tinkerrr

Alternate discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27208119

Some highlights that stood out:

- Range positioning for your capital. In the sweet spot, there is higher fee returns but higher impermanent loss (IL).

- Range orders are possible. If the price goes out of range, it is effectively a limit order (but you need to remove liquidity before price comes back within range)

- LP tokens will be NFTs instead of ERC20s. This will likely affect the way liquidity mining is done currently, or they'll move to Sushi/remain on Uni v2.

- Moving to optimism L2 in the future. This would lower gas for all DApps on Ethereum.

- More fee options for LPs

- Hint of protocol fees for UNI holders

- Business source license perhaps to disincentivize copies like Sushi

Overall, this seems like a fairly substantial change. It will probably take time for the ecosystem around this to mature. Excited for the long-term implications of this update.

It is, which is how you know it is not a real risk.

The argument on the other side is that this is a matter of what's good for society in the long-term. For example, supporting a law that says "let's take all the money of class X and give it to the rest" would always be "in the interest" of the majority in the short term. That doesn't make it right.

There's Lynn Saxon's book The Naked Bonobo that debunks a lot of popular myths about Bonobos - https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Bonobo-Lynn-Saxon/dp/1523945516

To the parent's comment though, bonobos don't actually form patrols and they tend to avoid contact with other groups, so intra-group conflict is lower for bonobos than chimpanzees.

How can you use something that isn't built to build the same thing unless you're using a time machine? I suppose once Colony is in production, you can create a Colony clone using Colony.

It sound similar to what you do with one important distinction. "Freelancers" (I am using this term loosely since it seems like your organization gives you much more flexibility than traditional freelancers would get) earn a salary/income whereas in a Colony, the freelancers earn a tokens that represent future earnings potential in a colony i.e. share of revenue/profits. This way, you not only bring work to the Colony but completing it gives you a stake in your Colony.

Instead of such a knee-jerk reaction to crypto, perhaps you can ask if the crypto token involved makes sense in this use case. If it doesn't, like in 99% of the cases, you can dismiss it then. Colony, IMHO, is one of the few projects where it does make sense to have a token.

For some comparison, here's how the costs stack up:

Lyft: $1 billion gross bookings, $130 million loss. Loss of $0.13 per dollar of gross bookings.

Uber: $8.25 billion gross bookings, $708 million loss. Loss of $0.086 per dollar of gross bookings.

This is very well put. Thanks for writing it and explaining the way you did.

Bitcoin has moved away from the Longest Chain Rule to the blockchain with the most cumulative Proof of Work as what the nodes recognize as valid blockchain.

Who wants VC funding when you can raise 8 figures in an ICO! /s

A big problem with this strategy is that presumably you're buying the coins after they've had a huge run-up and gone into the top 50. Since you aren't doing any type of research into the coins, they are quite likely to be just pump and dumps. Just something to consider, even if you can afford to lose the money.

Does Bitcoin's simple use case of a scarce digital commodity count? It's not that useful in the US/Western Europe but is genuinely useful in certain countries like Venezuela where inflation is in the triple-digit percent a year.

I am curious to know what types of "big big risk" POS presents. As far as I can tell, there are several POS cryptocurrencies today and they seem to work fine. The Ethereum team claims to modify their POS approach to avoid known issues like the 'nothing at stake' problem. But it would be interesting to know what other possible risks you're talking about.

This article isn't written by Buterin.

You can check the status here: https://status.coinbase.com/

Presumably, this is the premise behind T0 [1] in that it would allow beneficial owners, instead of brokers, to be able to lend their securities to short-sellers. In that case, there is no problem of tracking ownership - if you lend your shares to the short-seller, you're no longer the beneficial owner, and any agreement, like paying of dividend, has to be worked out between the two parties without involving a broker.

[1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/overstock-wants-t...

You're assuming the blockchain would work similar to Bitcoin, where every 'trade' (transfer) is a settlement, written into the blockchain. While this is the holy grail, you've rightly pointed out issues with high-frequency trading, synchronization across nodes, etc. The current system does T+3 due to this. A 'blockchain' could conceivably do better - even if it doesn't record every single trade like Bitcoin, it might record transfers at better granularity and better frequency.

Why's that?

Do you know the real Eduardo Saverin story? Genuinely curious

You can do it on an exchange called Poloniex. Just remember, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Good luck!

Why this blatant falsification of facts? In 2014, Apple's earnings before interest and taxes was $53,483,000 and the income tax expense was $13,973,000. That's 26.12% effective tax rate. All data from Yahoo! Finance: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL. It's a similar tax rate in other years too.

>And with another quirk - this time in US tax laws - the do not even have to pay taxed in the US on those earnings, as they have not repatriated the funds.

This is not a 'quirk' as you think. No country in the world, other than the US, tax their corporations on already taxed profits in a different jurisdiction. This actually ends up hurting the US because corporations cannot repatriate already-taxed funds without being taxed again.

Poloniex has apparently stopped trading DAO tokens and ETH as well [1]

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oiesu/polo_froze...

There is no doubt that centralization is more efficient than decentralization. The problem comes when developers or other stakeholders don't understand or underplay this feature.

Also, centralization/decentralization is a a scale, not discrete boolean values.

It will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out. Good luck to everyone involved.

Also remember that this isn't the first time this idea of 'lets rollback a blockchain due to a hack/attack' has been floated or even tried. The first major blockchain rollback almost completely destroyed the cryptocurrency [1]. Since then, some major hacks have happened and the community/developers rejected the idea of a rollback [2][3]. That was a hard lesson, and hopefully the current developers will learn from the short history.

Also to your point, yes, Ethereum is not as decentralized as some would like to claim, either from a stakeholder perspective, or from a mining perspective, or even from a 'who holds the power' perspective. I suspect that's what makes it so efficient though, in terms of changing protocol, or making decisions on behalf of stakeholders.

[1] http://247cryptonews.com/vericoin-lack-integrity-bailout-min...

[2] https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/official-nxt-decision-blockc...

[3] http://www.newsbtc.com/2014/12/17/opal-recovers-1-7-million-...

Interest rates in most of the developed world have been on the decline for almost 30 years. There is no way to just magically increase interest rates in the market. Contrary to the popular belief, the Fed doesn't set interest rates in the economy, and it has even lower power over long-term interest rates [1]. Also, you're interested in interest rates above and beyond inflation, i.e. 'real' rates of return, not nominal.

[1] http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-fed-intere...

If you have a significant amount of money, I would suggest a good hardware wallet like Trezor or KeeyKey or Ledger.

You're mostly right, but for the sake of clarity, Slock.it is not a DAO, but a physical corporation in Germany. The actual chain looks something like

"The DAO" <-> "Proposal" <-> Slock.it

The idea is that the DAO 'hires' a contractor, which is Slock.it in this case, which can have all sorts of legal rights/protections/etc. and is a corporation in the physical sense. It gets hired by this nebulous entity, so instead of working for another corporation or individual, it gets hired by the DAO.