What's wild to me is that "money & risk managers" aren't actually managing money. They just throw their deposits into random shit. Even worse, they clearly don't understand risk management. Pro tip for other "investors": these products are on-chain. You can see everything happening under the hood. That's how open ledgers work. How is it possible that professional money managers put funds into vaults based solely on reading a landing page? Because what other explanation is there? The best part is that when I was pitching @stablewatchHQ at Stable Summit to "funds" this year, everyone claimed they had "amazing risk desks and monitoring" and that our pricing (the lowest in the market at that time of bootstrapping) was a "no-go." Good luck managing people's money, everyone. *Not hating on K3, I hope they recover. Just venting about the many "yield funds" I've encountered.
The saga continues. @k3_capital is threatening legal action on @elixir, claiming Elixir is a 'coordinated fraudulent scheme' orchestrated by Philip Forte (founder of Elixir) and facilitated by Caleb from Stream Finance'. K3 alledges Elixir misrepresented their product by lending 68m to Stream, turning from a 'basis trading' product into a 'tokenized fund-of-funds', a completely different and riskier profile. Elixir treated lenders as junior capital, claiming 'Stream holds roughly 90% of the deUSD supply (~$75m)'. This is not entirely true. Stream has borrowed stables against their deUSD exposure on many money markets, and their true exposure is much smaller. It is completely unfair that Elixir let existing deUSD holders redeem at 1:1, completely ignoring the 68m hole in their balance sheet. deUSD holders were not treated unilaterally. Instead of 'Stream' taking on the loss of deUSD being worthless, it's the lenders on multiple lending markets that suffer. By our math, which could very much be incorrect, across all wallets, Stream is holding about 11.34M of deUSD net exposure, if deUSD was still redeemable 1:1. This is so much smaller than the 68m loan, meaning Stream might possibly not end up paying this loan back. Instead of this loss being socialized among all deUSD holders, it is now the lenders that would take on the losses. In our opinion, deUSD redeems should have been completely paused until this situation with the loan was resolved. Either that, or let deUSD holders partially redeem their claim of the total backing minus the 68m hole, so users don't have to wait for legal proceedings and at least get a part of their capital back right away. Here are the wallets we checked for Stream's current loans against (s)deUSD: Stream Main Stream msig no xUSD loops Stream Connected, deUSD dumper Stream xusd looper worthless 1 Stream xusd looper worthless 2 Stream xusd looper worthless 3 Allegedly Ryan Demattia Allegedly Ryan Demmatia 2: Ryan Demmatia 3: Stream? Stream stream, empty Law's old wallet, claims is Stream owned Stream d2 finance, kinetic Lighter Withdrawals Lighter Withdrawals 2 Stream Gearbox loop empty Stream xUSD loop Some of these might not be owned by Stream, but by the 'External Managers', or other parties. We are not certain all wallets are owned by Stream at all, these wallets were found by onchain links. We are not lawyers. None of this is legal advice. We're simply stating our opinion on what would be morally right. Thanks for understanding.
ah and shoutout to @Tiza4ThePeople who is actually risk-chad
9,718
53
本页面内容由第三方提供。除非另有说明,欧易不是所引用文章的作者,也不对此类材料主张任何版权。该内容仅供参考,并不代表欧易观点,不作为任何形式的认可,也不应被视为投资建议或购买或出售数字资产的招揽。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情况下,此类人工智能生成的内容可能不准确或不一致。请阅读链接文章,了解更多详情和信息。欧易不对第三方网站上的内容负责。包含稳定币、NFTs 等在内的数字资产涉及较高程度的风险,其价值可能会产生较大波动。请根据自身财务状况,仔细考虑交易或持有数字资产是否适合您。