Unchained - Solend and Bancor Drama: Did These DAOs Violate the Ethos of Crypto? - Ep. 366

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hi, everyone. Welcome to Unchained, your no-hype resource for all things Crypto. I'm your host, Laura Shin, author of The Cryptopians. I started covering crypto seven years ago, and as a senior editor at Forbes was the first mainstream media reporter to cover cryptocurrency full-time. This is the June 24th, 2022 episode of Unchained. On Tuesday at 6 p.m. Eastern Time, make sure to tune in for the live stream on YouTube of The Chopping Block with Haseebbe. Koreshi, Robert Leshner, Turun Chitra, and Tom Schmidt. They will be joined by special guest,

Starting point is 00:00:35 Taylor Monaghan, to talk about Metamask. Hey, builders, looking for one of the best scaling solutions in crypto? That's easy. Avalanche's breakthrough subnet design lets you minimize transaction costs and maximize your speed, consistency, and user experience. To experience Web3 like never before, head to avox.network to learn more. With the crypto.com app, you can buy, earn and spend crypto in one place. Download and get $25 with the code Laura, link in the description. Today's guest is Derek Shoe, co-founder at Reverie. Welcome, Derek. Thanks, Laura. It's a pleasure to be on. This week, there were two major incidents involving Dow's that had a lot of people in crypto casting judgment on these supposedly decentralized organizations. The first one involved Solent, which is a lending

Starting point is 00:01:28 and borrowing protocol on Solana. Tell us what situation prompted this first controversial proposal from them. Yeah, so to give some context on Solent, it's a lending and borrowing platform built on Solana. Users can deposit any form of collateral and borrow other assets. In this particular case, a very large whale had about $100 million, I think the exact number is 108 million. in Solana tokens that he deposited into Solent, and he used that as collateral to borrow stable coins like USDC and Tether. And over the past two, three weeks, obviously, the cryptocurrency

Starting point is 00:02:12 is volatile. Salana token has gone down in price. And the loan was getting pretty close to the liquidation price. Yeah, just a correction, they had deposited $170 million worth of Seoul. But you're right, they borrowed $108 million worth of USDC and UST. Yeah, the loan price was getting pretty close to liquidation. And like if that actually happened, there would have been a few cascading negative effects, which we can go into. The Solent team tried to contact the whale and alert him because there was no updating the account. There was no additional collateral being deposited.

Starting point is 00:02:50 And yeah, that's really the context. And I think, yeah, the governance stuff and the proposals that happened were sort of all based off of this one dangerous loan that had the potential to become quite toxic, both to Soland and to Solana itself. Yeah, and it was also 25% of TVL on Soland, which obviously is pretty significant. So how did Soland propose to handle this situation? Yeah, so the first proposal that the first proposal that they released was to really take unilateral control of the whales account. Doing this would allow them to execute the liquidation in a much more streamlined and organized manner. So normally, the liquidations are done. 20% of the collateral is just basically market sold. And this would

Starting point is 00:03:47 have negative effects on both the price impact, right? Like execution price for that larger chunk is never easy. And it would also just negatively affect the Solano network. A lot of liquidators would have been like bidding, bidding up fees and potentially, yeah, it was fear that the network could have gone down. So taking control of the Whales account was really justified, or at least the proposal to take control was justified through. They could execute the sale through OTC desks, do it in a more organized and less dangerous. manner. The reasoning was that this was better both for the Solan protocol, its users, and for just the Salauna ecosystem broadly. Yeah, and I think I saw somewhere they said that they felt that

Starting point is 00:04:37 handling an OTC would be, would cause maybe only 3% slippage compared to something like 46% if it was handled on the decks. Clearly you had a financial motivation to do this. But obviously, this proposal sparked an outcry. from the wider crypto community. Why was that? Yeah, it's a good point. And I think like any time a protocol, especially one in the defy space,

Starting point is 00:05:05 which is supposed to be all about being permissionless and self-custied and sort of user autonomy, whenever that philosophy is, like whenever a protocol wants to go against that philosophy, there's going to be outcries and there's going to be controversy. And in this case, it was such a large amount of funding. And it wasn't like a stopgap solution. It was honestly kind of a nuclear option, like literally taking control of someone

Starting point is 00:05:35 else's funds and having unilateral control over it. Like that is the nuclear option. I think there was just a huge amount of outcry because like crypto and defight's all about, again, having your own property rights and strong assurances. and if protocols can set precedent to go against that, it's just, it's dangerous. So I think there was a lot of headlines about it. There was a lot of controversy and for good reason. One thing that interested me was earlier when you talked about how, you know,

Starting point is 00:06:10 Solana has this history of going down quite frequently. I did see that when they were debating this first proposal, the Solent Twitter account tweeted, Solana has a history of downtime caused by on-chain liquidations like this, but 100x bigger this time. It's extremely risky for everyone involved. In the future, on-chain OTC auction

Starting point is 00:06:31 should be implemented as the preferred method for liquidating large positions. And I just wondered, do you feel that a similar situation on a different chain, one that didn't have this history of so much or such frequent downtime? Do you feel that that protocol

Starting point is 00:06:47 might have been spurred to take a similar action, or do you feel that it really was kind of particular to the issues that Solana has? It's a good question. I think it's, I think it'd be unfair to say that this, this situation could only happen in Solana. Like, I think even on other chains with different consensus mechanisms, like whether they're proof of work or proof of stake, like these situations are still possible if there's large liquidations and gas price goes up. like that could still be bad for the network. I do think salana is a little unique in that, yeah, like it's one of the few chains,

Starting point is 00:07:30 few major chains that in the last six months does have this sort of repeated history. And at this point, a bit of a negative connotation of going down. So I think like Soland and the community and just other Solana holders, we're sort of more aware of that. So I think it's unfair to say again that this is something that could only happen to Sala. But I think it's like empirically it's happened more and it's been a been a larger risk here. So the price of Seoul dropped as low as $26.43 on Monday, June 13th, which was a week before the proposal. And then on Saturday it was also at around $27.64. Now it's in the 30s. So it actually

Starting point is 00:08:17 hasn't moved close to the liquidation price, which was $22.30. But one day after passing the first governance proposal, the Dow reversed course. What happened there? Yeah, things moved pretty quickly there. And basically, the second proposal, like, it reversed the first proposal. And it canceled the proposed action of taking over the whales account. And yeah, this was done. I think, as you said, a day after the first proposal. And it definitely brings up some questions about, like, who created these timelines, like, why did they decide to do it and reverse action so quickly? Obviously, like a lot of the pushback, I think, was a big part of that.

Starting point is 00:09:08 And just there's a huge amount of anger and confusion about this proposal. So I think, again, it was the right move. but it's clear that this was seen as quite an existential event. So Proposition 1 was really the Solon team reacting to being backed into a corner. Prop 2 was only possible because Salana Price, I think, went up a little bit. So the protocol was actually kind of fortunate in terms of timing. because again, if prop two happened and price was going down, then you wouldn't have avoided the original concern. So definitely a, yeah, they are in conversation now with this whale, because now

Starting point is 00:09:57 they've been tweeting that they're talking to them. So I think that position is kind of slowly being decreased. And then actually just one quick question earlier when you said that it was the right move. Did you mean the first proposal or the second one? Given the facts and the fact that the price moved, I think proposition to, like personally, I think that was the right move to not take unilateral control. I think that would have been a very dangerous precedent to set for the protocol. I think it would have opened up a huge can of worms. To be fair, like that conversation has already begun. I think once people have known that this is possible, know that this is a step the protocol can take in the future. Like, it's already kind of too late.

Starting point is 00:10:44 But yeah, I think it would have been, again, the nuclear option to literally take control of the world's account and economically manage their actions. So I think it's, again, good for Soland that they didn't end up having to do that. So. Yeah, I find it pretty crazy that the first proposal was their first governance proposal ever. And then, somebody made a diagram on Twitter of the votes and said that it was one person who accounted for 88% of the yes votes. So, you know, it's, it's, uh, it raises a lot of questions kind of about just how to centralize all this was. But in a moment, we're going to talk about a similar controversy involving Bankor, but first a quick word from the sponsors who make this

Starting point is 00:11:32 show possible. The scorebed app here with trusted stats in real time sports news. Yeah, hey, who should I take in the Boston game? Well, statistically speaking. Nah, no more statistically speaking. I want hot takes. I want knee-jerk reactions. That's not really what I do.

Starting point is 00:11:49 Is that because you don't have any knees? Or... The score bet. Trusted sports content, seamless sports betting. Download today. 19 plus, Ontario only. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you,

Starting point is 00:12:01 please go to conicsonterio.ca. With Amex Platinum, $400 in annual credits for travel and diet, means you not only satisfy your travel bug, but your taste buds too. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Conditions apply. Join over 10 million people using crypto.com, the easiest place to buy, earn, and spend over 150 cryptocurrencies. Spend your crypto anywhere using the crypto.com visa card.

Starting point is 00:12:31 Get up to 8% cash back instantly. Plus, 100% rebates for your Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Prime subscriptions. Download the crypto.com app now and get $25 with the code Laura. Link in the description. In just a year and a half since launching on Mainnet, Avalanche has built a vibrant community of builders, leaders, and innovators expanding what's possible in Web3. And the real superpower of Avalanche is in its groundbreaking scaling design, subnets. Subnets are the future of Web3 scaling, empowering anyone to build custom, app-specific blockchains optimized to fit the needs of any builder and user. Avalanche subnets are already seeing rapid adoption across defy and gaming applications,

Starting point is 00:13:21 as builders have a clear path to scaling their project for user demand today, while future-proofing their infrastructure to support mainstream adoption. Experience Web3, like never before. Scale with subnets. Head to avox.com.network to learn more. Back to my conversation with Derek. So this week, BankCorps also put up a controversial proposal. Actually, it wasn't even a proposal.

Starting point is 00:13:47 It was a unilateral action. And it caused a stir in the crypto community. But before we get into the details on it, let's just explain a key concept, which is in Bankor, there's something that the protocol offers, which is protection against imperman loss. What does that mean? To set the context, Bank Corps is an on-chain AMM. and just like other AMMs, this concept of impermanent loss occurs for LPs when the price of tokens in a pool change very drastically, especially compared to one another. So if you have a bank or ETH pool and the bank or price decreases or increases, like a lot compared

Starting point is 00:14:31 to ETH, LPs will suffer from impermanent loss, which means that the amount of funds they actually holds is less than what they actually put in. So that's the basics of IL. You want to avoid it. And the key here is that it's exacerbated in volatile market conditions when assets change price drastically in a very short period of time. And Bank Corps offered protection against impermanent loss. So how is the protocol doing that? Yeah. So again, this was a, it's a pretty big, not problem, but it's just a big tradeoff of AMM-LPing. So Bank Corps wanted to attract liquidity and attract LPs by offering them permanent loss of protection.

Starting point is 00:15:18 Yeah, and just for people, in case they're not familiar, LP in this context, stands for liquidity provider. Banker tried to address this by using Banker's own protocol owned liquidity, as well as using a proportion of protocol fees, 15% of trading fees are used to sort of ensure that when users withdraw, if they're suffering from impermanent loss, that they are made whole so that they, again, are able to know that they won't lose money even in volatile market conditions. So on Monday, Monday, again, seems to be the day when a lot of these kinds of things happened,

Starting point is 00:16:01 then Corp made their controversial announcement. What did they say? Yeah, so Bank Corps, again, like they noticed that similar to Solon, there was a few, in this case, there was a few large whales that were had huge amounts of capital deposited in Bankor and were withdrawing pretty rapidly. And because of the volatility and crypto prices, they suffered huge amounts of IL. And the protocol was having to use huge amounts of token reserves. both in the native bank core token and in other revenue that the protocol had accrued to issue and literally distribute to these LPs. And I was looking at some of the Dune charts, I think.

Starting point is 00:16:49 Yeah, like the amount of total, total aisle of protection that the protocol had issued in the past two days was, I think, almost equivalent to what they had done in the past six months. So this was done in a very short time frame. And one of the key points here is that a big part of this protection and distribution of assets to make LPs whole, like happened in the bank or token. So it wasn't necessarily like issuing completely new bank or from scratch, but it was using protocol assets, which are much of which is bank or and sort of increasing the flow, increasing the supply. going from there. The Binkler team said that their motivation for doing this was what they called hostile market conditions.

Starting point is 00:17:39 So you talked about how it appears that some entity was selling a lot of this BNT. What more do we know about what was actually happening? Yeah, I think in the town hall they talked about how this entity was Celsius and obviously linked to like what was going on with Celsius and three arrows. They also talked about how there was a potential shortseller that was taking position against the Bankrupt token and abetting against it and that this was somehow affecting the aisle situation as well.

Starting point is 00:18:19 Yeah, I mean, I think, again, that's right. It's the Bankrupt Protocol team's job. Part of the design of this aisle protection is to account for these kinds of situations. is to account for these kinds of black swan events. I don't even know if you could call them black swine. I think they're just volatile markets. So it's a tough situation, but it's the kind of thing that every, it's just a good reminder

Starting point is 00:18:44 that every protocol design choice, every incentive program you run, it has tradeoffs. Yeah. And just to kind of give people context on what was happening to the price of the bank or token, BNT, about two weeks ago, it was trading at around $1.30. And then by Saturday, it fell to a low of 44 cents. As of recording time, it's at about 55 cents. So still trading quite a bit lower. But in their blog post, I think the speculation was that, you know, these entities were driving down the price of B&T by selling huge amounts of it and had also taken a short position on exchange to profit from the fallen price.

Starting point is 00:19:27 So that's at least their theory. I'm not sure if this is confirmed. As far as I could tell, this decision was not made via a governance vote. So how was it made? Yeah. So this decision was, it appears it was made pretty unilaterally by the Bank Corps team. They talked about it via a blog post, which contained the details and host the town hall about it. they specifically cited a previous BIP, Bank Corps Improvement Proposal earlier this spring,

Starting point is 00:20:05 which, and for any listeners, this is BIP 21, which is basically talks about how there is a multi-sig that, and the signers have the ability to basically protect, quote-unquote, protect Bankrupt in Black Swan events via the ability to disqual. stable swaps and pause deposits and, yeah, basically have control not over user assets, but the actual operating of the AMM. So overall, what takeaways do you have from these two incidents involving Dow's this week? And, you know, in general, how it is that these so-called decentralized protocol should handle aberrant or unexpected events?

Starting point is 00:20:53 Yeah, that's a good question. I think it's difficult to look at these two situations and not feel like Dow governance is really just a word that's been used here and that there isn't really any decentralized governance process. And it's really just a few people making decisions and almost retroactively using governance as a sign of approval. I think that's honestly a fair assessment of what's happened. I think there's been some takes on Twitter and by some commentators that this is like sort of, it's reflective of the entire Dow governance base, which I don't necessarily think is true. I think the key here is really if you're going to have a token and if you're going to give users rights to vote on and think about certain things, those should be laid out clearly ahead of time. And you need to think about in Black Swan events and in risky situations, what the actual process is.

Starting point is 00:22:05 I think the problem, the mistake that the Solent team and arguably the banker team as well wasn't necessarily the decision they made at the time. It was the design and governance decisions or the lack thereof they made in the in the previous six months. Like, this might not have happened if the Solan team had earlier on implemented stronger risk protections, account limits, more stringent risk analytics. So I think what we're seeing is really the effect of just, again, not fully appreciating the tradeoffs of different protocol designs.

Starting point is 00:22:46 And in terms of Dow governance, yeah, I think it also reflects poorly, but nothing. that I think is emblematic of the space as a whole. All right. Well, certainly an interesting week in Dauze. It's been such a pleasure having you on Unchain. Thanks for explaining all of this. Thanks, Laura. Really great being on.

Starting point is 00:23:09 Don't forget. Next up is the weekly news recap. Stick around for this week in crypto after this short break. Hey, builders. Looking for one of the best scaling solutions in crypto? That's easy. Avalanche's breakthrough subnet design. lets you minimize transaction costs and maximize your speed, consistency, and user experience.

Starting point is 00:23:29 To experience Web3 like never before, head to avox.network to learn more. Join over 10 million people using crypto.com, the easiest place to buy, earn, and spend over 150 cryptocurrencies. Spend your crypto anywhere using the crypto.com visa card. Get up to 8% cash back instantly. Plus, 100% rebates for your Netflix. Spotify and Amazon Prime subscriptions. Download the crypto.com app now and get $25 with the code Laura. Link in the description. Thanks for tuning in to this week's news recap. Some Bitcoin miners face profitability concerns. After weeks of negative price pressure for Bitcoin and all other crypto assets, the profitability of Bitcoin mining has been put in a question. Miners have to

Starting point is 00:24:22 pay for electricity and other fixed and variable costs in fiat currency. With the Bitcoin price, trading at $20,800 as of press time, and having plummeted 57% this year against the U.S. dollar, it is getting harder for miners to have a sustainable business. Glass node released a report highlighting miners' current financial stress. According to the blockchain research firm, Bitcoin is trading near the estimated cost of production. Hasht rate has decreased significantly, and incomes are below the yearly average. But this extensive financial pressure on miners, outflow volumes from their treasuries,

Starting point is 00:24:57 reached rates of between 5,000 to 8,000 Bitcoins per month. This is now comparable with the 2018-to-2019 bare market capitulation event, Glass-Nood commented in its report. Arcane research also stated in an analysis that the deteriorating profitability of mining has forced the public miners to start liquidating their Bitcoin holdings.

Starting point is 00:25:18 This week, Bitcoin miner Bitfarmes, announced the sale of 3,000 Bitcoin to pay down part of a $100 million loan with Galaxy. In consideration of extreme volatility in the markets, we have continued to take action to enhance liquidity and to de-leverage and strengthen our balance sheet, said CFO Jeff Lucas. In a sign of how the depressed price has challenged miners, the block reported that Bitcoin mining difficulty has decreased by 2.35% since June 8th, which accounted for the second largest single fall this year. In the same period of time, the hash rate has also dropped 2.6%.

Starting point is 00:25:55 However, it was not all bad news for the crypto mining industry. This week, Miner Bit Digital reported $8 million in revenue in the first quarter of the year. In addition, Black Hill announced that it will start to power Bitcoin mining in Wyoming. With Celsius' solvency still in question, FtX rescues BlockFi. BlockFi CEO, Zach Prince, announced, announced on Tuesday that the crypto lender had secured a $250 million credit line from FTCX. Today, BlockFi signed a term sheet with FTCS to secure a $250 million revolving credit facility, providing us with access to capital that further bolsters our balance sheet and platform strength,

Starting point is 00:26:37 Prince said. Sam Bankman-Fried, FTC's founder, said that the intention behind this deal is to allow BlockFi to navigate the market from a position of strength. He added, we take our duty seriously to protect the digital asset, ecosystem and its customers. The deal comes at a time of high turmoil in the crypto ecosystem, with prices plummeting, big companies like Cryptolander Celsius, and trading firm 3-Earla's capital being liquidated on their positions in a hard macroeconomic environment. Earlier in June, the block reported that BlockFi was raising a down-round at a $1 billion evaluation after it was rumored last year to

Starting point is 00:27:13 have been raising an evaluation of $5 billion. Alameda saves Voyager Digital, which discloses 3AC exposure. Last Friday, crypto broker Voyager Digital signed a term sheet for $200 million in revolving credit from Bankman Freed's quant trading firm Alameda. The idea behind the loan was the same as Blockvise, as FTX intends to provide more flexibility to mitigate market conditions. However, on Wednesday, Voyager Digital disclosed involvement in three arrows capital, causing a negative reaction in the markets. Voyager Digital may issue a notice of default to 3-ARO's capital or 3-AC for failure to repay its loan. Voyager's exposure to 3-AC consists of $15,250 Bitcoins and $350 million of USDC. The company's shares at ticker VYGVF limited around 50% after the news due to questions about

Starting point is 00:28:10 the solvency of 3AC. During the past few days, 3AC has reportedly been liquidated by BlockFi, Bitmex, and Genesis. In response to the situation, the crypto broker decided to limit daily withdrawals from its platform to $10,000, down from $25,000. Similarly, crypto exchange coin flex halted withdrawals due to extreme market conditions yesterday. First, short Bitcoin ETF launched. Investment product issuer pro shares announced on Monday the launch of a new exchange traded fund that will make it possible to short Bitcoin. In addition, the ETF will allow investors to hedge their crypto exposure. The ProShare's short Bitcoin strategy was listed on the NISI on Tuesday. According to the company's website, the ETF's purpose is to avoid the significant costs and fees

Starting point is 00:29:03 typically required to short Bitcoin. ProShare is listed many of the advantages of having a short ETF over the current possibilities, such as futures and put options. For example, users now have the possibility to short Bitcoin operating through a traditional brokerage account. Secondly, it removes the possibility of losing more Bitcoin than what you can put in. Lastly, investors will not be required to add funds to maintain margin levels. ProShears is the largest provider of Bitcoin-linked ETFs in the United States. In October 2021, it was the first company to list a Bitcoin futures ETF. At that point, BTC was going through a bull market and was trading at around $60,000. The fact that the launch of that ETF was done so close to the end of the bull market caused some people on Twitter

Starting point is 00:29:48 to joke that the launch of this new ETF could mark the end of this bear market. However, not everyone took the news so lightly. Will Clemente, a Bitcoin analyst, tweeted, so there's now a short Bitcoin ETF, a futures ETF, a closed end fund trading at a 30% plus discount, a 401k option for Bitcoin, but no spot ETF. It is clear that Gary Glens, Gensler, and the SEC have an agenda against Bitcoin. NFT Roundup. With NFT NYC taking over the streets of Manhattan, there was a lot of NFT related news this week. Ecommerce try and eBay acquired known origin, an NFT marketplace, for an undisclosed amount. As interest in NFTs continues to grow, we believe now is the

Starting point is 00:30:31 perfect time for us to partner with a company that has the reach and experience of eBay, said David Moore, known origin co-founder. Uniswap Labs, the entity behind the DFI protocol Uniswap, acquired Genie, an NFT marketplace aggregator. By doing this, Uniswap will enable users to buy and sell NFTs directly in the app. We see NFTs as another form of value in the growing digital economy, and it's a no-brainer for us to integrate them into our products, Uniswap said on Twitter. There were some accusations that this move would push Uniswap in the direction of being a C-Fi protocol rather than D-Fi. Looked at Jeannie contracts, it is C-Fi, not D-Fi. Why is Uniswap getting into the C-Fi game? said Ethereum,

Starting point is 00:31:13 community member, Micah Soltu. Magic Eden, the main NFT marketplace on Solana, raised $130 million at a $1.6 billion valuation. The marketplace has been growing rapidly over the past several months, and a few weeks ago, it surpassed open sea in daily transactions. This growth has attracted many investors, with Magic Eden's valuation rocketing almost 10 times since the last funding round in March of this year. Cristiano Ronaldo, Portuguese soccer megastar, partnered with Binance to launch a series of NFT collections. Together, we are going to change the NFT game and take football to the next level, said Rinaldo. Ferald Williams will be the chief brand officer for Doodles NFTs, which also stated that it received its first round of funding led by venture capital firm

Starting point is 00:31:58 776. A new documentary was released, reviving accusations from the winter that Yuga Labs' Borghap, NFT collection, has a Nazi culture. The video which was posted on YouTube last Sunday goes over the alleged racist and white supremacist symbols hidden in the NFT collection. Ugal Labs previously called these accusations deeply painful and disturbing. Solana builds a new Web3 smartphone. Anatoly Yakuvenko, co-founder of Solana, announced the launch of a new Android phone for Web3, and also new software development kit called Solana Mobile Stack. The new smartphone was named Saga, because the story of crypto is still being written,

Starting point is 00:32:36 according to Raj Gokal, co-founder of Solana. Saga will feature a 6.6-inch OLED display, 12 gigabytes of RAM, and 512 gigabytes of storage. It will be priced at around $1,000 and is expected to be released in early 2023. In addition, early buyers will receive a limited edition NFT after their purchase. The team also announced the development of Solana Mobile Stack, an open-source software toolkit for Android enabling native Android Web3 apps on Solana, with the Seed Vault Secure Custody Protocol, that facilitates instant signing of transactions while keeping private keys partitioned from wallets,

Starting point is 00:33:15 apps, and the Android operating system. The Salana mobile stack allows a new path forward on Salana that is open source, secure, optimized for Web3, and easy to use, said Yakuvenko. In order to accelerate the development of native mobile D apps, the Salon Foundation will grant $10 million to developers building on the Salana mobile stack. Time for fun bits.

Starting point is 00:33:37 Fake protests, mock NFT, protesters at NFT, NYC. NFT, NYC, an annual NFT industry event, brought together numerous crypto founders and communities this week. However, there was a surprise when on Monday morning, on a Soho street, a group of protesters showed up carrying signs saying, God hates NFTs, Vatolic is the Antichrist, Crypto is a sin, and make Fiat great again. Nevertheless, the protests turned out to be fake.

Starting point is 00:34:07 We orchestrated the whole thing, Bobby Kim told adding. Kim is a co-founder of streetwear brand The Hundreds, which issued Adam Bomb Squad, a popular NFT collection. Snoop Dog Impersonator at NFT, NYC. In the spirit of the fake protest, NFT NYC also featured a Snoop Dog impersonator who was hired to drum up excitement, according to NBC reporter Kevin Collier, who happened to stumble upon the fake snoop. Kevin said that the impersonator told him that he was legally obligated to reveal his fake identity.

Starting point is 00:34:37 Snoop Dogg, the real one, has actually been quite committed to the NFT and Weathery community. He personally owns a board ape and has been one of the many strategic investors in MoonPay, a crypto payments platform. In addition, a few weeks ago, the American rapper announced plans to launch an NFT-based restaurant in Los Angeles, partnering with a startup called Food Fight Universe. Thanks so much for joining us today to learn more about Derek, Reverie, and the Solund and Bank Corps incidents this week. Check on the show notes for this episode. Unchained is produced by me, Laura Shin, without from Anthony Yun, Matt Pilchard,

Starting point is 00:35:11 Juan Orenovich, Pama Jimdar, Shashok, NCLK Transcription. Thanks for listening.

Unchained - Solend and Bancor Drama: Did These DAOs Violate the Ethos of Crypto? - Ep. 366

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.