X6S1x6Okd1st

Well it has started, Ethermine is not including tornado cash txns: https://mobile.twitter.com/lrettig/status/156082533102359756...

I believe that after the block size wars that resulted in Bitcoin cash and bitcoin (the chain that chose the path of no change) the bitcoin community ossified into a community that is actively resistant towards changes, and bitcoin cash is much smaller and suffered from many subsequent forks.

Without significant outside force bitcoin will not change to proof of stake, they are currently framing proof of stake as useless and insecure, IMO because of motivated reasoning from the stance that bitcoin is perfect, therefore any deviation from what bitcoin has is a mistake.

> Who wants to set the over/under on $millions that get stolen?

If you can think of a way to measure it metaculus would be interested properly.

> Which exchange or fund will lose a vast chunk of its holdings?

I'd place this at roughly at 0.01% chance for any major exchange or fund

How many would you want to see to call it routine?

Do trains always have a connection to the grid?

Of course there's always the chance that there are multiple winners which affects either it's expected positive roi

It gets even more wild when you reakize that most governance isnt actually protected by on-chain verification. Most projects are just running referendums with a small multi-sig that claims they will respect the DAO ruling.

Do you feel like a wealth tax starting at the 50,000,001th dollar of 2% until you get to a billion is "gutting all accumulations of wealth" or would harm the average financial independence strategy?

Because I don't believe that most people are really aiming to be multi-billionaires, I think most of the effort comes from people trying to reach financial independence at various levels of cost of living.

Why do you think a wealth tax would limit a companies abilities to make "mad profits"?

If you feel confidant that Tether will collapse this year then prove it & start building an impressive brier score:

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/9121/tether-collapses-in...

You can explicitly declare that it implements an interface:

https://go.dev/play/p/VCcrSXT59w0

This is a well established feature and TBH I think a really good one in an environment where there is no reversing transfers.

Honestly this post feels like it is trying to spread fear on the back of other providers halting withdrawals.

Their official explanation, that bitcoin txns are getting stuck due to low fees, is plausible.

See: https://mempool.space/graphs/mempool#24h & zoom out farther to see how the current fee regime is higher than usual.

This does show a nasty form of contagion within crypto. One player pauses withdrawals which causes a run for the doors elsewhere, any given L1 can only process so many txns per second, so fees spike, their code doesn't handle it gracefully so more players pause withdrawals to fix it.

One of the pains I've experienced over ~1 decade as a professional SWE is that a lot of dependencies aren't really maintained. Many of the times I've diagnosed an issue in one of our dependencies only to find that the maintainer isn't really present or interested in upstreaming.

Many companies are uninterested in forking and maintaining their own version either

whoops good point!

Pretty sure the base rate you'd want to compare against is either placebo given -> remission or simply spontaneous remission. It appears that spontaneous remission is really quite rare.

> [sponanteous remission of cancer] incidence is roughly one in every 60 000–100 000 cancer patients, but the true figure is unknown (2). Spontaneous regression of colon cancer seems to be particularly rare

https://academic.oup.com/jjco/article/45/1/111/888056

So using 0.0016% and 12 patients (which is what the paper the NYT actually links)

For a ~50% chance of seeing one trial with 12 patients have complete remission you'd expect to see ~43k trails.

(1 - 0.000016)^43000 = 0.502577

I wouldn't discount this study based off of those numbers.

fair enough, def a reminder that not all L1s are sufficiently secure

I wouldn't be surprised if congestion is extremely high on ETH if USDT collapses, but I'd be shocked if the chain started missing blocks.

Do you think that USDC would depeg as well?

UST trading only halted on some centralized exchanges. If you are willing to expose yourself to DeFi then trading continued.

You can short USDT on AAVE for 3% APY at current variable rates.

borrow APY variable for USDT on aave on Ethereum is currently 3% apy.

If you can stomach the various risks involved (e.g. smart contract risk, exposure to ethereum 51% attack or something) then acquire any asset that AAVE has (e.g. USDC, Dai, ETH, BTC), deposit it, withdrawal USDT & sell the USDT thereby naked shorting USDT for 3% APY at current rates.

Those rates are low enough that it just doesn't seem like the market is that spooked yet.

Important context if you want to start spinning what might happen if X:

> Tether reserves the right to delay the redemption or withdrawal of Tether Tokens if such delay is necessitated by the illiquidity or unavailability or loss of any Reserves held by Tether to back the Tether Tokens, and Tether reserves the right to redeem Tether Tokens by in-kind redemptions of securities and other assets held in the Reserves.

https://tether.to/en/legal/

Could you elaborate?

My understanding is either you know how your delegate voted and vote buying is likely a large problem or you don't know how you delegate voted so it's hard to impossible to actually trust that you've delegated as you intended to.

Yeah it really is too bad, I'm excited for the potential of liquid democracy, but pretty sad that the most important tool for preventing vote buying is seriously limited in liquid democracy.

But the delegator would want to know how their delegate voted.

It's much better to buy votes from someone who has lots of delegations

Wait how can you have both a secret ballot and liquid democracy? It seems like to delegate your vote you would want to know how your delegate voted.

> The fact is still that the crypto sphere is even more unequally owned than the economy or the stock market, which is already extraordinarily unequal.

What are the specific figures & sources you derived this claim from? Last time I looked into this it was somewhat surpising, but there are huge problems with the methodology (e.g. assuming that 1 address = 1 person is a really broken assumption)

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2021.7301... is a good attempt, but still flawed methodology. It's latest estimate for bitcoin is gini index on wealth per account at ~0.45

Which if it was a country would make it one of the least high in terms of wealth inequality which is hard to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_in...

My condolences, I was also really attracted by their rates and slick design, but apparently dodged a bullet

Replicated on my end on OSX & firefox

For ETH currently you could just use flashbots for front running protection