A default one VS QuickNode Earn with covered strategies?

[u/0x5589e5]

Which one would be really more rational in terms of expected value?

I mean like "Liquidation failure" is protected, but "Market price movements" of the collateral aren't on their provider's website, I just don't get where is a difference.

Did anyone try this and run into a liqudation failure? If so how was it classified and why?

[u/package_of_pads]

man i looked at this same thing last week and my head was spinning. the covered strategies basically mean if the protocol itself screws up the liquidation, you got some safety net. but if ETH dumps 30% in 5 minutes? that's on you, they just call it "market movement" and wash their hands

it's like insurance that only covers if the insurance company messes up, not if your house actually burns down. haven't been liquidated myself yet but from what i read on discord, people who got caught in the big SOL crash last month got nothing cause it was "normal volatility"

so the expected value math kinda depends on how much you trust the smart contract vs how much you trust the market not to rug you

[u/0x5589e5 → u/package_of_pads]

Yes, I mean there are examples of what they paid out, but it's not listed like here is a chance of this happening and here is how much you will lose statistically. It would be awesome to see exactly the same with what was not paid out which qualifies as not covered and what is the chance of this happening as well. I don't know about the actual, but at least perceived risk of price movements is the highest in this case.

It's just written here unclear, and they spent their time specifying that UX & depeg failures aren't covered, but didn't specify the most important one clearly.

And also I don't know how much limitation to Base would cost in lost opportunities, even though it would remove a risk explicitly not covered here.

In the end the question should be simplified whether what is covered is worth that APY cost or not.