three_seagrass

VCs only need to roll a crit hit on a 1d20 to stay afloat.

They're not going to lose their shirts, not as long as insanely wealthy people like to gamble.

>But you now also have a liability of $200,000. Your total asset is still $200,000 , not $400,000.

Assets are not liabilities, so you'll need to explain why you think it is a liability.

Fashion brands and their physical goods are definitely not the same as NFTs, insomuch as they at least have intrinsic value. NFTs only intrinsic value is they good for ripping off greater fools.

Also Zuck lost $100,000,000,000 in wealth when Facebook tanked. Counting beans in hand is not how wealth is calculated.

This is precisely how I explained NFTs to my "How can NFTs possibly be bad?" friend.

- You start the day with $200,000. You create an NFT and sell it to yourself for $200,000.

- Now you have $200,000 and a $200,000 NFT, meaning you've doubled your wealth to $400,000.

- If you can convince someone to buy that arbitrary NFT at 95% discount, you end up having $210,000 in cash by the EOD.

Yep, in those cases, bitcoin is having to rely on traditional payment systems to even marginally compete with traditional payment systems.

I wouldn't be so sure about that yet.

FTX was directly involved in the joint bi-partisan committee to regulate crypto. Heads will need to roll for this so that others can save face.

That's at least one strong reason - VCs look at the person as much as the business.

Crypto was filled with sleazy car-salesman "investor" types at the time Alameda Research was looking for funding. So when in came someone with a Jane Street background and not a single flashy Ferrari in their driveway, the dam broke on VCs finally being able to pour money into the crypto space on a decent looking founder.

It's investing in the confidence of the future of a network that can only handle 7 transactions a second, at the expense of a small country's use of electricity.

Just because you don't have a bearer bond doesn't mean you haven't invested in bonds. Modern finance isn't about holding an invested asset in your hands.

This splitting hairs over "true" ownership ignores the fact that the original investor analysis done by GP here premised on chain transactions is still semantically wrong.

Choosing (poorly) to invest with the wrong tools is still investing.

This reads like a no-true-scotsman. If you exchange USD for bitcoin assets with the intent to sell later at a higher price, you're semantically a bitcoin investor.

>> Most bitcoin investors never move their coins off the exchange

>I'm curious: What is your source for this statistic?

They have no reason to.

Unless the investor is specifically working on some HFT arbitrage scheme between exchanges, then they don't even need to move crypto out of the exchange.

Also given the complexity of rolling your own wallet, it's just a risk that's not worth it when KYC exchanges are relatively stable.

20 minutes minimum for bitcoin transactions, which is a long time to hold up the line at the grocery store. Occasionally this has been weeks or never.

For comparison, credit cards can verify in less than a second.

Yeah, I almost mentioned Silk Road, but BTC has since been used to back trace and arrest online drug dealers so I feel like it was never really that good at it to begin with.

Same, but it's like 20+ entities.

Anyone working in the CPG space would be 50+.

Yep, power vacuums always have a way of being filled.

The question is, do you want it to be controlled by rational actors seeking to exploit everyone else, or an organization that has potential for other (maybe even altruistic) motives?

Perhaps you can share some of the many advantages?

Bitcoin was always this fun nerdy hobby money, right up until the speculators came in and exploited it.

Now it's "investing" in the confidence of the future of a computing network that can only handle 7 transactions a second, but that still hasn't stopped it becoming the essential oils for tech bros either.

IIRC the sentient species in our galaxy were all seeded by the same ancient alien race, hence the structural similarities.

Children of Time: Cute spider pop-up book

Children of Ruin: Parasitic space horror

>It seems clear to me that Musk believes Twitter is dysfunctional and inefficient. His top priority is to make it efficient.

Is it though?

Musk also thought twitter had a bot problem, right up until it became apparent that saying so wouldn't get him out of the Twitter acquisition.

I think the only thing that's clear is that Musk has a Twitter attention addiction, and buying Twitter was the world's wealthiest man buying his favorite toy to play with.

Doesn't even need to be governments. A man was tortured in his home with a drill in front of his 4 year old while being robbed of his bitcoin:

https://www.ccn.com/dutch-bitcoin-trader-suffers-brutal-tort...

If you're getting technical, it's not a pyramid scheme, but a greater fool scam

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

Why even make shotgun arguments?

2.a. Gold is an asset and doesn't need to pay dividends as it has intrinsic market value.

2.b. Loans and interest are contractual agreements, i.e. financial instruments unto themselves that generate value. Just because you get suckered into agreeing to a hobby money loan doesn't mean the hobby money has any value.

2.c. Variable cost doesn't equal value either. You can burn a stack of $100 bills but that doesn't mean that brief fire has any value, but it sure as shit didn't help the planet either.

That's no really relevant to Google or Kagi.

YT Premium is a reaction to the infeasibility of subsidizing the extreme cost of hosting video streaming with ads alone. The scale of ads needed to cover hours of streaming video vs. ads to cover search results are magnitudes in difference, and people are more willing to pay to make those streaming ads disappear.

Even so, with a paid option, the vast majority of YT users still use Youtube w/o the Premium subscription.

IIRC it wasn't a generic A/B test but an experiment intentionally designed to manipulate the emotion of users and measure their reactions.

In research, these types of experiments typically require consent..

Yeah, I shorted during the pandemic but missed the drop several times. Everyone knew to short, it's the when that nobody could fathom.

TVCs are temps, vendors, and contractors - they aren't typically considered hires. It's covering things like mat/pat leave backfill to kitchen staff.

This is a pretty slick use of AirTable, ngl.

>literally centralized companies as "not-decentralized"

So defi is only 100% decentralized everything, even if the financial tools are decentralized? That feels like an appeal to purity if ever there were one.