Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

FTX-backed DEX Serum Calls Itself 'Defunct,' Promotes Community Fork (theblock.co) 15

Serum, a decentralized crypto exchange backed by FTX, notified its 215,000 Twitter followers the project is "defunct" after the crypto exchange giant's sudden collapse -- while pointing users towards a community-led fork of the project. From a report: "The Serum program on mainnet became defunct" following FTX's implosion, Serum tweeted. "As upgrade authority is held by FTX, security is in jeopardy, leading to protocols like Jupiter and Radium moving away," it added, referring to two DeFi projects on the Solana blockchain. Earlier this month, the now-bankrupt FTX exchange was hacked for more than $400 million, which is said to have compromised the security of Serum's code. This is because the "update authority" for its code was held solely in the hands of insiders at the FTX exchange, Serum explained. The team also commented on its native Serum (SRM) token, stating its future was "uncertain" and that developers have proposed to scrap its use due to exposure to FTX and its sister trading firm Alameda Research.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTX-backed DEX Serum Calls Itself 'Defunct,' Promotes Community Fork

Comments Filter:
  • by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @12:47PM (#63088882) Homepage
    Control to update the protocol held exclusively by a single party. I don't think decentralized means what they think it means.

    This article should read like Mumbo Jumbo, but sadly I sort of understand it. I need a car analogy to be sure though.
    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Ah, but the evil central bank doesn't have control so it's de-central-bank-ized, "decentralized" for short. Note that the people who ran FTX are definitely not a central bank, and so it's much better.

      Crypto loves to shorten words, like cryptocurrency -> crypto. It makes it sound trendy and cool, and is not at all covering up for failure to achieve goals and promises.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @01:20PM (#63089002) Journal
      I'm not quite sure whether it's hilarious or depressing to see the number of people who manage to incur much of the pain of moving away from convenient but centralized designs in favor of quasi-decentralized setups that still have enough chokepoints to be vulnerable to the same types of failure(whether technical or fraud-related) as systems controlled by a trusted party; but lack any of the safeguards you would add if your threat model included honesty about how centralized you actually are, and normally incur substantial inconvenience and inefficiency in the portions of the design that are most aggressively made to look decentralized.

      It's particularly glaring in the cases when an explicit part of the pitch is (often justified, but not actually solved) criticism of the abuses of centralized systems by parties in control of their various chokepoints. Sure guys, you've fixed the problem of 'TradFi' being more weakly controlled than it lets on by building glorious 'DeFi' which is as precisely as uncontrolled as it looks. Hooray!
  • Fixed that invalid "they got hacked" claim for you...

    • Going back to the Mt GOX hack in 2014, there have been too many "hacks" for them all to have been poor programming/security. On the other hand, the regularity of hackers breaking into other databases makes me believe at least some are legitimate hacks, including those by insiders but not the exchange as a whole. So this is one of those "why not both?" situations.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @02:18PM (#63089122)

        The thing is they had reference cases of other exchanges getting hacked, it must have been clear to them there was high a risk of this, they had money to spend and they had a lot of money to protect. While I cannot completely rule out "both", I think any crypto-exchange getting hacked with massive amounts of "assets" getting stolen is at the very least a partial insider-job these days.

        Of course, it is possible that these people are even grossly more incompetent and arrogant than I already thought. In that case, sure.

  • by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @02:24PM (#63089130)
    Another failed crypto business. It's not really news anymore. Just a normal and expected part of everyday life.
  • by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @02:36PM (#63089162)

    Up until now I have had pity for people caught in the hype machine and the crossfire. Super bowl ads, celebrity endorsement, pressure from technically literate idiots in their social sphere... some people just have gotten fucked over, and badly. But that's it. Anybody still in it at this point deserves no pity, nor empathy. Let's even grant that some people simply are unaware that their assets are either gone or in serious danger... then they're not making bad decisions based on their understanding of the markets they're playing in... they're simply negligent, and are irresponsible participants.

    I do reserve some respect for those who have now said to themselves, "I'm writing off my stake. Let's just ride it and see where it goes." That's an honest position.

    • Sadly too many people failed the first rules of "investing":

      * Never invest more than you can afford to lose.
      * Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

      I put "investing" in quotes because someone pedantic would say "investing" into crypto isn't investing, and I would agree. More like gambling.

      Maybe we'll finally have an end to those retarded "Fortune favors the brave" propaganda ads and maybe a realistic one: Tragedy follows the stupid.

  • Technology? You mean "financial scam"?

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...