When the Hyperliquid decentralized exchange launched, I was intrigued and decided to test it out. Here’s a summary of my experience:
1. Initial Transaction: I made a test transaction, which unfortunately got stuck in the process.
2. Support Interaction: I contacted customer support regarding the issue. A few hours later, the swap successfully went through.
3. Follow-Up Questions: I had some follow-up questions about the platform’s operations:
- How can it be labeled as an automated decentralized exchange if moderators can interfere with transactions?
- Why is the source code of the DEX kept private?
4. Response from Support: The support team explained that they keep the source code private to maintain a competitive edge.
This experience raised concerns about the true decentralization and automation of the exchange. I am not sure why Coinmarketcap & Coingecko label Hyperliquid as a DEX.
The technology has been out for a while now and I don't think I ever read anything good coming out from it.
Why do people still bother?
The basis? It is useful to overcome censorship, inflation and money transfers without relying on third parties (or relying on burocratic, traditionally greedy and ancient parties). It has some uses as a ledger, but this has not come that useful. Or, in my opinion, useful projects are overlooked and only greedyness is what drives the space.
Your sentiment is not wrong, but I see it as a reflection of human currency interaction. If I say "I don't think I ever heard anything good coming out of cash" could be true. Why would we hear something good about something that only its bad uses are news and worth mentioning. Same happens with crypto. I know it is a bit of a mental stretch to use this argument and it isn't 1:1, but cash is being used illegaly as well.
I see a trend that all privacy focused projects have this bad press always: - Cryptocoins (used only by scams) - GrapheneOS/privacy focused oses (used by fugitives and crimibals) - Tor (Used for dark web)
and while that's true, I keep thinking that the interests for banning privacy focused projects is what drives that bad sentiment and bad press. Not only that, I know betwen black and white there are grays and colours :D
Just my grain of salt
No it's not. It cannot overcome any of these, and the constant nagging to the opposite is a big part of the scam. The problems in question are political and cannot be solved outside of the regulatory framework.
> without relying on third parties (or relying on burocratic, traditionally greedy and ancient parties).
Well, the non-traditionally greedy happen to be much greedier and a mere tool in the hands of the "traditional and ancient parties". A bunch of politicians and those connected to them are the ones who benefit the most from crypto scams, guess what's going to happen when the music stops and their profits dry up.
> I see a trend that all privacy focused projects have this bad press always - Cryptocoins, GrapheneOS, Tor
Because they are designed to accommodate scams under the guise of privacy - I'd exclude GrapheneOS from that list though, it's very different, it doesn't have a bad name among the grassroots and including in this list is nonsensical.
I use GrapheneOS myself and think it's a valuable project to enable communication without being stalked by Big Tech.
I believe cryptocurrencies, however, are primarily an ideological technology, designed to establish the primacy of free market capitalism over any sovereign law.
I think that is why people still hold onto them, despite nothing but scams coming out of them so far.
As somebody who doesn't think unrestrained free markets are a good idea, it feels like the capitalist monkey paw: Finally, there's completely unrestrained uncensorable money. Unfortunately, the result of that is what every advocate of regulation would've told you: Nothing but scams.
Ironically, the phrase capitalists use to describe why socialism can't work - "doesn't account for human nature" - has been proven to apply to their preferred ideology.
They got what they wanted and turns out it sucks. The technology that was supposed to establish the primacy of their world view ended up disproving it instead, plunging them into ideological crisis.
They have no choice but to double down despite ever more evidence of free market failure. There's a certain ideological cost sunk fallacy going on - to admit error and change ones ideological framework completely would be too painful, so they keep waiting for redemption.
Just my grain of salt as a socialist.
