Just admit that you would rather state your opinion without informing it. How anchor offered 20% (it doesn't anymore, as you are not aware) and why that 20% was not sustainable is perfectly understandable without reverting to "it's a Ponzi scheme!" That's like the Godwin's Law of finance, if you have no idea what you're talking about but want to be sensational the lowest effort thing you can say is point at a thing and call it a Ponzi scheme. There are valid criticisms of Anchor - anyone even remotely familiar with the protocol could and would speak about the yield reserve, how Anchor yields are generated from stake rewards of other tokens, the risks and failure scenarios of that design etc - but you clearly have no clue about any of this. Usually the appropriate thing to do when you have nothing useful to contribute is not contribute.
> There are valid criticisms of Anchor - anyone even remotely familiar with the protocol could and would speak about the yield reserve, how Anchor yields are generated from stake rewards of other tokens, the risks and failure scenarios of that design etc - but you clearly have no clue about any of this.
You have an unusually high level of confidence in understanding something (smart contract defi) that was invented, like, last week. I don't see why anyone should feel confident they understand how it works as opposed to how it's supposed to work.
2 days ago it was 17.5%. The rate used to be fixed at 20% (until last month) and was recently changed to variable. Today the rate is up because a lot of people removed UST from Anchor (deposits decreased by about 50% since Friday). Less depositors collecting interest from the yield reserve.
OP implied the fixed 20% rate is what is currently offered, but that is not true, the rate is variable.
Just admit that you would rather state your opinion without informing it. How anchor offered 20% (it doesn't anymore, as you are not aware) and why that 20% was not sustainable is perfectly understandable without reverting to "it's a Ponzi scheme!" That's like the Godwin's Law of finance, if you have no idea what you're talking about but want to be sensational the lowest effort thing you can say is point at a thing and call it a Ponzi scheme. There are valid criticisms of Anchor - anyone even remotely familiar with the protocol could and would speak about the yield reserve, how Anchor yields are generated from stake rewards of other tokens, the risks and failure scenarios of that design etc - but you clearly have no clue about any of this. Usually the appropriate thing to do when you have nothing useful to contribute is not contribute.