Hardly anybody wants to self custody. It's the literal reason banks got started. If blockchain can't even solve the most basic use case of the financial system, it's not going to replace it.

I don't buy this 'bitcoin saves you from tyranny' argument. Tyrannical governments are able to threaten your physical security. All the tokens in the world are no good if they've imprisoned you. As this Sam character has just learned, the hard way.

Yes but it improves the odds of escaping with your livelihood.

Good luck getting your assets out of the legacy financial system. It's much harder than memorizing a seed phrase or transporting minuscule hardware.

For most people including myself, carrying your entire net worth in the form of gold concealed on your person is easy.

Fair enough.

> Blockchains mathematically prevent fraudulent misuse of deposits

> SBF would not have been able to defraud millions of depositors on a blockchain where everyone self-custodied.

Does the TerraUSD count? People self-custodied, but the blockchain was built in such a way that it went to 0 easily enough.

Was that profound custodial negligence? It seems like blockchains that fail in such a way are a dime a dozen, and the end result doesn't seem vastly different from "$company running $TKN has gained a lot of money, and all the holders self-custodying $TKN have lost practically all their money even though $company assured them $TKN was safe". Is that any different in a useful way from "FTX has gained a lot of money, and all its customers have lost practically all their money which the company assured them was safe"?

Practically every crypto "pump and dump" follows this scheme of a custom token ('blockchain' if you will), a company saying it's not a pump and dump, and users self-custodying right until they lose all their money.

Perhaps blockchains prevent "fraudulent misuse of deposits", but enable "users exchange money for $TKN, which is definitely 100% worth something, and then it isn't", which really seems quite similar to me.

How were deposits fraudulently misused on Terra?

Sure, it blew up. We should totally criticize Terra for that.

But it succeeded in preventing Do Kwon and everyone else in the entire world from fraudulently misusing deposits.

You wrote valid criticism of blockchains, but you failed to state how SBF could have done what he did on a blockchain where everyone self-custodied.

> failed to state how SBF could have done what he did on a blockchain where everyone self-custodied.

GP also failed to state how blockchains prevent forest fires, herpes, war, racism or hiccups. There are an infinite number of things that have nothing to do with what factually happened around the FTX collapse.