like how Credit Suisse is going to reverse their Bill Hwang losses? I guess in this conversation we can't distinguish from irreversible asset value and liquidity issue to misdirected transactions that inherit partial reversibility.

similarly, maybe you/they just don't see the headlines of thwarted attacks in DeFi that work specifically due to design considerations.

I'll take the permission to fail. The rapid iteration creates some really fascinating systems in very short time periods, for me. One project implodes, 100 (or 1000) more harden, bigger money comes in creating more assurances for users like easier recovery and compensation paths, all while continuing to rapidly iterate.

Where is this innovation happening? We’ve had crypto for 13 years now, and just yesterday we had people flat out losing 10k into the ether because their transaction “ran out of gas” without completing. Isn’t that plenty of time to develop systems that avoid basic issues like suddenly burning all your money?

It doesn’t really seem to be innovation, just rediscovering 100 year old scams and failures that have to be readdressed.

I'm generally skeptical of ethereum but i don't think this claim is quite right. First, they didn't lose 10k "into the ether" it just went to miners as a fee for processing their transaction. Additionally, the fee was paid for priority. There is a limited amount of block space so people can pay extra to make sure they're included. I know it's cliche but this is literally a feature not a bug

Fees for what, when your transaction did not go through and you did not get the NFT you were paying for?

So, what discussion are you willing to have?

For your strawman argument, all of their client side wallets told them “its not worth it bro”, the people did it anyway. Thats a consumer issue not a technology issue.