861–870 of 890 posts
From what I understand, SBF described the product as a Ponzi scheme in so many words 6 months ago, yet somehow attracted more money than Enron. Now he's fled to Argentina, and people are are missing billions. Apparently he even had a custom client built that wouldn't trigger auditing. It never ceases to amaze that this story happens again and again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Because we're tired of a dumpster fire of scams and fraud being sold as the revolutionary future of all finance and money. We do not want that future. We don't even want the bitcoin present. We think it's bad and will cheer as it implodes. There was a time I thought something like bitcoin had a useful role to play in the world, never as a consumer/retail thing, but more a zero trust alternative to existing clearing h…
people were misusing it, does it mean that it is bad?
LLC are a main factorfor growth in last 100 years because of incentives aligment. same with crypto.
any tool can be exploited by bad actors
does it mean it should not exsist or be hated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
1. Because everyone touts "avoiding government regulations" - what most of us call "crime" - as one of crypto's primary reasons. 2. Because there are so many scams in the field. 3. Because crypto people have this unattractive combination of acting superior to others while literally never having read about or even thought deeply about economics. 4. Because after 13 years, not one Web3 project has emerged that has any…
people wont fall twice into same scam
people can learn faster thanks to it
in other indystries there are also bad actors
only different, crypto is faster which is good thing in good use cases
Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- crypto, the collapse of FTX, SBF's bubble bursting in a rather extreme fashion, and now this hack are more nails in the coffin for mainstream support. I am no fan of crypto myself, but it's interesting to think what would have to happen for crypto to burnish its image. Would key people have to voluntarily form some sort of coordinating council and self-regulate? Would they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Not all the insiders are very skilled, as we can see from these things blowing up in expected ways. 2. Even if you ARE a skilled insider, you may have no experience with laundering coin. 3. The biggest/best coin launderer was killed (tornado?) recently, so you may have to learn everything again. 4. You may be an expert with a gun to your head in some basement in God knows where, and trying to not be shot.
Source on this tornado comment? This entire story is just so wild that it’s hard to keep up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Their established reputation The reason trustless decentralized crypto currencies were invented: So we don't have to rely on banking corporation's glowing reputations.
My point is that, amongst the majority populace, traditional banking establishments have immeasurably higher reputations than any entity associated with cryptocurrencies. Rightly or wrongly. The logic you're describing isn't incorrect, but I don't believe (and may well be wrong) it makes any difference to the point I made above. It's still early. Still in the "first they laugh at you" stage, just read HN comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> life-changing generational wealth By that measure, the people who had their life savings in FTX (and Celsius and Luna before that) have certainly succeeded. Investing in total-market index funds is the single best strategy for the average investor. (In fact it's so good there's a proof! [1]) If you invested $10000 in the total US market in 1992 (30 years ago) and never touched it again, your inflation-adjusted bala…
Does that study account for stocks that have dropped out of the index? Re-balancing fees? What about LIRP/ZIRP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's amusing about your comment is that exchanges are the one centralized part of crypto due to the interfce with fiat and they also tend to be where all of the fraud occurs.
To correct your comment a bit, fraud occurs much more on centralized human-run exchanges that do NOT handle fiat. Handling fiat => licenses => regulation => harder to do fraud and get away with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So bank regulation worked in 2008, is was just a human failure? Communism works, it's just human failures? The measure of whether something works is whether it prevents human failure.
We had gotten rid of bank regulation, which caused 2008. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/glass-steagall-... .
Banks in other countries were affected too, despite regulations.