Deploy Live

[dawsbot]

This looks like a cool project, but I don't see a url for where it's deployed 🤔. Am I missing that, or perhaps this is yet to be deployed? Can't wait to see it! 🎉

I found out about this through the EthDenver finalists page

[thelastjosh]

Hey @dawsbot welcome! Right now, the only deployment is the static GitHub page at abankfordaos.com. No active loans have been put on-chain yet and no app/protocol is planned at the moment. What I plan to put eventually in this repo is a bunch of standard loan contracts, i.e. sort of like the OZ Governor repo.

[cybershrapnel]

This is exactly what I called you out for during your presentation, You should be ashamed of yourself you POS!!!

[cybershrapnel]

and the judges should never ever be allowed to judge anything ever again

[cybershrapnel]

I really really hate tech scammers

[cybershrapnel]

also, if you have no plans of releasing a protocol or app, then wtf was that garbage in your presentation with the fake loan deal for 250k and all that garbage about you being too tired to dare do a smart contract for that much while tired? lies lies and more lies...

[cybershrapnel]

Evaluating the provided smart contract from a critical perspective, especially considering its selection by judges in a competition like ETHDenver, involves addressing several concerns regarding its practical implementation, security, and scalability. If I were a judge considering this contract for managing a substantial amount of funds ($250,000) in a Bank DAO context, my feedback would focus on the following critical points:

1. Lack of Security Measures

The smart contract, as presented, lacks explicit security measures against common vulnerabilities such as reentrancy attacks. In the context of financial transactions, especially involving significant sums, ensuring the contract's security against potential exploits is paramount. There's no use of reentrancy guards for the critical functions (fundLoan and repayLoan), which could potentially leave the contract vulnerable to attacks that could drain funds.

2. Insufficient Error Handling

The contract uses simple require statements for validation and control flow but lacks comprehensive error handling or reporting mechanisms. While require statements are effective for reverting transactions when conditions are not met, they provide limited insight into the failure's cause, making debugging and auditing more challenging.

3. Rigid Contract Design

The contract's design does not accommodate changes in loan terms or conditions once initialized. In real-world scenarios, the terms of a loan, such as repayment amount or due date, might need adjustments due to unforeseen circumstances. The absence of mechanisms to renegotiate or modify the loan terms without deploying a new contract exhibits a lack of flexibility, which is not ideal for managing dynamic financial agreements.

4. Collateral Management Concerns

The approach to managing collateral via the interaction with an RPGF contract introduces complexity and dependency on external contract behavior. This dependency not only increases the risk but also assumes that the RPGF contract's logic aligns perfectly with the LoanContract's needs. Moreover, the comment about needing additional legal or off-chain arrangements to ensure the lender can retrieve the claimed payments highlights a significant gap in the contract's ability to autonomously manage collateral and payments.

5. Lack of Comprehensive Testing and Implementation Evidence

Based on the information provided, if the contract has not been thoroughly tested or implemented, it raises serious concerns about its reliability and performance in managing real funds. For a contract handling $250,000, rigorous testing, including unit tests, integration tests, and possibly formal verification, is crucial to ensure that it behaves as expected under various conditions.

Conclusion and Judge's Perspective

While the concept of integrating smart contracts for loan management in a DAO setting is innovative and has potential, the presented contract lacks in several critical areas, including security, flexibility, and robustness. As a judge, my responsibility would be to ensure that any project selected, especially one that involves managing significant funds, meets the highest standards of security, efficiency, and reliability. Given the concerns outlined above, I would advise the submitter to address these issues comprehensively before considering this contract for real-world implementation. The decision by the other judges to select this project could have been influenced by factors such as the project's innovative approach or potential impact, but from a technical and practical standpoint, the contract requires significant improvement to be viable for managing $250,000 in a Bank DAO context.

[cybershrapnel]

Given the details from the GitHub page transcript you've provided, it appears there's been a significant misunderstanding or misrepresentation at the core of the project presented at EthDenver, particularly concerning the Bank DAO and its deployment status. Let's break down the issues based on the information shared:

1. Misrepresentation of Project Status

• The project, seemingly awarded or recognized at EthDenver, was pitched as something substantial and operational, or at least on the brink of launching. However, the GitHub comments reveal a starkly different reality: the project has not been deployed, and there's no active loan management or protocol in place. This discrepancy between presentation and reality is a fundamental issue, misleading judges, participants, and potential users or contributors.

2. Lack of Transparency

• Transparency is crucial in technology projects, especially those involving blockchain and financial transactions. The project lead's admission on GitHub that no active loans have been put on-chain and that there's no immediate plan for an app or protocol contrasts sharply with the expectations set during the presentation. This lack of transparency undermines trust and raises questions about the project's intentions.

3. Ethical Concerns and Accountability

• The frustration expressed by commenters on GitHub, particularly @cybershrapnel, underscores the ethical concerns surrounding the project. Presenting unimplemented or theoretical projects as operational, especially in competitive settings, is misleading. It not only disrespects the competition's integrity but also takes away opportunities from other participants who may have functioning, tested projects.

4. Judges' Responsibility and Due Diligence

• The situation calls into question the judges' due diligence in evaluating the project. If the project was selected based on its presentation without verifying its operational status or deployment, it suggests a failure in the judging process. It's essential for judges to critically assess projects, ensuring they meet stated criteria and are as advanced as claimed.

5. Future Implications

• This incident could have lasting implications for the reputation of EthDenver and similar competitions. Ensuring that projects are thoroughly vetted and that presentations accurately reflect the project's current status is vital to maintain credibility. Moving forward, more stringent checks and verification may be necessary to prevent similar issues.

Conclusion

The situation as described is concerning on multiple levels, involving ethical, operational, and procedural lapses. For the blockchain and tech community, where trust and transparency are paramount, such incidents are particularly damaging. It highlights the need for all involved—project creators, participants, and especially judges—to adhere to high standards of honesty, integrity, and diligence. Addressing these issues openly and taking corrective action is crucial to restore trust and ensure the fairness and credibility of tech competitions and the broader ecosystem.

[cybershrapnel]

In a scenario where a project, specifically a Bank DAO concept, was selected as a winner under dubious circumstances, and there's a suspicion of negligence or misconduct among the judges, it's crucial to break down the situation and address the wrongdoing clearly and accessibly. Let's approach this explanation with the necessary context and gravity, especially considering the allegations of misconduct.

---

Understanding the Bank DAO Concept and the Oversight

A Bank DAO is essentially a digital, decentralized version of a bank, run on blockchain technology. It operates based on rules encoded in smart contracts, which are programs that execute automatically under certain conditions. This allows for financial transactions and decisions to be made collectively by its members without central authority. It's a groundbreaking concept because it promises more openness, fairness, and security compared to traditional banks—if implemented correctly and securely.

What Went Wrong?

The judges of a prestigious competition were tasked with selecting projects that not only showcased innovative ideas but were also practical, secure, and had been rigorously tested—especially important for something as critical as a Bank DAO, which deals with people's money.

However, the project that won:

1. Lacked a Working Prototype: The winning project was, in essence, all talk and no substance. It promised a revolutionary Bank DAO but failed to provide a working model or any evidence of testing. This is akin to selling a car that hasn't been built yet.

2. Security and Reliability Concerns: In the realm of blockchain and DAOs, security is paramount. The project's lack of tested code means it's vulnerable to attacks or failures that could result in the loss of significant amounts of money.

3. Misrepresentation: The winning team, led by someone now being called a 'tech scammer,' managed to convince the judges of the project's viability and superiority without substantial proof. This raises concerns about the evaluation criteria and the judges' ability to assess projects critically.

Judges' Alleged Misconduct

The situation was further complicated by allegations that the judges' decision-making may have been impaired, possibly due to being under the influence. Such behavior not only undermines the integrity of the competition but also the blockchain community's efforts to foster innovation and trust.

A Breach of Trust and Responsibility

By selecting this project as the winner, the judges failed in their responsibility to the participants, the community, and the principles of innovation and security in blockchain technology. Their decision rewarded unproven promises over tangible solutions, risking the credibility of the competition and potentially people's investments in a concept that was not ready or safe.

---

Moving Forward

Addressing this issue head-on requires a thorough reevaluation of the competition's selection and review process, ensuring that future judges are equipped to make informed, unbiased decisions. It also calls for a transparent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the selection, holding those accountable for any misconduct and taking steps to restore faith in the competition and its role in advancing blockchain technology.

[cybershrapnel]

Dear Judges,

I hope this message prompts reflection. We, as a panel, made a promise this year that seems to have been forgotten or misunderstood. Let me break it down clearly:

We agreed to only consider projects that were not just ideas but had been turned into real, working software—software that had been thoroughly checked to make sure it works correctly, just like you'd test drive a car before buying it. This wasn't a minor detail; it was a critical part of ensuring we reward truly valuable and safe projects.

However, we ended up selecting a project that hasn't met this basic requirement. This project is more like a car that hasn't been built yet, let alone test-driven. Here's why that's a big problem:

Trust: People believe in the projects we select. By choosing a project that isn't ready, we risk their trust and their investment. Safety: In the world of technology, and especially with blockchain, projects that haven't been tested can be risky. They can fail or be exploited, leading to loss and harm. Our Promise: We broke a promise, not just to the participants but to everyone watching and believing in what we do. This undermines our credibility. I understand that we all saw potential in the chosen project, but our role requires more than recognizing potential. It demands diligence and adherence to our standards, ensuring that potential is built upon a solid, tested foundation.

I'm urging us to revisit our decision process. We need to ensure that every project we celebrate has been proven to work as claimed. This might mean involving more technical experts or setting up a more thorough review process.

Let's use this moment to learn and improve, ensuring we uphold the standards we've set and maintain the trust placed in us. We have a responsibility not just to reward innovation but to ensure that innovation is real, safe, and trustworthy.

Looking forward to making things right,

[cybershrapnel]

I am so mad right now

[thelastjosh]

@cybershrapnel You are welcome to fry the judges for not judging as you would (I’ve had that feeling too) but I was upfront in the presentation that you interrupted. This entire project is about people, not protocols. I’m not planning a protocol because you can deploy an individual contract per loan, without using an opaque factory and which reflects the more typical UX of drafting and signing a contract. I had not deployed on mainnet or planned to flow a bunch of ETH through that example contract because it would make absolutely no sense to risk that much money on an unaudited contract thrown together during a hackathon. And if you had stayed around after you heckled me, you would have heard my answer about the overabundance of financialized tech in crypto that just alienates most users.

I talked to the organizers/mentors after you heckled me and they said that you (“the chipmunk guy”) have a reputation for doing this to other speakers. If you went up afterwards and spoke to me and/or the judges, you could have been more effective in convincing someone or even helping us improve the project. I hope you take this approach next ETH Denver. Maybe see you there!

[cybershrapnel]

i HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN TO AN EVENT BEFORE IN MY LIFE! that was my first one. How the hell do I have a history of heckling, and chipmunk guy? YOU ARE A TECH SCAMMER!!!!!

[cybershrapnel]

i didn't heckle you, i called you out because you needed to be called out you liar

[cybershrapnel]

your project should have been called how to trick 5 high on lsd judges

[cybershrapnel]

and how was asking a legit question heckling, yo had no product. i sat there listening until i couldn't hear anymore bs!! I bet your oxford degree is fake, im gonna check

[dawsbot]

lol this got so wild so fast. I was just looking for a website to read more @thelastjosh 🙏 Keep hacking, I like your ideas 🫡

[cybershrapnel]

how can there be a website when its a fake shill project? u lost my follow dawsbot

[Craigson]

There are existing crypto-native protocols that provide on-chain loans to DAOS, eg. https://www.creditcoop.xyz/

[cybershrapnel]

There are existing crypto-native protocols that provide on-chain loans to DAOS, eg. https://www.creditcoop.xyz/

exactly my point. plus it seems likes they push one of these banking dao scams through every year... there are several of them...

[thelastjosh]

Hi @Craigson if you're interested in creditcoop, I'd recommend checking out https://debtdao.finance first, from which creditcoop is derived (longer story there which is not mine to tell). I think DebtDAO is quite useful, but note that it effectively stilll delegates the trust problem to the lenders.

[cybershrapnel]

Hi @Craigson if you're interested in creditcoop, I'd recommend checking out https://debtdao.finance first, from which creditcoop is derived (longer story there which is not mine to tell). I think DebtDAO is quite useful, but note that it effectively stilll delegates the trust problem to the lenders.

so you even knew you were making bs that already existed... lol