RT @nanexcool: Say hello to our next generation of Oracles 😎
With the help of some of the best projects in the ecosystem, we want to make Maker Oracles the backbone of Decentralized Finance. https://t.co/V9iYESjmpC
So when you cut through 2019 era cryptospeak... you have oracles that are "individuals" at risk of "extortion and blackmail". Probably ETH miners. Most likely insiders of these closely related small tech companies with massive and unknown financial conflicts. This is nothing more than political posturing while the $5,000,000,000,000 daily Forex market runs just fine on Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, etc.
Yes, but now you have to trust whatever entity is doing the relay-transaction. This might be fine for a personal project, but is not decentralized at all if you're a bigger project where users will scrutinize your system.
Uniswap will one day make a great on-chain price source. However today, it's too easily manipulatable by just spending a certain amount of money (depending on liquidity). We need stronger guarantees than just "this system is backed by someone being unwilling to pay $200k to launch an attack." Once the crypto markets mature and we have much higher liquidity and tighter spreads Uniswap (or any other on-chain source) becomes more viable.
I wonder if it’s a cost issue or an ego issue? Both maker and compound acknowledge that chainlink is solving their problem for them, but they both act pretty dismissive about needing to integrate chainlink. It’ll be interesting to see how much value they can hold before their oracles start getting targeted
I'm leery of Maker putting the oracles behind a paywall as it sets a bad precedent and harms the composibility of the ecosystem. I'd rather they came up with an economic incentive that scaled and didn't require other projects asking permission (and access being revoked later possibly) as that leads is right back into a powerful centralized authority picking winners and shutting out opponents and whatever they deem as undesirable.