He didn't say it'd go to $0 in 10 days. Claiming victory on a 10 day sample size is dumb, especially given the larger context of the last few months.
And that’s how you shut DBL up. Don’t argue the narrative he created/wants to debate. Stick to the facts as they were presented. Like you would a child.
Hope you hold it. Will be fun to follow. Post, edit after 13 minutes, and that's the best you could come up with?
I just may. If BlockFi is giving away all its equity for $0 in exchange for a $250m loan then it’s clearly insolvent. This model is totally dead. Maker/DeFi is the winner here. It wasn’t a jab. It’s chapter 4 of my new ebook, Optimizing TMB For Personal Enjoyment & Enrichment. I’m working on chapter 5 “Counter Signals: The Story of A Gallant Knight” right now. Your chapter was unsurprisingly brief.
https://medium.com/m/global-identit...ible-is-about-to-occur-in-crypto-e1f8b6234222 This seems not good. Somebody explain why this article is overreacting or this isn't a big deal.
It’s just a summary/reminder for the folks that don’t really understand technology: the blockchain is not immutable no matter how many people evangelize that. There always will be the threat of intervention. It’s just software.
Read this earlier today. I love Carter and think he's one of the most rational thinkers in the industry. The blowback yesterday against him was dumb. He runs a VC fund. His job is to invest in early stage companies, and if he wants to do that in btc, crypto, or some other industry to make money for himself and his LPs, far be it from me to judge him. I also think his thoughts on btc are pretty well-established and largely reiterated in the article. I've listened to him for years, and he's never been some btc only investor. I generally don't disagree with much in the article besides thinking that value will accrue to other chains long term. Maybe that's true, maybe not. He's paid to have a thesis around that and devote lots of time, energy, and money to pick winners. I don't have much of an interest in taking that risk, and as result, allocate my money to the one I feel has the best risk adjusted potential return.
I brought this up over a year ago and was accused of committing tax fraud for recommending hardware wallets. You guys are neat omg the government can easily track an online ledger especially on exchanges that integrate with their reporting services like Venmo, PayPal, your bank, etc.
“Crypto is untraceable, do crime with it!” Coin base sells transactions to the government “It’s a public ledger, you dummies!”
This is one of the dumbest things posted itt. “It’s untraceable…do crimes with it” has absolutely never been a talking point, unless you’re referencing something like Monero. Coinbase being a shit company is a different story entirely, but your understanding of this stuff is deeply flawed.
Even using Monero and other exchanges to ‘wash’ your crypto is traceable and leaves a trail. The coinbase tweet isn’t anything new. Almost any exchange or payment processor has KYC. Idk if I’d say this is a top 3 weird post from this week by this person though
The hero thing is weird. I've been dollar cost averaging with excess cash into btc for years prior to Saylor doing it. And I'd be doing the same thing if he never existed. I generally think he's highly intelligent and well-spoken, but that's not really the point. Btc exists with or without Saylor. The more interesting discussion is why a multi-billionaire who absolutely did not need to make this bet has decided to transition a vast majority of his personal and company wealth to accumulate as much btc as possible. This is also not the first time he's made a large bet on a tech network; the guy wrote a book in 2012 making the case for Apple and the mobile phone and did interviews on the same points. If you believe his personal comments, he personally invested millions of his own money in google/apple/facebook around the same time. Maybe he's wrong this time. Maybe not. But his thesis is definitely on a longer time scale than the silly short term thinking you engage in.
Agree he’s been one the smarter guys on the topic - used to think he was a charlatan but I’ve turned the corner on him. Did not know his dad worked at the World Bank. Interestingly, I went to school with one of his two non-founder partners in the fund. Talked to him on the phone last week, said things were going really well at Castle Island
Yesterday’s comment about now knowing how littler they understand inflation was cringeworthy. Not sure how these people are in charge.
Im usually not a hurr durr private sector experience is important for govt officials, but was shocked to learn that the vast majority of folks at the Fed have only ever worked at the Fed - the one place where it’s probably most relevant. Seems bad
Private sector experience is of little to no utility for government officials. It frequently makes things worse
Yeah I mean, generally I totally agree. Being good at business doesn’t necessarily prepare you for the White House or Congress any better than a life in public service. But seems like the Fed might be one place it would be valuable. They have made some pretty cringe / clueless comments last six months - to their credit are being open about their mea culpa but man.
Maybe the best way to explain would be a story from my prior career. So I used to be in statistics - typically I was the “business person” on the team and my counterpart had a Masters or PhD in Stats / Applied Mathematics / etc…I knew enough to look into the model and be dangerous, but can’t do what they can do. Amazing mental horsepower. They would build really powerful models, but sometimes from a real world perspective they were nonsensical. An example: We were modeling Walmart ad spend on one project and she came to me very excited about the model - the “fit” was perfect, the math was very elegant. One problem: the model had a negative coefficient on TV ad spend. What the model was saying was that Walmart’s 10BN in TV ad spend drove like negative 400M in sales. Or had they not spent that 10BN they would have had $400M more sales. Which obviously makes no sense. The lesson was that she was more into the math than the implications of the model from a practical perspective I get the impression there’s a little bit of that phenomenon going on at the Fed. I generally am not a harsh critic and think they’ve been mostly good, but seems like a lot of folks schooled solely in academia that think by turning a dial or model coefficient - things just happen in the real world. Sorry for the novel, thought that story would be beneficial. Mix of academics and former private sector seems optimal to me