Whether DeFi's "decentralization" is a false proposition is worthy of further investigation. When it comes to their own interests, investors always hope that Tether, Circle, and Binance will stand up to solve problems in a centralized manner, but does such behavior lose the original intention of DeFi development?
I think we can distinguish further between the system and the user itself. The system, most of the time, works quite "decentrally". It depends on how you define decentralization, whether it uses the smart contract as the backbone or not, how many nodes run/support the network etc. The user, on the other hand, can act whatever they wanted to. But they should realize that they already bear the risk when they use the platform. How they behave doesn't really define how the platform works. 
Topic: Whether DeFi's "decentralization" is a false proposition？ (Read 106 times)
In the past, during the ICO, there was still a project party who came out and said that we had failed.
I bought a memecoin in Pancake last month, and the fund pool was withdrawn after three days. My money was swept away silently, leaving a pile of worthless zero coins.
DeFi greatly reduces the cost of evildoers.In my opinion, it is not decentralization that is released at DeFi, but it depends on the design of the project itself.It is more centralized because of the freedom to design various rules.
I bought a memecoin in Pancake last month, and the fund pool was withdrawn after three days. My money was swept away silently, leaving a pile of worthless zero coins.
DeFi greatly reduces the cost of evildoers.In my opinion, it is not decentralization that is released at DeFi, but it depends on the design of the project itself.It is more centralized because of the freedom to design various rules.
Whether DeFi's "decentralization" is a false proposition is worthy of further investigation. When it comes to their own interests, investors always hope that Tether, Circle, and Binance will stand up to solve problems in a centralized manner, but does such behavior lose the original intention of DeFi development?
Some maybe! Recent hacked acitvities are very alarming. Even those scammers who easily get funds by rugging a project isnt healthy for defi decentralization. Yes its very efficient but some abuses this which is not acceptable.Many projects on defi had died out on the process and in return just only making up some money from newbies pocket. In turns out centralized is more trustworthy than decentralized concept. In a way, but Im not saying its totally better than decentralized.
Crypto:Code is law ,DeFi doesn't need governments police, or courts, or laws Fuck governments!
Also Crypto:Hi,yes... Police? We got hacked and all of our money has been stolen plz help.
I saw this joke yesterday.I killed myself laughing.This joke is a mockery of the DeFi hacking incident.
DeFi is known as "open finance". Practitioners compare it to the parallel world of traditional finance. It is regarded as the second breakthrough in the history of blockchain development after Bitcoin.
But everything is not that simple. Nowadays, the attitude of many people has fluctuated.
Due to frequent security incidents, DeFi projects began to be dubbed "hacking cash machines" by investors.This medicine was once regarded as the "good medicine" for solving traditional financial problems, and gradually became the "poison" in the mouth of the victims.
DeFi may be a future development trend, and it is also a direction in which large-scale landing applications may appear. This direction cannot be completely denied because of attacks.
Defi is still in its early days. In the early days of the Internet, there were also a large number of hacker attacks and loopholes in computer systems, which always required step-by-step development and iteration.
Hackers are just a small stumbling block in this process.From another perspective, hacker attacks are also an opportunity for the entire industry to develop healthier and safer.
Don’t stop walking because you have fallen. Moreover, these security issues themselves are also testing the hard power of the platform, which can play a role in screening and evolution.
Whether DeFi's "decentralization" is a false proposition is worthy of further investigation. When it comes to their own interests, investors always hope that Tether, Circle, and Binance will stand up to solve problems in a centralized manner, but does such behavior lose the original intention of DeFi development?
Also Crypto:Hi,yes... Police? We got hacked and all of our money has been stolen plz help.
I saw this joke yesterday.I killed myself laughing.This joke is a mockery of the DeFi hacking incident.
DeFi is known as "open finance". Practitioners compare it to the parallel world of traditional finance. It is regarded as the second breakthrough in the history of blockchain development after Bitcoin.
But everything is not that simple. Nowadays, the attitude of many people has fluctuated.
Due to frequent security incidents, DeFi projects began to be dubbed "hacking cash machines" by investors.This medicine was once regarded as the "good medicine" for solving traditional financial problems, and gradually became the "poison" in the mouth of the victims.
DeFi may be a future development trend, and it is also a direction in which large-scale landing applications may appear. This direction cannot be completely denied because of attacks.
Defi is still in its early days. In the early days of the Internet, there were also a large number of hacker attacks and loopholes in computer systems, which always required step-by-step development and iteration.
Hackers are just a small stumbling block in this process.From another perspective, hacker attacks are also an opportunity for the entire industry to develop healthier and safer.
Don’t stop walking because you have fallen. Moreover, these security issues themselves are also testing the hard power of the platform, which can play a role in screening and evolution.
Whether DeFi's "decentralization" is a false proposition is worthy of further investigation. When it comes to their own interests, investors always hope that Tether, Circle, and Binance will stand up to solve problems in a centralized manner, but does such behavior lose the original intention of DeFi development?
Jump to: