This may be an interesting and wasteful social experiment. Up to now, it has consumed millions of dollars of gas. There are many speculators here. But we should see that this social experiment also has its necessity, that is, where is the border of cryptocurrency?

High gas fees, reduced popularity of DEFI, rapid decline of TVL on the chain, distrust of ETH2.0, criticism from miners, and restrictions on participants by the POS mechanism. Will the challenges of new technologies and new public chains cause ETH to decline rapidly?

Before we start the discussion, we must keep one word in mind: the current crypto world is rude and barbaric.

My next words will be closely related to this point.

Suppose you, an enthusiast of the crypto world, hold 1 million USDT in your hand, and you try to enter Justin Sun's new project, so you decide to exchange the 1 million USDT in your hand for USDD. You close the deal with ease, in less than a minute, and without any scrutiny.

But in fact, what impact did the deal have?

First, as a more robust universal stable currency in the encrypted world, the replacement of this 1 million USDT has consolidated the credit of USDD from a hidden perspective and strengthened its positive impact on its anchoring.

Second, it diminishes the financial utility of the outside world of crypto. If your 1 million USDT was originally on the Ethereum chain and now cross-chain to the trx chain, Ethereum actually lost 1 million USDT of potential investment funds. You're not sure if your counterparty will re-cross-chain back to Ethereum, but obviously it's a "money out" relative to Ethereum.

Third, as a stable currency pegged to the U.S. dollar, USDT is actually a bond, not an asset like BTC. It shows the debt relationship between TEDA and its holders. However, USDD is not a bond, and TRON is not obliged to implement rigid redemption of your USDD holdings. You can only exchange trx through its mechanism, and such exchange is profitable when USDD < 1 US dollar, and when USDD > 1 US dollar, you do not need to exchange

Therefore, we can see that the essential difference between USDT and USDD lies in the difference in the redemption mechanism. In my opinion, USDT is more similar to the US dollar before the Bretton Woods system, that is, the gold dollar, while the algorithmic stable currency such as USDD is a new thing that has never existed before. USDD cleverly avoids a kind of debt equivalent to the gold dollar currency, that is, rigid redemption. At the same time, it does not belong to the current credit currency.

In this way, algorithmic stablecoins seem to be perfect, but why did UST fail?

After carefully reviewing the rise and collapse of UST, I discovered the fatality of the UST crash: Anchor.

If it's just the interaction mechanism between UST and LUNA, I don't think UST is showing signs of failure in the short to medium term. But obviously, UST is just an ordinary stablecoin at this time, and its output supply is not much higher than that of other ordinary stablecoins, because its application scenarios are not broad.

However, Anchor appeared. The stable annualized interest rate of up to 20% stimulates the giant whales and retail investors in the crypto world. If it were you, what would you choose? Of course, it is to exchange other tokens in hand for LUNA, then to produce UST, and finally to pledge.

Yes, in this way, the price of LUNA is pushed to the top by the wave, and ironically, the vast majority of the UST produced - about 95% - is locked in Anchor.

Have you ever heard of any currency where more than 95% of it is in the bank? No. Unlike LUNA, the concept of UST from the beginning of its design is currency, not token. The value of currency is reflected in the circulation and use. If there is no circulation, it will be a pool of dead water.

The huge influx of hot money has led to a sharp increase in Anchor's cost pressure. When this pressure reaches the limit, the hot money that smells uneasy will naturally withdraw quickly. In the process of evacuation, trampling was inevitable, which led to the severe de-anchoring of the UST.

The seriously de-anchored UST made the arbitrageurs smell blood, and then we saw the emergence of a huge amount of LUNA. A death spiral, a terrible scene.

I learned two lessons from this: stablecoins must be in circulation; high TVL is not necessarily a good thing, and after the tide goes out, naked swimmers will appear.

In the real world, almost all countries strictly regulate foreign exchange and implement sufficient foreign exchange controls. This is because a surge in hot money is very dangerous for a country's financial system. In the encrypted world, an ecology, a public chain, is similar to a country.

The algorithmic stablecoin of the A public chain is very popular. Is this a good thing? This is indeed a good thing, but it has to be a wake-up call: why is it popular? Is it because its value is stable and easy to use, or because it can generate rich interest?

Looking back at UST, a key point of its failure is that you can buy and sell UST at will outside of terra. Similarly, when the hot money in Anchor is evacuated, they can find multiple escape routes with the help of UST. And these USTs will flood outside TERRA and cannot be controlled by the terra ecology.

Well, after analyzing the case of UST, I would like to describe an ecology that I envision, and an algorithmic stablecoin that comes out of it.

There are many applications in the encrypted world, but online shopping and diversified consumption on the Internet are still insufficient. Suppose we build a public chain in the encrypted world, and build an Amazon or Taobao on top of this public chain

We encourage people to shop on this public chain and also encourage people to open small shops on this public chain. At the same time, we encourage financial consumption projects and logistics companies to enter and jointly build a decentralized online shopping world.

This ecology will issue the incentive token CUS, and an algorithmic stable currency CUD linked to CUS. CUD is always equal to $1 in the real world. The output of CUD can only come from burning CUS, and 1 USD of CUS produces 1 CUD. And $1 in CUD can buy $1 in CUS. Note that the former is output and the latter is purchase. In this ecology, output is destruction, but purchase is not.

I produced 1 CUD, which means that 1 USD worth of CUS is permanently destroyed. I used CUD to buy 1 USD of CUS in swap, but I cannot buy CUD in the same swap, I have to go to the official platform to destroy CUS to get CUD.

For swap market makers, under the constant product formula, won't the CUS in the pool be consumed soon? In order to avoid this situation, we provide an effective protection mechanism for market makers, namely daily exchange cap + CUS injection reward + CUD pledge incentive.

The generation of CUS is based on CUD's pledge incentives and market-making incentives. The generation of CUD is based on the combustion of CUS. CUS can be traded across chains and on multiple open markets. And CUD will only be allowed to run on this chain. Neither cross-chain nor external transactions.


Oh yes! I forgot to mention, one of the biggest output channels of CUS, I haven't said it yet. That is - spend to earn。

When you buy bread, clothes, toys, and even cars in this ecological online store, you need to use CUD to pay the seller. And when your payment behavior is generated, you can earn an equal proportion of CUS, which is a reward for your consumption behavior in this ecology, and at the same time, it is also an effective way to reduce your cost of living.

Yes, the original intention of my vision is to think about how to reduce the cost of living for the poor. We cannot ignore these poor people, especially those below the United Nations poverty line. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of people living in extreme poverty around the world has increased by hundreds of millions.

Their lives cannot be ignored. At the same time, they should not be isolated from the crypto world.

“spend to earn”，seems to be simplified to “ConsumerFi”，The concept sounds good and easy to read.

Under such a design, CUD and CUS will not set additional issuance caps. Quite simply, the country's credit currency does not have additional issuance caps, but through macro-control. In this ecology, the regulation of inflation will be based on the mechanism and the response of the DAO organization.

Let’s imagine that a group of speculators finds this ecology profitable. In order to make a profit, they first bought CUS provided by our market maker in the open market, which directly pushed up the price of CUS. They entered the ecology, used CUS to burn and produced CUD, and then pledged or made markets within the ecology, indirectly becoming internal miners of the ecology.

When they want to take profits, they need to replace CUD with CUS within the ecosystem. However, due to the limitation of the daily exchange quota, the CUS in their hands cannot suddenly appear in large quantities in the external market, causing severe market turmoil.

Some people may question: what if someone patiently hoards CUS? Yes, this is a difficult problem. However, if you find that there are giant whales hoarding CUS from the chain, as a CUS holder, what would you think? Let's think about the use of CUS. If it can't be burned inside the ecology to produce CUD, in fact it is useless. Therefore, after discovering that someone has hoarded a large amount of CUS, retail investors will panic and flee, or return to the ecological burning of CUS to mint CUD. For the giant whale, this is precisely what he does not want to see. He does not want his shipping price to be lower than his expectations. To this end, he can only ship as smoothly as possible.

What if the giant whale goes short?

good question! At this point, I will introduce another design of this ecology: the "foundation flywheel strategy".

Looking back on our design, we will find that the production process of CUS and CUD is irreversible. Although both tokens are issued infinitely. But the production of 1 USD of CUD will inevitably burn 1 USD of CUS, and this 1 USD of CUS can no longer enter circulation. Therefore, if someone enters the ecology with 1 dollar, and then keeps on burning CUS-producing CUD-buying CUS-burning CUS-producing CUD. As long as the speed is fast enough, in an infinite time, although the token in his hand is only worth 1 US dollar, he has burned N CUS, which is not counted as the CUS burned as GAS fee.

So although the external market will make CUS fluctuate wildly in the short term. However, the foundation under the DAO organization will implement the "foundation flywheel strategy", and use the CUS in hand to execute the cycle of burning-production-purchasing-burning-production by closely monitoring the data on the chain. This speed is adjustable enough to keep the price of CUS stable for a long time - of course, the foundation does not mind that outsiders also join the cycle if they want to go long CUS.

Alright guys, I seem to have written an article that is too long, I hope I didn't make you impatient.However, if there are attentive guys, you may ask: What does what you said have to do with what you said at the beginning, "The crypto world is savage and rude"?

Yes, in the current encrypted world I know, giant whales are unscrupulous, they manipulate token prices, they take advantage of funds, poor information, influence, etc., they take advantage of the lack of supervision and freedom in the encrypted world, wantonly. Kick open the door of every ecology. They can push an ecology to the throne, or they can throw a project into the abyss. In such reckless behavior, their wealth is increasing, and the poor, poor people are also increasing. The strong gain everything and the weak lose everything. Is this the original intention of the crypto world?

I design an irreversible algorithmic stablecoin, just in the hope that the giant whales will not kick in the door. You can knock on the door and express your desire to come in, and I will greet you with great enthusiasm. When you leave, I will also see you off in person, to prevent your huge body from knocking over those thin people.

In the end, while I could design these literally, I lacked the funds and technology. I would be very happy if someone would like to create such a business with me. I'd be very happy if no one came, but some technical geniuses were inspired.

Everyone is welcome to discuss my designs!

[words written in front]

words written in front

I've been trying to get funding from others on this forum because I'm poor. But no one ever promised to fund me. During this time, I was very
depressed. Until just now, I saw a post that said: "Poor people should use their knowledge and labor to acquire their first assets, rather than trying to
get rich overnight."

It suddenly dawned on me that this sentence was a revelation from God to me.

So I thought, why can't I be rewarded by sharing the knowledge I have with everyone? I have to give before I should be rewarded, not the other way around.

So, from now on, I will teach in this thread the oldest Chinese culture, including the Book of Changes, The Analects of Confucius, Mozi, The Book of Four Talents, etc.

If you guys think this is great after watching it and are willing to give me a reward, please transfer the money to the following address：

ETH:0x1427a080006127b7B5205a08D6DA084FD4632a22

BSC：0x1427a080006127b7B5205a08D6DA084FD4632a22

If you think it's great, but don't want to pay, that's fine, just help me spread the word.

If you feel bad, or have mistakes, you are willing to discuss with me, I am also very happy.

Well, let's get started!

Chapter 1 "Book of Changes"

Book of Changes，It is one of the oldest books in China. It was written around 1000 BC。According to rumors, its author was written by King Wen of Zhou, the pioneer of the Zhou Dynasty, the third dynasty in China.But according to research, there are at least three authors of the book, including King Wen of Zhou, his child Duke Zhou, and a certain official in the Zhou Dynasty who was in charge of managing the book.Their continuous additions made the Book of Changes a complete book of divination.

In fact, according to rumors, there are three divination books that are the oldest, and the Book of Changes is only one of them. However, the other two "Lianshan" and "Gui Zang" have been lost. We can only see the Book of Changes at the moment.

However, mere divination books cannot be the source of ancient Chinese culture. Now, allow me to change the “Books of Changes” and call it the "I CHING"。

Why? This is because Confucius, the greatest thinker in China, took his students 500 years after the emergence of the Book of Changes, and jointly annotated the Book of Changes. Since then, it has become a sacred book, like the Old Testament chapters of the Bible.

These annotations and the original I Ching together form a whole, changing the use of the I Ching as a divination, allowing people to understand and learn it from multiple perspectives.

The basic elements of the Book of Changes are based on the competition and coexistence of "Yin" and "Yang"."Yin" and "Yang" initially changed in three positions, resulting in the original eight forms：QIAN（☰）、KAN（☵）、GEN（☶）、ZHEN（☳）、XUN（☴）、LI（☲）、KUN（☷）、DUI（☱）。

These eight forms are combined with each other in pairs, resulting in sixty-four different forms。

These sixty-four forms represent all things between heaven and earth. It is believed that from these sixty-four different transitions, the future direction can be accurately predicted.

However, Confucius and his students believed that the sixty-four forms described the truth of the universe, the development of human beings, and the order of society. So, for them, this is not a book of divination, it is a book of philosophy, a book of truth.

Next, I will tell you the specific meaning of these sixty-four forms, please look forward to it!

To be continued…………

I am proficient in China's oldest divination:YI JING。

It consists of 64 different patterns. The most basic composition of these patterns is Yin and Yang.

It is the oldest classic in China. It is not only a divination book, but also the source of Chinese culture. All ancient ideas come from this book.

It can predict people's fate, predict the luck or disaster you will encounter, predict where you can get help, or find the secret of success.

I am proficient in its complex divination process and can give a comprehensive interpretation.

Maybe I can serve you. Isn't that interesting?

https://opensea.io/collection/lamentations-collection

This is my poetry written in Chinese. I have made 54, half of the plan.

Chinese is hieroglyphic. It has a physical beauty. Together with original works, they are unique and cannot be copied or forged.

If you like, you can have a look.

I have made a batch of text NFTs and have put some of them on opensea.

My NFTs are made in Chinese.

Let me explain here: because Chinese is hieroglyphic, it is artistic in itself. At the same time, my Chinese NFT is all my own poetry - yes, I am a poet.

Therefore, these NFTs are both artistic and literary. They are the crystallization of my thoughts.

But unfortunately, I have no money. I can't even afford the gas fee of opensea.

Therefore, I need at least 0.15eth to start my text NFT experiment.

You can check my eth wallet address: 0x1427a08006127b7b5205a08d6da084fd4632a22

It's sad. But I have confidence, I hope you can help me realize my dream.

This is my NFT address:https://opensea.io/collection/lamentations-collection

This is my twitter address:https://twitter.com/Lamenta74512137

If you need more KYC measures, I can also provide them.

By the way, I think the current situation of NFT market is very unsatisfactory. Many popular NFTs are driven by the project side. The project side itself has strong control over NFT, which is not decentralized, but more centralized.

I hope the NFT market is more driven by artists, started by individuals and completed by the community. Instead of having a powerful dealer control everything.

Finally, thank you again.

Gentlemen, I beg you to help me. Due to the epidemic, I lost my job and my mother had a stroke not long ago. To this end, I not only sold almost all my cryptocurrency, but even carried a heavy debt. Maybe for whales, a few eth, or even a BTC, is nothing at all. But what they see as insignificant can save me.

These days, I'm thinking. If cryptocurrency has evolved to Dao, can it help poor people like me? Why can't we create a Dao that provides certain medical relief and life relief to each other?

If there is such a Dao, it allows anyone to join through KYC. He only needs to buy a certain amount of insurance every month to be eligible for relief. Such Dao does not need us to give money to life insurance companies to make huge profits. We just need to help ourselves, help each other, everyone for me, I for everyone.

We can even build strong communities. If we require community residents to participate in collective online activities every month, they can stably obtain the qualification to be relieved. Then, our community activities can even be commercialized, and the funds obtained can be enriched into the vault.

The goal of this Dao is not to make community residents rich, but to protect them, give them relief and give them hope for survival when they are in trouble. How beautiful should it be！

I have no technical ability to implement such DAO code, but when I was in trouble now, I suddenly thought of people who met with disaster under COVID-19. We know that since the COVID-19, rich people are getting richer and richer, and the poor are not only poorer, but also more middle class. Under such circumstances, can't we unite?

I know that there are many senior encryption technology researchers here. You have strong technical strength and even enough money. I hope you can achieve such a Dao, an autonomous, mutual aid, non anonymous and secure insurance organization.

I won't post the proof of my disaster and the address of my wallet here. If you are willing to help me, you can email me and I will prove it to you. If you are willing to be such a Dao, you can continue to say your thoughts here.

Thank you for reading! I always talk at length, but I'm really not calm now. When I think about the debt and my mother's illness, I feel very sad and heavy.

My email address: 593309959@qq.com
My mobile number: + 8615982133479
Yes, I am a Chinese.

The stones on Yap Island are like shells off the coast of China, and I never imagined that I would one day shoulder completely irrelevant responsibilities. Just like stones and shells, gold and silver are the same fate. Why?
We all know that the internal operation of human society is the two eternal themes of transaction and communication. At the heart of trading and communication is finding a mutually acceptable consensus. Whether it is war, trade, alliances, they have reached a consensus in constant friction. This consensus has the following characteristics: it is currently reliable; it is currently the lowest cost; it is currently stable. Note that here, a key word I use is current.
Everything is based on the present. We cannot escape our time. In order to seek the present, we are constantly looking for currencies that can be used as consensus, shells, stones, gold, silver, and even paper money.
The biggest peculiarity of paper money compared to previous currencies is that we have changed the consensus from fair gold to the will of the state. If we recognize the stability and prosperity of this country, then its paper money will be strong. If we acknowledge the chaos and decay of this country, then its paper money will depreciate. But the subtlety is that the manipulative means of gold are in the hands of nature, while the manipulative means of paper money are in the hands of the state.
In order to escape the manipulation of the state, Satoshi Nakamoto contributed the concept of Bitcoin to us. Today, we can clearly see the absurd fact that the value of the consensus of Bitcoin is still based on state-issued banknotes.
Why is this still the case? Why is there a concept of stablecoins? Aren't stablecoins the national currency in disguise?
This is because even cryptocurrencies, even Bitcoin, still need to generate value in circulation. The foundation of circulation lies in the real society and in the transaction of commodities. All this must be determined by the value of the actual commodity.
If I issue a cryptocurrency on a blockchain network, I promise that you can use that currency to buy all the assets in my name, including my house and my car. This is actually based on the value of my assets to secure my cryptocurrency. I am not issuing a currency, but a special bond. At the same time, the reliability of this bond lies in whether I will trade it as promised, and if I deny it, then the bond will be worthless. If I admit it, then such bonds have a guaranteed value.
This is beyond the realm of consensus. I don't need to agree with anyone, I just need to keep my promises. If we expand the concept and put more physical assets in the treasury of a certain bond, then we are effectively equivalent to a country.
This economic system is ultimately backward. It still follows the old path of credit money, rather than a more advanced economic system.
Suppose, we cancel the monetary system, we build a pool with an infinite amount of water in it. But no one is allowed to take water from a pool to preserve. We license to N users, who together form a customer base. Any transaction in this customer base needs water from the pool as a medium of exchange. But they can't store water. When they need to exchange, we give each customer a score, and if you score enough, you can take out a certain amount of water to replace the goods, and the seller receives the water and puts the water into the pool to get a higher score. The buyer deducts the points.
Fractions are not the currency of this system, but a right. In other words, when you have enough permissions, you can buy anything, but you first need to pay, pay a lot of goods to get points.
We do not determine each customer's purchasing rights based on a specific score. We divide a vague phase so that each tier has a certain number of customers who unlock only the purchase rights corresponding to the current stage.
All customers are administrative members of the pool. Yes, it's a DAO. Members of this DAO have the right to judge the permissions of any member, giving a consensus of "should he unlock this permission"?
In addition to our authority, we should also design a credit system. The credit system is the basis for the operation of the DAO. Only when credit is combined with a score can we judge whether a client should be.
So, will someone maliciously unlock themselves to the highest authority, thus taking away all the customer's goods? First, we need to design a system that ensures that the highest authority still cannot take away all. Second, we need to ensure the continuity of the exchange. That is, the exchange process must pay taxes to the pool. This tax starts from the value of the goods.
Each customer entering the pool must purchase an insurance policy for themselves. This insurance is both to ensure that the customer does not commit evil, but also to avoid his loss.
What do you think?