I like to hate on ETH as much as anyone else, but isn't it also normal for stock market "whales" to buy/sell in smaller chunks to not move the market by much with a giant order?
Since ETH is based on a completely transparent ledger and not a privacy focused coin like XMR, all wallet amounts are public so you can see if a giant wallet pops up or transfers out to known exchanges - meaning a sale is taking place. So, it's natural to break it up into multiple wallet addresses.
Am I missing some other context here? I don't see what's wrong with using multiple wallet addresses to not let the whole world know about your large orders.
PoS a flawed idea from the outset, but you can kind of try to fake it and make it work for a while if people believe that the coins are well distributed. Over the long term, the large whales will eventually consolidate more and more power, but hey, that's tomorrow's problem.
But if in reality there's just a handful of silicon valley tech bros and VCs who control the majority of the supply, and thus can collude to control the network state, then it destroys the idea that it is a decentralized, and trust minimized system.
This was a similar reasoning for justifying the DAO fork. The hacker who broke the code stole ~4% of all Ethereum at the time. Having a known, and impossible to deny, whale of that size would have severely hurt their ability to legitimize the planned migration to PoS.
Specifically from this source, "We may limit the size of a single purchase to make it easier to disguise. *So that no one is scared.*"
This isn’t about moving the market or efficiency. This happened before ETH was available on any exchanges. Lubin was explaining how to disguise large whales buying a big proportion of ETH. This has major implications, especially after the supposed move to proof-of-stake as few whales would have undue influence over the consensus.
It looks like it means that even the founders of Ethereum intended to enable fraud, disguising large institutional investors as many individual investors so that the market would be mislead about the popularity of ethereum.
Or to be frank - the messsage to the non-crypto audience is this:"Yet again, the crypto guys seem to be scamming each other, stay the hell away".
Ether is in part premined. Before the token went public, a select few insiders were able to buy lots of it at practically no cost.
Here the co-founder explains how to buy more than the agreed maximum per holder, by simply creating multiple accounts to buy them. The founder actively encourages fraud and does it on record.
Wait… I put all of my retirement and kids’ college money into ETH. I told my friends and family to do that too so we can get rich. Was that a bad idea?
My brother said he didn’t trust his money to a 27-year-old Russian kid who looks like a tweaker. My brother doesn’t know how to write code, I told him to do the research.
Should I be nervous or start shopping for a Lambo?
lordofgibbons|4 years ago
Since ETH is based on a completely transparent ledger and not a privacy focused coin like XMR, all wallet amounts are public so you can see if a giant wallet pops up or transfers out to known exchanges - meaning a sale is taking place. So, it's natural to break it up into multiple wallet addresses.
Am I missing some other context here? I don't see what's wrong with using multiple wallet addresses to not let the whole world know about your large orders.
anonporridge|4 years ago
PoS a flawed idea from the outset, but you can kind of try to fake it and make it work for a while if people believe that the coins are well distributed. Over the long term, the large whales will eventually consolidate more and more power, but hey, that's tomorrow's problem.
But if in reality there's just a handful of silicon valley tech bros and VCs who control the majority of the supply, and thus can collude to control the network state, then it destroys the idea that it is a decentralized, and trust minimized system.
This was a similar reasoning for justifying the DAO fork. The hacker who broke the code stole ~4% of all Ethereum at the time. Having a known, and impossible to deny, whale of that size would have severely hurt their ability to legitimize the planned migration to PoS.
Specifically from this source, "We may limit the size of a single purchase to make it easier to disguise. *So that no one is scared.*"
btoiled|4 years ago
scintill76|4 years ago
I’m rusty, but exchange deposits are probably to unique addresses and might not consolidate into known exchange addresses until after the sale.
antman|4 years ago
mgh2|4 years ago
Traster|4 years ago
Or to be frank - the messsage to the non-crypto audience is this:"Yet again, the crypto guys seem to be scamming each other, stay the hell away".
fleddr|4 years ago
Here the co-founder explains how to buy more than the agreed maximum per holder, by simply creating multiple accounts to buy them. The founder actively encourages fraud and does it on record.
anonporridge|4 years ago
It's a mystery why the SEC hasn't torn them apart.
tata71|4 years ago
cyanydeez|4 years ago
akagusu|4 years ago
gregjor|4 years ago
My brother said he didn’t trust his money to a 27-year-old Russian kid who looks like a tweaker. My brother doesn’t know how to write code, I told him to do the research.
Should I be nervous or start shopping for a Lambo?
emptyparadise|4 years ago
This increases my trust in the tech if anything. Shame about the rest though.
tata71|4 years ago
Realistically, the validators do.