681–690 of 746 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the link? From a quick look at your submissions, it's most likely that users flagged your post, but I'd need to see a link to be sure. Actually users have been emailing us to complain about your submissions, and I've been trying to hold them off.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33482032 > it's most likely that users flagged your post I think when users flag a post they should only be given that privilege if their account is under their real name and if it shows who flagged a post. I rarely flag a post but when I do I would always be willing to do so publicly and state why. Otherwise downvotes/lack of upvotes should be the only acceptable means of flaggin…
Otherwise downvotes/lack of upvotes should be the only acceptable means of flagging.
It's unlikely the site would have users of 15 years such as yourself if it ever operated like that. Or really any users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a blockchain failure in that blockchains in general cannot actually support transactions like this. There's too much volume and there are fees. It is also a regulatory failure, there are reasons this kind of dipping into customer funds is quite illegal in the US. FTX should not have been reachable by US citizens (funding should have been impossible) _or_ FTX should have been sanctioned _by_ the US. There is no…
> FTX should not have been reachable by US citizens Ostensibly this has already been the case. You can't even properly access ftx.com in the US. It just redirects you to the US exchange. FTX US is a distinct company from the international FTX exchange, at least according to Axios. If you still manage to get to ftx.com it gives you a banner saying its read-only, you aren't allowed to use it, and they wont let you. FTX…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok so then by your logic, why do banks care about collecting deposits? Because they need a liability to offset their assets? Ok wildly backwards but sure. And wait, in your metaphor, where does the $500k asset of cash that a depositor gives a bank (which offsets that liability) go? It’s just fake in your mind?
Some banks care about collecting deposits because the interest they earn on short term paper is more than the interest they pay on deposits. Some banks don't accept deposits at all -- these are called investment banks. Also, banks don't really do a lot of maturity transformation -- there are so many myths about how banks operate -- if you look at a bank's balance sheet, you will see a range of short, medium, and long…
LMFAO. I want to go to Goldman Sachs's Balance sheet and then tell me how much they have in deposits ($394 billion!!!). I want you to go to Morgan Stanley's and tell me the same ($338 billion!!!). Nearly all banks use deposits as an easy source of capital that they then invest/lend out.
You are confusing retail deposits with deposits.
Like sure, there's boutiques like Qatalyst and Allen that limit their deposit base for one reason or another, but they are marginal in scale vs. real investment banks.
>If you want to really understand banks, you should stop talking about deposits, which aren't particularly important, and instead focus on mortgages, which dominate the entire financial industry.
This is such a wild conversation! I am talking about mortgages, which are funded by deposits!
>But they don't need your deposit in order lend someone else money, because they borrow from the capital markets at one rate, and lend at a higher rate, and this has nothing to do with borrowing short term and lending long term. Rather, the primary risk for banks comes from leverage.
Yes we agree! And one form of extremely cheap borrowing is taking deposits! That's why they pay interest on it! It's borrowing! It's a liability on the balance sheet! How is this not clicking for you?!?!?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still get sketched out that companies feel so free to "unpublish" content that they later decided was embarrassing. Traces of "Nineteen Eighty-Four"...
To be fair, if something has been deemed offensive by the everyone on the interwebs, do you leave the offensive thing there to thumb your nose at them or just remove it to at least stop the bleeding?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banks cannot and do not lend out deposits. Bank deposits are a liability of the bank, they do not have it in the first place to lend out. When the bank gives someone else a $500,000 mortgage, they just create the money out of nothing and increase the customer’s bank balance. This new $500,000 liability is balanced by the new loan asset. Almost all money is of this type rather than physical currency.
Ok so then by your logic, why do banks care about collecting deposits? Because they need a liability to offset their assets? Ok wildly backwards but sure. And wait, in your metaphor, where does the $500k asset of cash that a depositor gives a bank (which offsets that liability) go? It’s just fake in your mind?
For the second part, I agree that if you bring $500k cash to your bank and deposit it, then that asset is real and it basically goes into the bank vault. But that is not the typical case. Most deposits do not come from putting cash in the bank (after all, the amount of cash/central bank reserves is much smaller than the amount of bank deposits). Most of them are just an IOU from the bank and we use these IOUs as the most frequent form of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok so then by your logic, why do banks care about collecting deposits? Because they need a liability to offset their assets? Ok wildly backwards but sure. And wait, in your metaphor, where does the $500k asset of cash that a depositor gives a bank (which offsets that liability) go? It’s just fake in your mind?
That’s a good a question, understanding why banks want deposits was hard for me to understand in this model. My current understanding is that taking deposits is a cheap source of funding for the bank. They could borrow required reserves from elsewhere but it’s cheaper to take it from customers who accept low interest rates. For the second part, I agree that if you bring $500k cash to your bank and deposit it, then th…
Yeah, why it's confusing to you is that you're segregating "borrowing from capital markets" from "borrowing from depositors" when they are effectively the same thing (both are interest-bearing liabilities).
>For the second part, I agree that if you bring $500k cash to your bank and deposit it, then that asset is real and it basically goes into the bank vault.
I suggest you google 'fractional reserves,' because no, the money does not go into a bank vault (though some of it does!).
> Most of them are just an IOU from the bank and we use these IOUs as the most frequent form of money.
The logical fallacy here is that you're seeing how many IOUs there are (many) and how many cash dollars there are (much fewer!) and then assume that IOUs don't have to be attached to a physical dollar but they do (keep in mind, a physical dollar could just be a line item on The Treasury's balance sheet, it doesn't have to be paper) It's just that many IOUs can be attached to the same dollar through the credit multiplier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diablo 2 taught me this. Along with my other favourite word: Gargantuan.
From Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, the lands of Lilliput and Gargantua. In one, every resident is tiny, Lilliputian, and in the other: huge, ...Gargantuan Notably, the book reads in a very modern way, it's a bit shocking to know it was written in the 1700s when stylistically, and according to its vocabulary, it feels so very modern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you are the only person in the world with the private key to your coins, you are the only person who can move them. Period. This is completely and utterly irrelevant and has not stopped anyone from performing massive fraud. Just look at the long history of crypto scams. They still happened constantly despite blockchains having that feature. It's just impossible for a blockchain to prevent these frauds. It doesn't…
Your arguments are very misguided, long, rambly, and often digresses. It's hard to decipher your points and it is very exhausting to read. Would love to have discourse, but your points need to be shorter, concise, and clear.
You can read the first 1-2 sentences of each paragraph and get a sense for the main points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hushed tones of 'that is obviously bullshit'.
That is what aggravates me the most: that there is so much money sloshing around out there, desperate to be spent , and it goes to obvious bullshit instead of building bio-sand water filters for every off-grid community in the world, or ensuring everyone in the world gets a sandwich at least once a day, or basically ANYTHING that would make the world a better place for everyone. Instead, over-privileged, over-wealthy…
E.g. I print a trillion tokens, keep most in my pocket but give out some chunks to friends and put a few percent on the open market. They trade on the open market for $1 and tada I'm a trillionaire. The token price crashes and now my friends have lost billions.
But it was all just a mirage.
There are real losses in that example-- the suckers that bought the tokens for $1 on the market-- but they may be tiny compared to the numbers being discussed.