thedao fair price after theft = buy buy buy

in #thedao • 8 years ago (edited)

https://etherscan.io/accounts displys The Dark DAO - 3,641,694 eth stolen from TheDAO as 3rd place. (As of time of the post).

Congrats to hacker ;)

Not yet stolen part of TheDAO is 7,913,004 eth

So 7.91/(7,91+3,64)=0.685 is kinda "fair price" for 100 DAO tokens.

https://poloniex.com/exchange
shows 0.61 per 100 DAO.

Certainly this will be wrong numbers if more ETH are stolen.

But now that bright crypto minds are all together keeping things secure so I don't beleive something would happen before softfork/hardfork.

If softfork occurs, hacker will get only bounty 1% or like if he returns ETHs back
if hardfork occurs, hacker will get nothing
if neither soft nor hard fork occur, the price will be stable at "fair price" of 0.006 per DAO.

So go long here. Need to hedge ETH/USD risk though.

#ethereum #trading
8 years ago in #thedao by
$0.14
  • Past Payouts $0.14, 0.00 TRX
  • - Author $0.07, 0.00 TRX
  • - Curators $0.07, 0.00 TRX
3 votes
Reply 4
Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago 

    If there is only a soft fork and it is not modified or removed later, your ether will be stuck in the DAO forever. That's worth considering.

    $0.14
    • Past Payouts $0.14, 0.00 TRX
    • - Author $0.07, 0.00 TRX
    • - Curators $0.07, 0.00 TRX
    2 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     8 years ago (edited)

    I'm concerned the DAO will continue leaking money, and I'm concerned the ETH may fall even more.

    One thing is the debates around forking vs not forking over this. I can see this argument becoming heated, it may split the community and drive the price downwards - whatever happens, some people will jump the ship.

    The other thought I have ... this has actually dented my belief in smart contracts and ethereum quite a bit. I saw a lot of risks with "The DAO". I foresaw the risk that it would be hard to redefine the rules (after all, most organizations have bylaws that are based on hundreds of years of tradition, and still I feel quite much time is spent on annual meetings ammending the bylaws). I foresaw the risk that the money would be lost on silly and/or risky projects. The risk of money lost due to a bug in the contract code - considered, but deemed insignificant. Everything considered, I still decided to throw some money on the DAO.

    I'm a programmer myself, sometimes every third line of code I write is buggy ... and yet, I considered the risk of money lost due to a bug in the contract as insignificant - after all, there were lots of code reviews done, wasn't it? It appears "smart contracts" needs quite much more due diligence than old-fashioned contracts. Maybe Ethereum will revolutionize the world, but it will take a lot more time than what I thought at first ... or maybe the future belongs to a cryptocurrency without a turing-complete scripting language ...

    [-]
     8 years ago 

    I'm also a programmer, and I'm totally agree with your - there will be more bugs.

    Bugs here are the same as MtGox hacking - nothing special.

    The only way to overcome it - to split the money so no single address could take all the money so fast. Some "money flow cap" will do.

    Again, look at sophisticated cold wallet systems on centralized exchanges. For example, OKcoin claims they have only 2 humans with access to multisig cold wallet in different locations on the Earth.

    So just another exchange hacked, not too big deal for the whole Ethereum ecosystem.

    I think hardfork will be certainly bad idea. Nobody hardforked after mtgox.

    But they could do softfork and exchange eth stolen for 1% bounty. That is better. The Attacker will try to go in the court... It will be fun to see the process. If he win, then Ethereum computer will win its creators in the court :))

    So overall I think LONG DAO, LONG ETH now. :)

    One way to reduce number of bugs is pure functional programming language, like Haskell
    As far as I could understand from http://vessenes.com/deconstructing-thedao-attack-a-brief-code-tour the problem is either typo Transfer instead of transfer or malicious typo

    So git annotate of dao code could lead the light. Not sure if all the commits history is available.