"[She] keeps cherry picking until the data supports them" certainly sounds a lot like you saying the data and/or code is flawed. What "fantastic claim" am I making that you don't think I'm addressing?
110 karma · joined April 26, 2014
I fully agree with you that the broader problem is Citizens United and the ability for corporations and the super wealthy to pour this much money into politics. In fact, I mention this here: https://www.followthecrypto.org/about/faq#what-about.
I think projects like mine would be extremely valuable for all industries, and I'm enormously grateful to groups like OpenSecrets that do excellent work making a far broader swath of the data more legible. But I am one person without the research team, time, or funding that would be necessary to analyze the data this deeply across industries, and so I focus on crypto (the subject of much of my research and writing).
The code is all open source, and I would be delighted if other projects like this one sprung up. It seems it would be a bit more productive to actually shine a light all the kinds of spending that happen throughout industries and across individuals, rather than using that other spending as a sort of whataboutist argument to dismiss projects like this one that (necessarily) focus on a subset of spending.
> If you want to be critical of super PACs, crypto spending is literally a drop in the bucket and completely missing the forest for the trees. There is a story here, but crypto ain't it.
As this project highlights,[1] crypto is far from a "drop in the bucket" when it comes to super PAC fundraising this cycle. The industry has dramatically ramped up its spending compared to previous election years, which is a large part of why I felt it was important to keep an eye on the spending.
[1] https://www.followthecrypto.org/committees/ranking/super
It’s showing the same data that verdverm linked over at the FEC, which places Fairshake at #9 out of any kind of committee. Arguably ActBlue and WinRed shouldn’t really be listed there, since they are fundraising platforms that serve as an intermediary.
I went on the Bankless podcast six months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Itd3g23QI. I debated Charles Hoskinson on a panel about "the future of crypto": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5p2gt7htDM&t=998s. I went on the Unusual Whales crypto podcast/Twitter space: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unusual-whales-pod-13-.... I've repeatedly gone on CoinDesk's show — sometimes for more adversarial conversations than others. I provided "The Bear Case for Crypto" on a two-part series by Scott Galloway https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh... (Michael Saylor provided the bull case; unfortunately we were not in conversation directly). I went on the crypto podcast Digitally Rare a year ago: https://anchor.fm/digitallyrare/episodes/web3-could-be-going....
I apologize for upsetting you when I politely declined the invitation to come on your podcast, but it's simply not accurate to say that I don't "engage with the issues or opposing views".
My reason for declining was largely as drewbeck suggested. I also try to avoid coming on shows where I feel I am simply being used to draw engagement and interest in a specific crypto project, which was part of my concern with your specific invitation.
You seem to think that if you can make vague assertions that I've "brigaded" or "abused" or "bullied" or "sent an online lynch mob" after you, people will just take your word for it — and this is a pattern you've repeated several times now. They're welcome to review our past interactions, where you began by making massive assumptions about me and my motivations, where you continued to be incredibly arrogant towards me and towards others replying in the thread, and where I repeatedly tried to disengage. Taken aback by your arrogance and rudeness, I ultimately tweeted some screenshots of your own words, with the added text "this man called me vain last week" https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1516610542588284931 (and you had). As far as I can tell that's what you've decided was me "drinking your blood" (a bit over-the-top, if you ask me), rather than perhaps an opportunity to reflect on how you speak to other people.
Anyone reading this thread is free to see our interactions and decide if that's a fair characterization or not — again, I think the record speaks for itself: https://twitter.com/search?q=(from%3Aleashless%20to%3Amolly0...
I'll also note that we ended our last, unpleasant interaction by mutually agreeing to avoid the other: https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1517200861377839110. And yet here you are, blathering into the comment thread on a profile about me, because apparently your ego can't stand my mere existence. Perhaps your once-in-a-generation transformational intelligence could be put to use doing something other than coming after me at every opportunity, and then pretending I'm puppeting some sort of shadowy cabal to come after you (when the reality is that when normal people see arrogance of your calibre, they feel the need to comment on it).
https://github.com/molly/website-v2/blob/master/src/pug/page... https://github.com/molly/website-v2/blob/master/src/sass/rev... https://github.com/molly/website-v2/blob/master/src/js/revie...
It's all open-source, so by all means feel free to reuse it if you like!