EtherSchool

DeFi

wizard building public financial infra @morpho

Now that everyone understands the term, how does it apply to DeFi and onchain protocols?

Applied to DeFi, the Lindy Effect suggests that the longer a protocol operates without major incidents, the less likely it is to be hacked. For example, @uniswap v2 has been running since 2020 without facing any significant issues. Based on this, we can reasonably expect it to continue operating safely for the next few years.

This principle works well for immutable protocols like Uniswap. However, it becomes problematic when applied to upgradeable protocols such as Lido, Aave or Compound. These protocols have undergone multiple upgrades over the past year, either for improvements or to fix major bugs discovered in their codebase.

During the last Devconnect, I had an informal chat with the lead researcher of a well-known zk-rollup. I asked him how we should deal with the risks of hacks and bugs in L2s—are we really stuck relying on multisigs and trusting the social capital of the founders?

He replied that we should aim for what immutable protocols like Uniswap v2 represent.

But won’t that kill innovation?

What do you prefer: reliability or innovation?

During the last Devconnect, I had an informal chat with the lead researcher of a well-known zk-rollup. I asked him how we should deal with the risks of hacks and bugs in L2s—are we really stuck relying on multisigs and trusting the social capital of the founders?

He replied that we should aim for what immutable protocols like Uniswap v2 represent.

But won’t that kill innovation?

What do you prefer: reliability or innovation? https://warpcast.com/merlinegalite/0x9fa3a61b https://frame.weponder.io/api/polls/11573

the problem is that l2 are very centralized so that means a few things , idk i value security over everything hence why i was a btc maxi for like 7 years

Founder of /buildingbears and /insider-trading , moderator of /success and /collectorscanyon

You know, there was a time when even Bitcoin was centralized. Like in its first year of mining or when three pools controlled most of the hashrate.

What matters isn’t just the current state, but where the project is headed. If it’s moving too slowly, like Bitcoin, there's a risk of falling behind. As always, balance and progress are key.

This was excellently said my goodness. To be quite Frank BTC is still centralized today when 3 companies own more than 51% or mining hash rate I smell danger but but like you say there’s always steps one can take for the future to make it better. The greatest thing about crypto is it can be forked and I think that’s our saving grace.

The problem is, a fork won’t help if you’re using a PoW algorithm. That only works with PoS 😁

Wdym ? BTC can be forked it’s forked many times already. A snapshot can be taken and off you go with your new chain on your way ?

An update of the chain and rules will need to be adjusted 

I don’t know what or how but both chains are capable of being completely rebooted as new forked ones.

I mean, how will a fork help if someone has enough power to constantly carry out a 51% attack with the right hashrate?

In PoS, you can slash their stake, but in PoW, after a fork, you can’t just remove someone’s mining power.