Ever since i heard yield described as paying for the opportunity cost of anotherās funds, Iāve thought that yield sounded like a ponzi scheme (Andrey pointed this out indirectly when he noticed that the first thing crypto developers try to do in their escape of traditional finance is rent-seek), but I now think that the Ponzi scheme is acceptable if its growth rate is manageable, e.g. if the rate of growth of the ponzi resources is slightly underneath the rate of growth of GDP or population or ⦠etc, i.e. the ponzi output value > ponzi input value. Unfortunately, growth rates like those can vary quite widely just by taking a different frame of reference (e.g. population of a country versus that of just a county)ā¦
my input to this discussion is that any yield hacking strategy might offer more value than it removes from the system when it is applied in a context of all rational agents pursuing such a strategy, i.e. a personal-turned-crowd strategy that depletes resources is not a sustainable yield-hacking strategy and as such may be safely allowed only by subpopulations (hopefully not any āeliteā!); some subpopulations are more defensible, e.g. yield-hacking using personal resources, and some are less so, e.g. yield-hacking using resources siphoned from other communities without their consent.
very idealistic, i know (maybe very poorly explained too? i hope not, but am willing to discuss!), but iām more about ensuring opportunities that cost too much for most people are not assumed to be better.