The issue is not the underlying regulation of security but one of fairness. Michael has made it clear that he encourages competition but who was it that front-run the initial CRV tokens to amass the low-hanging fruit? What are the things that irks me are
- line jumping - there is a clear process for getting onto the white list. Michael has rejected many proposals because they are incremental and not significant innovations. The value of everyone’s tokens goes up with more creativity and inventive applications. And here you have a me-too queue jumper who is not add any real long-term value but cribbing from existing liquidity providers.
- Free rider … Curve has put in all the hard work doing R&D and a bunch of money cats refuse to chip in. This is called parasitic on the community and will encourage others to take the same screw-you attitude.
- the whole point of open protocols is that independent security audits can be performed and nobody can put in obscure backdoors into code that manages millions? Is there reason for the same assurance from someone who refuses to provide the same level of audit? It’s like all the careful normal people wear masks and isolate when detect contagion (remember Asian crisis?) whilst the upstart races around laughing at everyone else. The claim that it was a clean room reimplementation fails the court test … xref Microsoft vs Samba
Collaborate on the protocols, compete on the UX and ease of use. Michael wants competition, but it should be civil (no line-jumping), participatory (not just take and make out) and fair (more than copycat) competition