41–48 of 48 posts
Ponzi aside, when you need to pay someone to do something you are communicating that the task is inherently unpleasant. Otherwise why would you need to pay someone to do it? As a producer I may be able to bribe them with tokens to do something (views, votes, followers, etc.), but I'm not buying authentic engagement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto is definitely more of a pyramid scheme than a ponzi scheme. You have to keep recruiting greater fools to be able to financially benefit from it yourself. That's the "profit" you are referring to. There's still quite a bit of overlap though.
I'm talking about doing videos like in the articles. And no normal cryptos are far from a pyramid scheme almost everything else in fiat and normal economies would fit better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds suspiciously like you're moving the middlemen around not removing them if a bunch of other people are being paid to do the same job.
No, there are no people being paid for the job, the job is automated so the profit of that job can go to other people not the middlemen. Kind of the opposite of how everything works right now where you get free as in beer software that becomes infrastructure and then starts to exploit that in every possible way.
If it is profitable it's not a ponzi, the basic feature of a ponzi is that there is no actual profit and the shareholders just take money from each other, or rather pay with liquidity if the ponzi is ongoing. But there actually is a profit to be made and it is made every day by centralized publishers, I welcome any model that would replace the current one, especially if it makes it better for the user.
Those early in try to time it so they can liquidize and run before it collapses. They are hoping to earn a big profit by timing their exit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The upside is that it doesn't matter if its just one guy trading with himself, what matters is liquidity and you can't fake that (except if you are the owner of centralized exchanges, but those are terrible anyway).
I don't follow. > the liquidity of a given token is a function of the number of buy and sell orders on the books By trading with myself it looks like there's a lot of liquidity, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow. > the liquidity of a given token is a function of the number of buy and sell orders on the books By trading with myself it looks like there's a lot of liquidity, no?
If you are actually trading with yourself it doesn't look like there is a lot of liquidity there is a lot of liquidity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are actually trading with yourself it doesn't look like there is a lot of liquidity there is a lot of liquidity.
If I create my own coin which only I trade and I have two wallets. Wallet A places a buy for 1 coin at 1 cent. Wallet B fills the order. Wallet A places a sell order for 1 coin at 2c. Wallet B buys it. Rinse repeat and suddenly the coin is trading at 10k USD. Spin up more wallets and you suddenly make it seem like there’s liquidity except there isn’t because you’re not buying anyone else’s coins. This is literally ho…
> The viewers who watched [Gangnam Style] earned nothing, even though many of them contributed and were critical to the video's ultimate success. What if there was a way to incentivize people upfront to contribute to such a success? What if there was a way to let everyone who contributed earn a piece of the rewards? What if we stopped trying to monetise every single action from every single person every single day? P…
> What if we stopped trying to monetise every single action from every single person every single day? Commoditization of labour (and of pretty much everything else TBH) is one of the founding pillars of the capitalism that survived pretty much unchanged from its inception to the modern days, so you proposition is a non-starter. You see, if you prohibit to monetise something that curbs the free entrepreneurial spirit…
It is not profitable to feed poor children. And we don't. 25% of children are food insecure in the US, one of the wealthiest countries not just in the modern day but the history of this planet.
It is not profitable to vaccinate the poor. And we didn't. COVAX still hasn't hit their original goal of vaccinating 20% of the world's poorest. Unfortunate that poor people get sick too and spread it without regard for class lines.
Capitalism is subsidized by human capital. Whether that human capital are literal chattel slaves or Honduran strawberry pickers coming to California after the US destabilized their countries.
And capitalism requires markets too, obviously. Have to unload that cheap shit. How do you do that? Gunboat diplomacy. Open up Japan, open up China, close the entirety of Latin America to any other industrial power, and profit. Maybe sit on the sidelines of a "great war" and then after the fact you can sell stuff to the survivors.
In the 21st century we reached the end of scarcity. For nation-states. Not for people. They're still disposable, just ask who is willing to sell their grandparents to save "the economy"