397 karma · joined August 28, 2007
In that model supply breathes directly instep with underlying demand. The users themselves are the agents that cause the supply to expand or contract.
Tada: maximum velocity with no incentive to hoard.
That could be an interesting space for you to shape and explore given the full p2p architecture tends to result in creative workarounds.
Would suck to check on how the business is going and regret your decision to sell for a monthly payment with no equity.
The only way to make digital artefacts "scarce" would be to never render them to pixels. You can't make a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa, but you can make a perfect copy of any digital NFT every single time.
And thus the only way nyan cat can be worth $600k is a hyper-DRM dystopia where everyone gets sued for sharing it.
Me: Ctrl+C Ctrl+V
NFT koolaid (real comment): "Using your argument, original Warhol screenprints are also worthless."
There's that sunk cost Godin is hinting at.
The point of Ethereum was to build an open world computer, to decentralize power, to build collective intelligence, and to supersede the corrupt global financial system with non-speculative economic models that served the needs of humanity and the planet.
The Sydney Ethereum meetup I started in 2014 suddenly jumped in numbers and became full of wankers in suits wanting to discuss the price, wanting to apply the tech inside financial institutions and explore new regulations.
2017 was worrying. 2018 solidified that Ethereum was merely going to serve the interests of the established financial apparatus.
There's no revolution or cryptoanarchy here; only power grabs and new oligarchies.
But do you think it would still work in a fixed configuration like that?
And how much do you think tree coverage would affect service?
If a video of the San Francisco School Board Commissioner saying "merit is racist" is not enough for you to recognize a growing problem, then good luck.
And called it for Jan 2021: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/e8wqvs/gme_...
And his Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0patpmwYbhcEUap0bTX3JQ
"Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts. We will remove reported member content that a reasonable and objective observer would believe constitutes or evidences such activity. We may also remove the accounts of members who use our platform in this way."
https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf (obviously inaccessible now).
Government has just allowed first home buyers to get a mortgage on a 5% deposit. While that sounds great, it's obviously just encouraging more debt to flood the market and drive up prices.
And of course the government doesn't give a shit about housing affordability. The standard practice here is to get at least two mortgages: one for the house you want to live in, and one for an investment property that you'll eventually sell to pay off your other mortgage.
Sounds stupid right? Well, not when the government gives massive tax benefit handouts to property investors:
1. 50% capital gains tax discount.
2. Negative gearing: basically the losses on your investment property can be claimed as a tax offset against your other income.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_Australia
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing_in_Australia
Complicated system: things mentioned in this article.
Would also be cool to hover on a HTML block and see it highlighted in a browser hot-reload view.
Signed, the new wannabe financial oligarchy.
Startups are hard and poorly compensated for the majority of people who attempt them.
"all men 93%" = "All male teams made up 83% of the startups but they raised 93% of total funding".
"all women 1%" = "On top of the female-founded startups finding it difficult to raise any money at all, the 6% of startups that did, only received 1.3% of the funding"
"mixed 6%" = the remainder, which maps nicely to 5.7% rounded.
The linked report doesn't even conform to the posted article lol: https://my.visme.co/view/01070kx3-unconventional-ventures-no...
In the report:
"all men = 85.00%"
"all women = 6.35%"
"mix = 8.66%"
Here's the actual stats pulled from the article:
* 83% of startups were all-male and got 93% of funding.
* 6% of startups were all-female and got 1.3% of funding.
* 11% of startups were mixed and got 5.7% of funding.
Still an imbalance but paints a very different picture. Clearly the industry needs to attract more women generally before you start crying inequity.
Well they took VC. So it won't lead anywhere interesting other than value enclosure and exit to surveillance capitalism.