141–147 of 147 posts
Since this got posted on HN I asked myself, "does my crypto portfolio include Axie?" I saw it didn't, so I bought some, and already made a 3% profit, and likely to increase in the coming month. Thanks HN.
hope you can predict the top
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the token increasing in value outside of people speculating on it? The only money entering the system is investors and fees drain that out of the system. Without people spending, not investing, the system is doomed to hurt people who are left holding tokens when everyone else has cashed out.
>The only money entering the system is investors and fees drain that out of the system ? Fees are generally extremely small. All the money that enters the system is from investors and from players. The fees are minimal and have almost no effect on this. >Without people spending, not investing, Those are the same thing because both players and investors can cash each other's money out. There's literally no distinction…
> Those are the same thing because both players and investors can cash each other's money out. There's literally no distinction between both things.
So the only people putting money into the system are investors? Like I said.
> That's the case with every stock that currently exists. When a company fails there will be bag holders who lost a lot of money. Ideally the company doesn't fail and keeps making games forever.
If you hold a share of a company, you get dividends from the profits of company separate from the market. Even if nobody wants to buy your stock it still has value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The only money entering the system is investors and fees drain that out of the system ? Fees are generally extremely small. All the money that enters the system is from investors and from players. The fees are minimal and have almost no effect on this. >Without people spending, not investing, Those are the same thing because both players and investors can cash each other's money out. There's literally no distinction…
> All the money that enters the system is from investors and from players. > Those are the same thing because both players and investors can cash each other's money out. There's literally no distinction between both things. So the only people putting money into the system are investors? Like I said. > That's the case with every stock that currently exists. When a company fails there will be bag holders who lost a lot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes,you have rediscovered a core theme of criticism against the capitalist, consumerist mode of production anarchists and other leftists tend to raise, together with commodification. There is a coherent view that most AAA video games are skinner boxes aimed at extracting cash and Indie Games being closer to the "original" idea of them, and there are real discussions to be had about grinding on that context as a…
> Well, yes,you have rediscovered a core theme of criticism against the capitalist, consumerist mode of production anarchists and other leftists tend to raise, together with commodification. I think this is a much more fruitful (if ultimately tautological due to its very definition) form of argument; you're a modern socialist and modern socialist mores drive your criticism. That brings up two questions for me: 1. Wha…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
>Early models of market socialism trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for co-operative enterprises operating in a free-market economy.
Second, just because you reject something still means you are allowed to present arguments against it. Otherwise only those who hold crypto would be allowed to think or criticize it. You aren't giving arguments against the critiques presented right now, you are just going "ah, you are a socialist, that's why". If you disagree with the critique I'd love to hear your reasoning, but what does labelling and rejecting add?
Third, yes, I do in fact. Marketing, exploitation and hostile business practices are my main problems with the current system, I don't have a moral problem with property, capital etc. If we can configure a capitalist system to be non-exploitative I'm down. One way (not realisable, semi-joking) could be to impose a hard cap on individual wealth (say 100 million, or a multiple of the median to make it timeless) with the excess poured into a UBI (land would need its own treatment but I'm just being funny right now). This would even out power dynamics, avoid dynasties and allow market forces to take hold. We can add a form of new-game-plus for those that need extra motivation, if you build up more wealth and hit 500mil, 1bn , etc you get a progressively more impressive Roman-style triumph as recognition - you still don't get to keep it though.
Fourth, you are making a nonsequitur going to utility now without taking the time to define terms. I don't think of myself as a virtue ethicist nor a utilitarian, but I do think there are some things people want that a utilitarian would still say has negative utility. Is selling crack, fixing up people to opiods or drawing them into cults providing positive utility for you? How about adding extra sugar, salt, MSG and fat to food to make it more palatable with cheaper ingredients, and possibly more unhealthy and addictive? Is it positive utility to use marketing to create a perceived problem and then selling the solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, yes,you have rediscovered a core theme of criticism against the capitalist, consumerist mode of production anarchists and other leftists tend to raise, together with commodification. I think this is a much more fruitful (if ultimately tautological due to its very definition) form of argument; you're a modern socialist and modern socialist mores drive your criticism. That brings up two questions for me: 1. Wha…
First of all, it's simplistic to say socialists reject markets see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism >Early models of market socialism trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for co-operative enterprises operating in a free-market economy. Second, just because you reject somet…
Yes I am familiar with this fact. That's why I said "modern socialist mores" in my above post, which was admittedly probably doing too much work in my head and not explaining enough. I find that libertarian socialists, market socialists, minarchists, and market anarchists are not really popular leftist positions anymore. Most socialist spaces I encounter these days mostly consider communism, socialism, anarcho-communism, or anarcho-socialism.
> Second, just because you reject something still means you are allowed to present arguments against it. Otherwise only those who hold crypto would be allowed to think or criticize it. You aren't giving arguments against the critiques presented right now, you are just going "ah, you are a socialist, that's why". If you disagree with the critique I'd love to hear your reasoning, but what does labelling and rejecting add?
Imagine if someone in the comments critiques the West's decadence and ascribes it to the West's consumption of pork. To many ethical frameworks, the reasoning would be odd; why pork of all things? In Islamic ethics, however, that is in fact a reasonable line of criticism. Likewise your positions seemed to reject a lot of things taken for granted in everyday life in many developed countries which is why your remark about being a socialist makes more sense. I'm not rejecting socialism; knowing you're a socialist makes your critique more understandable.
> Is selling crack, fixing up people to opiods or drawing them into cults providing positive utility for you? How about adding extra sugar, salt, MSG and fat to food to make it more palatable with cheaper ingredients, and possibly more unhealthy and addictive? Is it positive utility to use marketing to create a perceived problem and then selling the solution?
I don't believe it's the role of the State to police any but the most deleterious mores. I believe that humans can form social mores against the excesses of vices and that having the State enforce social mores often results in more negative than positive externalities. When there's a large collective action problem, say environmentalism, I _do_ think in terms of utility, which is why I was asking about utility. I largely think the negative utility imposed by cryptocurrency scams upon the environment is far outweighed by the negative utility of other things so, much like the renter that uses more water than they should because their management pays for water, I consider it one of the many tiny sources of negative utility out there that is only worth tackling once bigger targets have been tackled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, it's simplistic to say socialists reject markets see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism >Early models of market socialism trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for co-operative enterprises operating in a free-market economy. Second, just because you reject somet…
> First of all, it's simplistic to say socialists reject markets see Yes I am familiar with this fact. That's why I said "modern socialist mores" in my above post, which was admittedly probably doing too much work in my head and not explaining enough. I find that libertarian socialists, market socialists, minarchists, and market anarchists are not really popular leftist positions anymore. Most socialist spaces I enco…
You are using very wavy forms of utility. How do you define utility? I was thinking on the utility of the individual, asking about whether something like getting lost in gambling addiction after someone caught you in their funnel is truly positive utility because you "want" it.
In the same vein as your 2nd point, I'm also gonna guess you are more of a libertarian/minarchich bent because of this because while in my experience statist tend to oversimplify and wishful-think the impact of the state and anarchists tend to oversimplify and wishful-think the willingness and ableness of a group to self-organise in an anarchist way, libertarians in the US style/minarchists tend to oversimplify the question of self determinism and have inconsistent thought on what exactly the role of the state should be (it should exist because otherwise you can't have private property, but everything else...) and don't consistently acknowledge predatory behaviour that preys on human vices exists and works (AGAIN: I don't want to police the vices, I want to curtail profits on it. Self-organised vices without additional motivators are fine with me).
I also find it interesting that you claim you think term of utility and externality on collective action problems but then don't consider price of action - we don't lose anything big with crypto right now, but we would gain at least a finlands worth of energy to blow on other things ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitco... ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you pay the $1,000 entry fee yourself or did you get a “scholarship” like the article mentions? How does one invest more than the $1,000 entry fee? Do you sponsor “scholarships”? How long ago did you start playing and how much time have you put into the game? What return (if any) have you made on your time/monetary investment? What return (if any) do you expect to make and over what horizon? Thanks for agreeing t…
Yes, I have about 100 "scholars" from the Philippines working for me. I put in about $30,000 a few months ago. Return has been 300%+ I'm also involved in breeding new axies which is more complex and time consuming. The return of that varies a lot, but can be very profitable, very hard to put a number on that but I'd say las few weeks it was probably 250% APR if you didn't get too unlucky. I would probably cash out a…