331–340 of 411 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but if I remember correctly they said that they would give the shares back for free or something. So even if the unethical company didn't go bust but exited, they wouldn't get any cash.
Wouldn't that create an incentive for successful companies to be unethical?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all of not all of the current super rich got that way by owning shares in their company. Tesla, Amazon, etc.
Then there's the bank owners etc. They got rich when banks were deregulated and then began skimming from every transaction. You do that for long enough, you have all the money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were funds that did due diligence and built out models of the Luna/Terra/Anchor ecosystem and realized it was unstable. You can talk to the people who built their models and they have lots of fun things to say about the ordeal.
That raises an interesting ethical problem, really; should there be a duty to report this sort of thing, or is "scheme X is fundamentally flawed/a scam and investors will lose everything" legitimate proprietary information? As I understand it, various analysts were pretty sure at the time that Madoff's scheme was a Ponzi, but in general they didn't tell anyone (in fairness, one attempted to and had trouble getting li…
Where is the line between an outright scam and just people believing their own bullshit.
The last few weeks (months, really) has highlighted an incredible lack of discernment in the VC-verse wrt the thing we call web3. Now. I have no experience doing what YC does and don’t claim to, but the jig here was so transparent that the smallest drop of “street smart” should’ve been enough to set off some alarms. We’re approaching a point where being passed over for “culture fit” is a compliment. Hopefully the emb…
VCs are unfortunately, on the whole, all too discerning when it comes to Web3. It's a meme now in the community that when a VC and tokens are involved, there's a good chance they are getting preferential treatment and using the end users as their exit liquidity. That's not necessarily the case here but "greed" has become a general theme and the motivations behind otherwise-puzzling investments become clear when viewe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like what, people are just going to give you money without you doing anything? That’s disingenuous. When you put money into a high yield savings account, or even into a fiat backed 1:1 stablecoin you’re doing something. You’re providing liquidity. A high yield savings account (2-4%) or yield on a fiat backed 1:1 stablecoin (5-8%) is risky in the sense that you need to trust a bank (or exchange), but that’s eased by…
You’re saying that there’s an account with FDIC coverage that pays 5-8% returns? Please provide a link. This doesn’t line up with my understanding of banking regulations. The current risk-free return of a callable loan on dollars is less than 1%, so I don’t see how the FDIC would agree to guarantee 5-8%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VCs are unfortunately, on the whole, all too discerning when it comes to Web3. It's a meme now in the community that when a VC and tokens are involved, there's a good chance they are getting preferential treatment and using the end users as their exit liquidity. That's not necessarily the case here but "greed" has become a general theme and the motivations behind otherwise-puzzling investments become clear when viewe…
Thank goodness the SEC is protecting people and their money… by sitting on their hands and doing jack shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would be like setting up a front-end to receive investments, and then depositing the money with Madoff. I'm not saying it's a legitimate business, just not a ponzi. So, it’s neither legitimate nor a Ponzi. Cool, what is it then?
it's fraud
How much of the real value of cryptocurrency is not monetary? How much of the value is in the existential value of participation, e.g. Dogecoin?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing in there indicates that he thought Terra would stay stable. Indeed, you can even read it has him wanting him to be involved becuase he found the lack of stability an interesting problem to try and solve.
“We propose a cryptocurrency, Terra, which is both price-stable and growth-driven. It achieves price-stability via an elastic money supply, enabled by stable mining incentives.” “Terra achieves price stability by creating stable incentives for mining (PoS consensus) via highly predictable rewards. We propose a framework to evaluate the stability of Terra’s peg under stress. […] Our findings, based on 1 million years’…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's fraud
The whole thing reminds me of something more like baseball cards or other collectibles, where the monetary value rests in a collective belief in the inherent value. How much of the real value of cryptocurrency is not monetary? How much of the value is in the existential value of participation, e.g. Dogecoin?