That's exactly right. Always assume something is a scam, because you'll be right 99% of the time.
MakerDAO is pretty self explanatory if you look at the code and the spec of how the protocol works. You overcollateralize based on the ratio set by the DAO, you get dollar pegged coins (which then, are undervalued, providing the stability) and the system keeps the amount of stablecoins in circulation always less than the value of collateral. It can break, it will break eventually, as all pegs do, but it is wildly more stable than these other obviously flawed schemes.
Skimming through that article, it looks like a frivolous attempt at a settlement. There's no misrepresentation whatsoever: open a CDP, if the value of collateral drops below the threshold, your CDP gets liquidated unless you can top it up. I'm not surprised the judge allowed it to go to arbitration. It also looks like a plaintiff tried to get a class action going but not a lot of people joined in.
Rather than trust some internet stranger, I'll just assume it's a scam. It looks like a scam. Your defense of it is sufficiently technical to be well outside the understanding of basically everyone. Further, it doesn't really matter "how it works" according to the creators. You would have to independently vet and verify all the code and fine print to be sure, meaning you should probably just invest in something a little less fucking needlessly complicated.
Thanks for skimming the article before dismissing it though, I guess.
Find me an investment strategy that isn't needlessly complicated. Everything you can do in the traditional world you need an army of lawyers to get right.
All you have to do is vet the handful of things you're interested in. I don't know everything about every crypto project out there, and I assume everything is a scam unless something piques my interest and so I dive in depth on it and determine it isn't. Most things that do pique my interest turn out to be scams within. 5 minutes of reading. Sometimes that means I miss out on money, it's a risk assessment.
I'm not invested in maker because it isn't a passive investment. You either buy a stablecoin, no gains on that, or you become a DAO member and have a role to play. But it is a very interesting tool that people can use that works really well. It does what it's designed to do, keep dai correlated highly with the dollar.
> Find me an investment strategy that isn't needlessly complicated. Everything you can do in the traditional world you need an army of lawyers to get right.
Not terribly interested in discussing it further, but a comment I made elsewhere applies, at least:
> They think that the flaws of the incumbent system justify any flaws in the new one, without realizing the burden is on them to prove the new system doesn't posses _all_ of the problems (and more) of the original.
> I think "whataboutism" describes the situation well. See it a lot with the crypto crowd. Clearly a lot of cognitive dissonance going on there.
MakerDAO is pretty self explanatory if you look at the code and the spec of how the protocol works. You overcollateralize based on the ratio set by the DAO, you get dollar pegged coins (which then, are undervalued, providing the stability) and the system keeps the amount of stablecoins in circulation always less than the value of collateral. It can break, it will break eventually, as all pegs do, but it is wildly more stable than these other obviously flawed schemes.
Skimming through that article, it looks like a frivolous attempt at a settlement. There's no misrepresentation whatsoever: open a CDP, if the value of collateral drops below the threshold, your CDP gets liquidated unless you can top it up. I'm not surprised the judge allowed it to go to arbitration. It also looks like a plaintiff tried to get a class action going but not a lot of people joined in.