91–100 of 147 posts
Honestly I am surprised we are not seeing violent acts against people running these companies (Celsius, terra, etc). I would be beyond furious if I couldn't withdraw my assets from this scam.
There is a really disturbing trend nowadays where people are casually advocating for violence. This is one of those examples. Violence is never okay.
Honestly I am surprised we are not seeing violent acts against people running these companies (Celsius, terra, etc). I would be beyond furious if I couldn't withdraw my assets from this scam.
>Honestly I am surprised we are not seeing violent acts against people running these companies (Celsius, terra, etc). Let's flip the question: what reasons do you have to expect "violent acts against people running these companies"? Sure, you have a bunch of people that are angry, but makes you think they're angry enough to follow through with the plan? Was there a spree of violence against bankers in 2007/2008?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those companies have connections to the broader financial markets. The traditional thought was that crypto could do what it wants because it's a fairly insulated silo. If it fails, nothing of value fails with it. If it is going to contaminate the rest of the financial system, we are going to need to shut down the shenanigans very fast.
So you are referring to a future, bigger crash outside of the current year?
Honestly I am surprised we are not seeing violent acts against people running these companies (Celsius, terra, etc). I would be beyond furious if I couldn't withdraw my assets from this scam.
People who invest in cryptocurrency are doing just fine. They may have lost a large portion this money, but the fact they even have money to put into crypto means they are able to afford food, rent, etc. Losing money in cryptocurrency is a first-world problem, no one is going to commit violent acts over losing their side/play money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're risking their name, for a start.
The good name of Goldman Sachs, lol. The only people who don't find the vampire squid's name toxic, are those who only care about money to the point that these sorts of things never would have bothered them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You got Microsoft in the wrong category. Gates gave the reins to Ballmer, an MBA, which tanked the stock. Ballmer was never a founder, he was an employee with early stock. Microsoft flourished when Gates was the CEO. > Ballmer joined Microsoft on June 11, 1980, and became Microsoft's 30th employee, the first business manager hired by Gates > [Ballmer] left the MBA program at Stanford University Ballmer is what Marisa…
The way I remember it is that profit's growth for MS greatly increased under Ballmer but company growth tanked and that's what tanked the stock since MS lost its reputation as a growth stock. But generally speaking Ballmer was not the best choice to take on the company.
However his focus on enterprise laid the seeds for 365 and Azure and flourished once Satya made it clear that not everything had to revolve around Windows and Office. I think Gates is also a bit to blame here as I think the story goes that almost every decision that came to the board was shot down unless it meant more windows/office sales
It's taken me a while to understand this but a very common cycle for tech is: 1)Startup founder gets and idea and develops it. 2)The startup develops the tech and finds a market for it 3)The Startup becomes successful 4)The market falls apart and the founder can't guide the startup thru the difficulties 5)Start up is in distress or fails 6)An MBA type comes along buys everything at a deep discount 7)The new manager r…
1) Startup founder gets an idea and develops a legitimate product.
2) The company gains some customers, but the growth is tough, since competing products often sell below cost.
3) The founder gives up and goes to VCs.
4) VCs take away the controlling stake in exchange for an endless stream of cheap money, so the company can start selling dollars for 90 cents just like the competition.
5) The founder's vision is no longer a critical asset, the cheap VC capital is. The founder gets pushed out and replaced by the VCs' protégé.
6) If the stars align, the (still unprofitable) company exits. Numerous retail investors buy shares in something they've heard about but don't fully understand. VCs get 100x returns. The founder gets a letter of appreciation.
The whole cycle is all about getting a bigger share of the endless stream of cheap money from the fed. VCs throw in a lump sum to buy visibility. Enough visibility guarantees that more people with extra freshly minted cash on hand will choose your shares over other speculative investment.
Except all that recently printed cash is now competing for wheat and baby formula (hence inflation), so the fed has no choice but to backtrack and raise interest rates. And if this holds for sufficient time, the whole VC game may suddenly stop paying off.
It's taken me a while to understand this but a very common cycle for tech is: 1)Startup founder gets and idea and develops it. 2)The startup develops the tech and finds a market for it 3)The Startup becomes successful 4)The market falls apart and the founder can't guide the startup thru the difficulties 5)Start up is in distress or fails 6)An MBA type comes along buys everything at a deep discount 7)The new manager r…
Honestly I am surprised we are not seeing violent acts against people running these companies (Celsius, terra, etc). I would be beyond furious if I couldn't withdraw my assets from this scam.
People who invest in cryptocurrency are doing just fine. They may have lost a large portion this money, but the fact they even have money to put into crypto means they are able to afford food, rent, etc. Losing money in cryptocurrency is a first-world problem, no one is going to commit violent acts over losing their side/play money.
A lot of people are not fine, they just didn't feel the full ramifications for their actions, yet.
Hah, we just had a comment in the other thread where someone suggested this would happen and someone else was skeptical. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31869856 But what's Goldman's play here? To pump crypto after buying?
To take a cut on their investors buying some assets from a drowning company at a steep discount.