door to a constant supply renewable source with 0 transmission losses. So a power grid like China which has 24% of it's grid supply coming from renewables will translate into 29% renewable supply to crypo farms.

          China's powering 65% of Bitcoin mining and at minimum 71% of that power comes from fossil fuels. Right off the bat with just 1 country 46% of all Bitcoin mining power is coming from fossil fuels. Right off the bat when looking at just 1 country, 70% of the total power can not possibly be coming from renewables.

          Next countries, the US, Russia, and Kazakhstan each show about 7% each. Those countries have 15%, 17%, and 11% of their power coming from renewables. Same generous 5% addition on each one puts us at 17% of the power coming from fossil fuels. Malaysia and Iran add about 4% each and together contribute another 7% of the total consumption coming from fossil fuels.

          With 6 countries, we've accounted for 94% of Bitcoin mining capacity and at minimum 70% of the total Bitcoin network's power is coming from non-renewables in the countries' national grids with the most generous assumptions possible. If we factor in the transmission costs and the remaining 6%, about 25% of Bitcoin mining power comes from renewables.

          Turns out, when most of Bitcoin mining is done in China, they dominate the energy mix and half of the remaining production happens in even more corrupt petro-states.

          • "There are wind farms closer to my house than coal plants, but if I'm consuming power, it's preventing those wind farms from supplying as much power to the whole grid thus increasing the load requirements"

            Yes but that logic fails on multiple fronts by oversimplifying the grid into a fixed supply of energy. That isn't the case. Production capacity is added to meet demand and bitcoin mining is a source of demand. If bitcoin miners preferentially select renewable sources of energy more renewable sources get ad

            • You're basically grasping at every possible straw including an argument that is equivalent to arguing that improving energy efficiency is worse for the environment because inefficiency encourages us to add more renewables while ignoring that we continue to add more fossil fuel power sources because demand continues to increase. Like wut? This is what paragraphics 1, 2, and 4 each argue.

              Paragraph 3 is easily dismissed because only a tiny portion of mining is done in personal homes let alone in cold climates.

              • False analogy. Efficiency vs Inefficiency isn't related to any argument I made in paragraph 1, 2, or 4. My argument was that the preferential increase of renewable demand encourages us to add more renewables. That couldn't be more straightforward and is distinct from doing so with more or less efficient processes. Economy of scale is well understood and established concept, if you are skeptical that doesn't relate to BTC. When you drive up demand for solar panels for instance the cost of equipment to make t

                • "False analogy. Efficiency vs Inefficiency isn't related to any argument"

                  You are saying that increased power consumption on a grid magically encourages them to add more renewable power capacity. If that's the case, we can bypass the bitcoin, replace all LED's with incandescent bulbs and leave your fridge door open. Congratulations, you've added demand to the electrical grid. What's the difference?

                  "I made in paragraph 1, 2, or 4. My argument was that the preferential increase of renewable demand encourages u

                  • "If that's the case, we can bypass the bitcoin, replace all LED's with incandescent bulbs and leave your fridge door open. Congratulations, you've added demand to the electrical grid. What's the difference?"

                    Magically? Supply and demand isn't magic. But the difference is that the LED and incandescent bulb perform the same work. Your examples WOULD increase demand but they do so without functional gain. I bought my coffee this morning with BTC and mining enabled the transaction. It did so with lower net energ

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dj245 ( 732906 )
              Not everyone has a choice of electricity sources. I do, but many do not, and that is in the US where we have a lot of deregulated states and territories.

              In China or other places I would strongly doubt they can choose their generation provider.
              • Actually they can. The largest bitcoin miner in China has announced they preferentially choose hydroelectric and that 40% of their mining operations are renewable. Also, you don't have to use a provider. You can also install solar and wind. Even offpeak evening mining is at least mostly neutral because the power was being generated anyway.

                It is true there isn't a one size fits all solution but while bitcoin uses a great deal of power bitcoin is a massive global scale financial technology and is having a hug

        • Coinbase does a decent enough job debunking this one. So I'll quote them. The short answer is that yes bitcoin uses a lot of power but it is agnostic to the source of that power, actually provides a great financial incentive to couple with green initiatives, and uses dramatically less power than either the banks or the gold it replaces.

          Yeah, there's no way that energy could be put to better use for other things.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )

          Coinbase doesn't know jack shit and is horribly wrong in their 'debunking'

          Bitcoin network alone dwarfs the entire HISTORY of energy produced by solar. And it does it EVERY SINGLE DAY by several orders of magnitude.

          The majority of Bitcoin is fossil fuel and can NOT go renewable because it ran that straight into the ground.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrSkwid ( 118965 )

        YouTube consumes 4x the energy of BitCoin.

        About 1% of the world's energy.

        https://thefactsource.com/how-... [thefactsource.com]

        • Having a free, near universal video platform is huge. We all focus on the cat vids and racism and Pewdiepie but there is huge amounts of educational content there. I learned to make Pizza and write Angular from YouTube.

          Crypto is just a back door to our financial system. It has a variety of flaws that mean it's only really useful for drugs & money laundering. Most notably it's extremely vulnerable to currency manipulation and if you regulate it enough that it's not vulnerable it just turns into a fia

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Unfortunately, BTC is inherently flawed with perfect traceability, very low number of possible transactions per second and, gasp!, zero inherent value.

      • Very few people are using it as currency. Most bitcoin owners are simply hoping to get rich off it.

  • No government (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Monday June 28, 2021 @08:47PM (#61531946)
    I'm so fucking glad no government can intervene and print out more money at will for them.

  • How much did Mark Cuban lose [forbes.com] this time?

  • This crypto and stable coin stuff is really a hot mess. Especially be careful with tether etc. Stable coins are not stable. Highly questionable and rather than stable there are clauses in their contracts you can drive a semi through, like no we don't have to give you your money.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by pbry4n ( 7208566 )
      It's a hot mess that exchanges heavily rely on for their own liquidity. When the Tether Ponzi scheme finally unravels, I project it'll have a huge impact on exchanges, their customers, and the value of Bitcoin.

  • Naming something a thing it is not obviously does not change its nature. More like "utter crap coin".

    • Naming something a thing it is not obviously does not change its nature. More like "utter crap coin".

      It even had 'safe' in the name as well.

      I wonder is It might be stable at this new value for a long time....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Maybe somebody should create a "Buy me I am great!" coin. Sure there would be tons of idiots throwing their money away on it.

  • ... by changing the value of the galactic currency from 1 of itself to 0.

  • oops (Score:5, Funny)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @04:55AM (#61532846)
    Oops you lost your money. Greedy motherfuckers.
  • This is why they should be called dumb contracts not smart contracts.

  • Hey kids, watch Grandpa topple an empire by changing a one to a zero ...

    https://rickandmorty.fandom.co... [fandom.com]

  • $0 you say? Well in that case I'll "buy" all of it. When it goes back up in value I'll make infinite profit. That's how all this works, right? :)

  • Little Bobby Tables [xkcd.com] has grown up and had to prove himself worthy of the title of hacker.

  • $0 (Score:2)

    by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
    So I could buy an infinite amount for $0 just in case it increases again... I can cope with an outlay of $0. Maybe even if there's a $1 handling fee.
  • I just came here to enjoy the schadenfreude.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close