101–110 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Binance's claims about 1:1 backing for BUSD seem legitimate but then again FTX also seemed like a legitimate exchange. People who use exchanges should withdraw their crypto asap. Does not matter if it's binance or coinbase or kraken. There is 0 benefit to keeping it on any exchange and unlimited risk for doing so
> There is 0 benefit to keeping it on any exchange Conversion to/from fiat
Does anyone know how Coinbase avoided this fate? I really thought it would be them to fall, but they proved everyone wrong. There’s some key difference between Coinbase and an exchange like FTX. Is it because FTX had a token, and then leveraged themselves using their own token? Binance has a token too. Are they in similar danger? It would be an interesting contrast to know why one exchange is safe vs another. Here’s…
Coinbase avoided this fate by being a us regulated company. FTX.us is still above water. It’s the Bahamas based company that was able to cook the books and is now defunct. As for Binance, they have the SAFU ( https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/secure-asset-fund-fo... ) which they just topped up to $1B at current market prices (today). You can verify the balances on chain, but there aren’t any statements about ou…
Does anyone know how Coinbase avoided this fate? I really thought it would be them to fall, but they proved everyone wrong. There’s some key difference between Coinbase and an exchange like FTX. Is it because FTX had a token, and then leveraged themselves using their own token? Binance has a token too. Are they in similar danger? It would be an interesting contrast to know why one exchange is safe vs another. Here’s…
Coinbase makes money on fees and doesn’t lend out deposits. Seriously look at their balance sheet! They have zero risk of this kind of insolvency, their only risk is people stop using them to trade. Say what you will about that being a weird/dumb model but here we are.
Coinbase may eventually run out of money and go out of business because their operating costs presumably exceed their revenue, but the customer funds won't evaporate if/when they do, unlike the shadier exchanges.
1. https://www.reuters.com/technology/coinbase-reports-third-qu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coinbase is a perfectly normal company. They take your money and exchange it for crypto (and vice versa), taking a cut in the process. There's no funny business with tokens or lending out customer deposits. They are also regulated as a public company by the SEC and Delaware courts. If they do go out of business it'll be due to good old fashioned operating losses.
Note that Coinbase does have lending business. The reason it's not visible in their balance sheet is because it's not popular. https://www.coinbase.com/borrow
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that EA mostly came from Peter Singer's ethics. The "rationalist" movement adopted a lot of the language and metaethical principles espoused by Singer, but Singer has not (to my knowledge) indicated particular interest in AI. The books I've read by him mostly focus on animal welfare and human welfare in developing nations (cf. "doing the most good").
Peter Singer happened to write primary source material, but your comment is like saying the EAs came from Jeremy Bentham. EA the organization began with LessWrong which, again, was all along a play to generate funding for AI safety research. Edit: The original version of the comment implies LessWrong is the single precursor to EA, which is wrong. But it is a relevant and influential one.
I have no doubt whatsoever that EA the organization, LessWrong, and MIRI are all instrumental in EA the movement. But my understanding, including from actually reading just about everything Singer's ever written, is that the applied ethical groundwork for EA was laid at least a decade before LessWrong or MIRI arrived on the scene.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortunately for investors in public companies, you can mostly sort out the crazy people ahead of time By inspecting the growth mechanism of the company. Amount of leverage, yield on investments relative to risks, assumptions about future growth, management commentary etc. Unfortunately for investors in FTX, they had no visibility or regulations/protections against their deposits being stolen
FTX’s exchange business is regulated by the Securities Commission of the Bahamas.
Does anyone know how Coinbase avoided this fate? I really thought it would be them to fall, but they proved everyone wrong. There’s some key difference between Coinbase and an exchange like FTX. Is it because FTX had a token, and then leveraged themselves using their own token? Binance has a token too. Are they in similar danger? It would be an interesting contrast to know why one exchange is safe vs another. Here’s…
Coinbase avoided this fate by being a us regulated company. FTX.us is still above water. It’s the Bahamas based company that was able to cook the books and is now defunct. As for Binance, they have the SAFU ( https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/secure-asset-fund-fo... ) which they just topped up to $1B at current market prices (today). You can verify the balances on chain, but there aren’t any statements about ou…
Does anyone know how Coinbase avoided this fate? I really thought it would be them to fall, but they proved everyone wrong. There’s some key difference between Coinbase and an exchange like FTX. Is it because FTX had a token, and then leveraged themselves using their own token? Binance has a token too. Are they in similar danger? It would be an interesting contrast to know why one exchange is safe vs another. Here’s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Well, it has no intrinsic value Like nearly every other asset. 'Bitcoin is dead' has been said for over a decade now. We'll see what happens. I mined one of the first few thousand blocks. I don't think it's going anywhere unless civilization gets destroyed but that's just my opinion.
> Like nearly every other asset. Prove to me you know nothing about investing in one sentence. Bravo. Plenty of assets cashflow and provide tangible value. Crypto is not one of them. Unless you consider yields from a lending ponzi to be sustainable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that EA mostly came from Peter Singer's ethics. The "rationalist" movement adopted a lot of the language and metaethical principles espoused by Singer, but Singer has not (to my knowledge) indicated particular interest in AI. The books I've read by him mostly focus on animal welfare and human welfare in developing nations (cf. "doing the most good").
Peter Singer happened to write primary source material, but your comment is like saying the EAs came from Jeremy Bentham. EA the organization began with LessWrong which, again, was all along a play to generate funding for AI safety research. Edit: The original version of the comment implies LessWrong is the single precursor to EA, which is wrong. But it is a relevant and influential one.