Did Celsius’ Withdrawal Trigger The Terra/ LUNA Collapse? Claim & Response
2022年6月8日 - 8:18PM
NEWSBTC
Did Celsius set off the domino effect? Almost a month ago, The
Block Crypto reported that Celsius pulled at least $500M from the
Anchor protocol before the collapse. Two weeks ago, blockchain
analytics firm Nansen identified Celsius among the seven big
wallets that allegedly triggered the bank run on Anchor. Recently,
Celsius responded. Is this the explanation for the Terra/
LUNA collapse? Was this whole situation not a deliberate attack?
Were natural market forces responsible instead? The estimation is
that 75% of all UST in existence was locked in the Anchor Protocol,
a service that offered a suspiciously high 19.5% yield. That number
was one of the main drivers behind UST and LUNA’s success. It’s
only logical that the bleeding started there. According to
this theory, how did all of this happen? Let’s explore the facts
and explanations provided by all parties involved. Nansen
Identifies Celsius When the Terra/ LUNA crash happened, the first
and main theory was a deliberate attack on a perceived
vulnerability. According to Nansen’s “On-Chain Forensics:
Demystifying TerraUSD De-peg” report, “this on-chain study refutes
the narrative of one “attacker” or “hacker” working to destabilize
UST.” How did it happen, then? Well, the natural market forces
unraveled the poorly designed algorithmic stablecoin. Back to
Nansen: “Our analysis leveraged on-chain data to demystify what
happened before and during the UST de-peg. Through the examination
of on-chain activities, we found that a small number of wallets and
a likely even smaller number of entities behind these wallets led
to imbalances in the Curve liquidity protocols that were regulating
the parity between UST and other stablecoins.” One of those
wallets belonged to Celsius. Did they know a collapse was incoming?
Or did they just react first to a dangerous situation? UST price
chart on Coinbase | Source: UST/USD on TradingView.com Celsius ’
Explanation Puts Things In Perspective The Terra/ LUNA collapse
began on May 9th. Two days later, Celsius tweeted this cryptic
message: “As part of our responsibility to serve our community,
Celsius Network implemented and abides by robust risk management
frameworks to ensure the safety and security of assets on our
platform. All user funds are safe. We continue to be open for
business as usual.” As part of our responsibility to serve our
community, @CelsiusNetwork implemented and abides by robust risk
management frameworks to ensure the safety and security of assets
on our platform. All user funds are safe. We continue to be open
for business as usual. — Celsius (@CelsiusNetwork) May 11, 2022
What did Celsius mean? The circumstances forced them to explain
themselves. In the article “Search Continues for Source of TerraUSD
Crypto Bank Run,” the Wall Street Journal paraphrases them:
“Celsius said that its risk-management group recognized “shifts in
the stability” of the platform that prompted it to remove its
assets only for the sake of protecting its customers’ money. The
company didn’t profit from the instability, it said.” It also
confirms that one of Celsius ‘ business models was to simply accept
deposits from their customers, lock the funds in Anchor at a 19.5%
yield, offer their clients a 14% yield, and pocket the difference.
However, “it wasn’t clear to investors that their money in a
Celsius account might have been invested in the Anchor platform.
Celsius, Voyager and others in the industry don’t usually disclose
their counterparties.” Where Does The Money Come From? The Wall
Street Journal article went deeper than the Terra/ LUNA collapse.
It pointed a magnifying glass at DeFi in general. “In DeFi,
it isn’t easy to understand who provides money for loans, where the
money flows or how easy it is to trigger currency meltdowns. This
is one reason regulators are concerned about the impact of DeFi on
investors and the broader financial system.” As an example of that,
check out The Block Crypto’s explanation of how Celsius staked its
money in the Anchor Platform. Apparently, doing all of this instead
of buying UST directly is what saved the company, but it’s still
borderline ridiculous: “The process of depositing funds to Anchor
Protocol was convoluted. Igamberdiev explained that it involved
first staking ETH using Lido to receive Staked ETH (stETH); then
sending stETH to Anchor vault on Ethereum in order to mint and send
bETH (a token representation of stETH) to Wormhole, a crypto
bridge; minting bETH on Terra using Wormhole; before finally
depositing bETH to Anchor Protocol.” We gave Celsius the right to
reply. It’s only fair that we end this with Cory Klippsten’s
criticism of the service, Swan Bitcoin’s CEO told the WSJ:
“It’s being marketed as a better savings account and it’s not. What
you really are doing is, you’re an unsecured lender. They’re
gathering retail loans and investing it out the back end in lightly
regulated activities.” Remember, these are all theories. Do what
you will with all of the information in this article. Plus, do your
own research. Featured Image de Bradyn Trollip en Unsplash | Charts
by TradingView
stETH (COIN:STETHUSD)
過去 株価チャート
から 3 2024 まで 4 2024
stETH (COIN:STETHUSD)
過去 株価チャート
から 4 2023 まで 4 2024