jegutman

That’s tokens available I assume for all competitors during the competition.

Guilded (YC S17) | Full Stack Engineer | Remote-First Team

https://www.guilded.gg/jobs/full_stack_engineer

Guilded is hiring senior full-stack software engineers to connect the world's online gaming communities. You'll be a very early engineer at a quickly-growing, engineering-led startup, where you'll be using modern processes and tools to build features that teams need and love. We're a fully-remote team. We know that many engineers are the happiest and do their best work when they're empowered to build on their own schedule. If that sounds like you, we'd love to hear from you.

It is odd, but not as ridiculous as it sounds. For one, many companies couldn't issue 10s of billions in debt so you do have access to that much capital (normally at reasonable costs).

That's some nerdy click-bait there.

Yellow journalism is a politicized issue in 2016.

I thought most ad blocking right now depends on the fact that ads are served from different locations than the sites themselves. You can try to block native ads being served by the same stuff that serves the page, but it's reasonably more difficult and prone to false positives.

There's a separate issue that as they try harder to block ads they will also make it less clear what's an ad. For example many ad blockers don't work on google search results because they're fed back with the result content, but it also becomes less and less obvious what's an ad and what's a search result on google.

Wow, this is really cool.

It's not giving shares, it's a share exchange. Again I'm not an expert, but I've seen these types of arrangements before and somehow they got reasonable tax treatment because they were spelled out as such in the original grant (so nothing had actually "changed" at the time).

I actually disagree with the 10yr time frame (although will admit it has its merits), but also agree with some of your logic. I just think that the 10yr "fix" solves some problems and creates others. I think this issue is that you should: A) not rob former employees of accrued stock value B) probably try to somewhat reduce incentives to leave if the company is going to continue to do well

There are a few problems I see here: 1) stock option grants are completely arbitrary and sometimes end up very wrong 2) it's hard to fix that in the future because you'll end up at a higher strike price 3) end up being expensive and tax inefficient to exercise

The closest I've seen to people who seem to get this and have sensible solutions are Andrew Mason at Detour (progressive equity) and Dustin Moskovitz at Asana (larger grants, but back loaded into years 4-6).

I have great respect for Adam D'Angelo at Quora for suggesting a solution to the problem, have known him in school he's certainly smarter than me on almost every axis of intelligence, but I think there are other potentially creative solutions that might be better (although I don't know tax compliance).

For example I think you could keep the status quo, but offer the option for employees to exchange their options for shares (white meat) at the time they can exercise. Example you have options for 100 shares at a strike price of $50, at the time you leave the shares are worth $100, instead of having to come up with $5000, you just get $50 shares free and clear. I think there's still a tax hit issue, but at least it's not doubled with paying for the shares.

I'd be kind of surprised if mutual funds were doing much investing in this kind of ETF. Look at the shares outstanding of FXE, FXA, FXB (currency etfs for euro, australian dollar and pound), they're not very popular. Some hedge funds do use these and famously Paulson was using GLD for his gold exposure (I still think this is pretty dumb, he should've traded futures and EFP-ed into spot gold). Wouldn't be shocked to be proven wrong, but most ETFs don't gain traction. There's also a pretty small cap on how big this ETF can get (at least for now), almost by definition the commodity backing a bitcoin etf has a much much smaller availability than the commodity backing any other etf. I am glad they're using cold storage to store them at least.

This won't be the dumbest ETF, it will be a less than ideal way of holding bitcoin. There are lots of ETFs that make it easy to get access to an asset class and get the full economics (foreign exchange ETFs), these are still probably not ideal, but they're reasonable, but bitcoin is pretty easy to buy and sell not sure what benefit an exchange traded product has.

The Wikelvoss's do have a BTC exchange, is the goal to somehow tie this in? Turn their exchange to a market that gets benchmarked? They did also launch the BitIndex. Seems like trying to control the bitcoin benchmark could have financial value.

Comment below was correct. Sorry, I thought it wouldn't be confusing because it was in comment I replied to. My bad.

Well to be fair, those were Michael Lewis's second hand telling. I personally know the author of FB:NSF, but haven't spoken to him in a while. I think I agreed with 95% of what he wrote. I think IEX will likely stumble, but will continue. The problem is not that IEX is doing something bad, but they're just not different enough to be meaningful. They have been very good at marketing though and brought up a lot of issues, but definitely raised some that are not accurate.

The unfortunate problem (that's hard to resolve) is those executing on agency will always be at a disadvantage to those executing on principal. For example if someone wants to buy 5000 shares, they can route in a way that risks them buying 8000 to get better prices (by sending extra orders to dark pools, etc), someone executing on agency can never do that and so it might not make sense for them to route to dark pools, but almost all of the routers do that (fidelity, schwab, etc) so they disadvantage some of their customers (although they do advantage the smallest customers). Basically I think ultimately the reg-nms order protection is probably a little too rigid of a structure to fit the diversity of behavior into. I'm not really sure what they're long term hope is. I do find equities to be basically the most fair trading ground on the exchange (which is why they had any foothold at all). It would be nice if they were trying to disrupt the really expensive trading markets like fixed income where the spreads are much wider compared to the risk being exchanged and the dealers have so much leverage that they won't support anybody who is trying to cut into that spread.

I'm pretty sure this is quite old. I remember the exact same graphics from something I played with at least 12 years ago (I think it might have actually been in like 2001 or 2002, but my memory is vague).

I've thought about hacking a calendar app for myself before. My pain points seemed very different. My main thing was being able to manage recurring events in a way that wasn't awful. I had a lot of recurring reminders to just take care of simple things during the week, but then I would go between time zones and some things would need to be shifted and other things fit an absolute time. Then I would go on vacation and some things needed to be snoozed on vacation but others were still important.

I never really found a good solution from this. I just happen to be on sabbatical from working and have a new kid so my life just doesn't work the same way.

I don't think companies really don't want employees that think independently. These employees come with a ton of upside. However, not everybody turns out to be a star and in some companies (plenty still foster it) they don't want their average employees to be completely rogue.

I'm a national master chess player and I think the opposite. In middle games heuristics are more important because even the final positions in your calculations will often still be very dynamic so you need some tools to be able to evaluate these positions you've never seen before. In endgames the same thing may happen, but the confidence around my evaluation will generally be much higher.

There's a funny story I read a while back about this play. If you did this for long enough eventually you'd be the biggest company in the S&P 500 (technically maybe not, but in practice very much so!).

Sorry, I thought the smiley face would've been enough to give away the sarcasm. For some reason the /s felt like it removed the infinitesimal amount of comedy from my post.

But phones don't have a microphone on them do they? :-)

Maybe could be used they hand labeled each movie? Seems easier to do as a whole.

Maybe Google or other bigco could buy out of bankruptcy? Is there too much tail liability from some copyright infringement??

I think the reason rent-seeking is less of an issue in the sky (although I don't have any opinion about viability) compared to the ground is that the earth is not flat / smooth (also has buildings on it), but if you go even 1000 feet in the air there are no objects ruining line of sight. There's a lot of sky. Even sky 1000 feet above a cliff side is sky, you probably don't want to put a land-based cell tower there though.

This is actually a problem I've given a decent amount of though on (although not necessarily reaching a good conclusion), but I think these problems are actually related and not impossible for this simple case. It comes to an issue of what parts of the analysis and at what depth did a best move come to vision? Was it bad when it was sorted for 8 ply but good at 16? Maybe that won't "tell" a person why a move was good, but it gives a lot of tools to help try to understand them (which can be exceedingly difficult right now if a line is not part of the principal variation, but ultimately affects the evaluation by an existing "refutation". But I think the other "difficulty" is that 1800 players play badly in lots of different ways, 2200s play badly in lots of different ways and even Grandmasters play badly in lots of different ways, but very strong chess engines play badly only in a few sometimes limited ways.

Might as well try to ban speaking pig latin in public.

In theory (maybe not true) the lowest quality one should have the lowest price point. In a sample of 3 it seems fairly likely.

Just the hamburger by itself (with bun) is $0.89. It's definitely the cheapest of the three I listed.

Slightly technical point, but the average interest rate of outstanding debt is not particularly relevant, the relevant would be the average short term rates over the span of the investment. Would've been much lower than 2.4% over the life time of this investment.

"They described one as lampante -- the lowest quality olive oil. That brand happens to be one of the best-selling in America."

That quote seems a little self-fulfilling. If you asked a butcher to eat 3 hamburgers, one from Ruby Tuesdays, one from McDonalds and one from In-n-out. Do it a blind taste test just small samples of the meet. Would you be shocked to learn that the cheapest and worst tasting was also the best-selling in the United States?

This might be a bit technical, but the company that received a bailout went through bankruptcy and re-structuring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor...

So they didn't get a bailout that they are now using to "wildly speculate on tech startups" because all that capital has been restructured.

Many companies did get bailed out in a market where raising capital was near impossible and as a result recovered and are involved in investing in tech companies both equity and debt. Although I'm guessing your particular objection here is that they're a non-financial company and it doesn't seem to be part of their core business?