Same is true for Bangladesh, India, Philippines, etc. They all have good Internet connectivity but too many unbanked people.
Your reasoning is something like: problem unbanked people, solution crypto. I don't understand that reasoning at all. Why not look at solutions that have actually proven to work first? Why not investigate the problem and figure out what their needs actually are?
> Why not look at solutions that have actually proven to work first?
Power structures are ending cash in various places for various reasons, and we need some even kind of private digital replacement to cash.
Zoom and Netflix both lost 60-80% of their value in the last year and I don't see anyone declaring them dead. I don't work in crypto but I think there's a bit of a knee jerk reaction to seeing all the vaporware projects being wiped out (rightfully so). Consolidation and pruning of wasteful projects is good. If you feel like the work you're personally doing is positive, then don't worry about people dancing on the gra…
> ETH is still a legitimate technology with real use cases. what would be an example of a real use-case that ETH does well? The core promise of ETH is smart contracts and that code is somehow "law". But that got exposed for the idiotic reasoning that it was and went out of the window when they had to hard-fork in 2017. No matter what they did since then to improve the old pre-2017 ETH nobody can tell me that bugs don…
> nobody can tell me that bugs don't happen
They do happen. And whenever someone does make use of them, that's considered unlawful - which is absurd considering that the bug is part of the code and thus part of the law.
I work in DeFi development as well and I can feel your pain. Two things that I have to constantly keep in mind: 1. I have worked in stock markets for years before crypto and felt the same: I have been criticized in a similar fashion by laymen who don't necessarily have the proper understanding of what a stock market is and what value does it bring to the society. And yes, people who lost money were of course the most…
I can also ride a car without a seatbelt and ignore the soul crushing speed limits and it'll be way better for me to get places faster. How is that not the future? Taking an existing process and removing safeguards that were added over time for good reason doesn't make something the future unless you can prevent the original problem in a new better way. If your solution is to just ignore the problem exists, it's hard…
This is close to the speed vs time argument that does go into city and highway speed limits.
Notice how no nation caps their speed limit closer to a 0 fatality level?
> you have the ability to positively impact most of the planet (billions of people) Hundreds of thousands of people work there, yet they haven't managed to achieve that positive impact.
>yet they haven't managed to achieve that positive impact. You don't reach billions of users without positively impacting people who use your service. If there was no positive impact people would simply abandon Google's and Facebook's services.
“If there was no positive impact people would simply abandon meth.”
> Shortly after I moved much of my funds into crypto, and would do it again for the security from arbitrary seizure. I don't think they would've been able to seize the money. But in any case your approach doesn't work, you still owe that money. Automatic renewals is a scummy practice but if they do have a legal claim you won't get out of it by being hard to find and keeping your money in crypto. Probably best to trea…
Exhibit A of why predatory consumer practices work. You'd rather be civil, than treated civilly.
The practices need regulatory action to fight against. Germany got recently some legislated improvements like automatic renewals being cancellable with a one month notice period. Not sure if that applies to gyms too, but I certainly hope so.
>They understand how the above instruments are crucial for an economy even though they are not end-user products like Twitter is. Do they actually know these instruments are crucial for the economy or do they just know how to make money with it? I'd think the latter would be enough. Can you recommmend any resources to understand the importance of financial instruments to the economy?
>Do they actually know these instruments are crucial for the economy or do they just know how to make money with it? I'd think the latter would be enough. There is no difference in capitalism between something being "crucial" for economy or just a way "to make money." They are equivalent.
That's hard for me to understand. I'd take 'crucial to the enconomy' to mean 'positively coupled to the rest of the economy' or 'the rest of the economy would be worse off/less efficient if this financial instrument were to be outlawed.
Why does this follow from 'makes a lot of money'? That seems like a very complicated question to me.
I left earlier this year, and worked in the space for a couple of years. I started with a neutral position on crypto, I didn't even think about it much. More like, its easy and pays well. But if people want to waste their money on tokens, go for it, but its not my cup of tea. Then I started to recognize that its predatory and actually not benign or harmless. It is taking advantage of people. It started to become gros…
> Then I started to recognize that its predatory and actually not benign or harmless. It is taking advantage of people.
Can't this be applied for most jobs in social media, advertising, lending and discretionary spending?
I left earlier this year, and worked in the space for a couple of years. I started with a neutral position on crypto, I didn't even think about it much. More like, its easy and pays well. But if people want to waste their money on tokens, go for it, but its not my cup of tea. Then I started to recognize that its predatory and actually not benign or harmless. It is taking advantage of people. It started to become gros…
> Then I started to recognize that its predatory and actually not benign or harmless. It is taking advantage of people. Can't this be applied for most jobs in social media, advertising, lending and discretionary spending?
Sure can, many of us avoid jobs in social media, ads and lending for that reason
I left earlier this year, and worked in the space for a couple of years. I started with a neutral position on crypto, I didn't even think about it much. More like, its easy and pays well. But if people want to waste their money on tokens, go for it, but its not my cup of tea. Then I started to recognize that its predatory and actually not benign or harmless. It is taking advantage of people. It started to become gros…
> Then I started to recognize that its predatory and actually not benign or harmless. It is taking advantage of people. Can't this be applied for most jobs in social media, advertising, lending and discretionary spending?
A fairer comparison will be gambling, sports games and drugs.
I'm one of the "haters". I see no value in crypto in 99.99% of crypto and in the cases that do make sense the actual use for it is borderline money laundering or tax evasion. All the "enthusiasts" seem to want to get rich by getting as many people as they can in their greater fool scheme of choice in the hopes of becoming a Bitcoin billionaire. The obnoxious fan base and practical scams coming out of the marketing de…
> I don't foster any negative feelings towards developers per se. A job's a job Nah. This line of reasoning excuses any activity one might be involved with because "it's just my job". Doesn't work like that. The idea that you carry zero moral (or ethical or even legal) culpability because you're drawing a paycheck and being "told" what to do is what every person working for the companies that are deeply damaging our…
If a job doesn't hire you because of the industry you worked in rather than lacking skills, then they're doing you a favor. Purity tests are bad and most successful businesses can't afford to apply them. And if they did they would be selecting for a toxic personality. You may pass your own purity test, but you're likely to find some employee that has a qualm about some choice of yours. Avoid places like that