Hacker News Reader

Comment by _qqm5 | Hacker News Reader

When people talk about traditional finance, we mostly refer to the existing technologies for issuance of currency, settlement of fiat transactions, and the debt hierarchy.

Of course finance is an incredibly nuanced word. To quote V. Buterin:

> Finance can be viewed as a set of patterns that naturally emerge in many kinds of systems that do not attempt to prevent collusion

View on HN

The only point at which you should quote Buterin is if asked to quote someone with absolutely no knowledg trying to speak from a position of authority. Him making up a new definition for a widely used word to justify the existence of his shitcoin does not make it gospel.

you are displaying a lot of foolish ignorance and compounding it with misplaced certitude but in good faith and a spirit of wide eyed curiosity I applaud your lack of understanding of finance. also you get a lot of credit for using the word "nuance" as if it somehow changes the definition of the word finance.

finance, trading, barter, humans will not allow collusion to continue unchecked. so finance being defined partly as the lack of check against collision is pure propaganda by Buterin and you are his mark. the only reason the collusion rife in the crypto space is so unchecked is because its a big casino constructed for you to play in by people like SBF, CZ, V. Buterin. The whales represent a huge cartel. The drama of the last few days is a parable of collusion, retail being tricked into gambling their life savings, retail being fed lies about how the word is and how the world is not, lies which are easy to disprove.

you are a classic retail mark, being fed and regurgitating marketing and propaganda to encourage you to play your part.

look up retail FX trading manias in Japan in the early to mid 00's as recent past as prologue.

First of all, the "collusion" Buterin is referring to is a game -theoretic term and is precisely defined. Based on your response I'm guessing you are not familiar with his blog post.

Calling something propaganda without being familiar with the source is probably the purest form of irony.

> you are displaying a lot of foolish ignorance and compounding it with misplaced certitude but in good faith and a spirit of wide eyed curiosity I applaud your lack of understanding of finance.

Why is this kind of defensive retort so commonly seen in discussions about the value of cryptocurrency?

Because it's a polarizing topic. I find this particular ad-hominem rather mild, compared to what you find on Reddit.

On HN this particular flavor seems to only accompany crypto. Other polarizing topics e.g. criticism of Apple or Facebook, or even China, don’t exhibit this weird style.

this is no ad hominem - I am attacking your statements here not you as a person. you are flaunting your ignorance and using some weird appeal to authority by posting a vague quote from V. B. which itself is like, not even wrong.

I am not defensive, I am embarrassed for you and all of the people poisoned by this antisocial propaganda, and it makes me despair for humanity.

I wasn't making an appeal to authority, nor was I agreeing with V.B. I was trying to point out that finance may mean different things in different contexts. Not sure why you keep obsessing over this propaganda narrative, as if I'm a brainless NPC. I'm open to learning new things, and if you're more knowledgable then I'll listen.

For instance, I really like your view of finance as these emergent properties of human behaviour. My question is then: how do you propose we refer to the entities we currently have in place for trading of securities, market making, fractional banking, clearing houses, central bank issued fiat, etc? Clearly there is a difference between those "things" and what we do in DeFi, right?

So what label am I allowed to use to distinguish these entities from DeFi?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com