321–330 of 388 posts
It actually started on the 9th of May. So not only did they negligently invest 100% of funds in a single highly risky project while they marketed that they diversified risk, but they were also asleep at the wheel and missed the opportunity to salvage some of the terra before the depeg had gone too far
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Physics is a science. Math is. Or Biology. Finance is not. Because it deals with the madness of crowds. If you follow the scientific method, it's science. If you write an observational essay, it's not. You can build theories around falsifiable, replicable experiments pertaining to the madness of crowds. The error bars are longer. But they are not infinite.
Re: "The error bars are not infinite." I feel like they are infinite? Because, for example, in hyperinflation, there's no upper bound on how long someone is going to keep printing money. Any given instance will stop at a finite number, but you can't bank of that being the high water mark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It really is a science. Physics is a science. Math is. Or Biology. Finance is not. Because it deals with the madness of crowds. > Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street > And Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees. > Nassim Nicholas Taleb is particularly harsh when it comes to the…
> Physics is a science. Math is. Or Biology. Finance is not. Because it deals with the madness of crowds. If you follow the scientific method, it's science. If you write an observational essay, it's not. You can build theories around falsifiable, replicable experiments pertaining to the madness of crowds. The error bars are longer. But they are not infinite.
No matter how hard you model you won’t be able to predict processes that are fundamentally unpredictable. And you would get fooled because you only observe finite amount of data.
It is surprising how complicated the math gets even if you try to model very simple processes (eg think of the n-body problem and how complexity increases with every addition of a body). It is not a given that complicated models mean you’re modelling a complicated process.
What's funny about this is that I can recall discussions here and elsewhere from only a few months ago questioning the "guaranteed" super-high returns. I forget who said this but someone awhile ago said in finance said that if someone is promising you consistent above-market returns it's either a scam or there is unknown or undisclosed risk. And the Crypto Andys were all like "you just don't understand DeFi!" to whic…
What most people don't understand about finance is that there are fundamental rules that you really cannot break without consequences. Anyone who has studied quantitative finance knows that it is a HARD science. I worked with a Nobel prize winner in economics, and the math dominated. There was no politics, no opinions, no ethics involved. It really is a science. Most social media characterize finance as some ethical…
Your comment makes no sense. Just because there's modeling involved that does not make it a hard science. A hard science requires stuff like the ability to perform controlled experiments and replicability, in order to arrive at a high degree of accuracy in predictions.
Throwing around partial differential equations does not turn something into a hard science. You need to meet way more requirements before you're in a position to claim that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It really is a science. Physics is a science. Math is. Or Biology. Finance is not. Because it deals with the madness of crowds. > Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street > And Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees. > Nassim Nicholas Taleb is particularly harsh when it comes to the…
> Physics is a science. Math is. Or Biology. Finance is not. Because it deals with the madness of crowds. If you follow the scientific method, it's science. If you write an observational essay, it's not. You can build theories around falsifiable, replicable experiments pertaining to the madness of crowds. The error bars are longer. But they are not infinite.
OP's claim was that quantitative finance was *hard science*. Requirements regarding predictability are way more stringent than merely observing stuff and seeing how it responds to an input.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These were technically coins which were processed as smart contracts in Ethereum. Even if these coins "cease operations" their history will continue to exist in the Ethereum blockchain, forever.
At least until Ethereum goes tits up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What most people don't understand about finance is that there are fundamental rules that you really cannot break without consequences. Anyone who has studied quantitative finance knows that it is a HARD science. I worked with a Nobel prize winner in economics, and the math dominated. There was no politics, no opinions, no ethics involved. It really is a science. Most social media characterize finance as some ethical…
> Anyone who has studied quantitative finance knows that it is a HARD science. I worked with a Nobel prize winner in economics, and the math dominated. There was no politics, no opinions, no ethics involved. It really is a science. Your comment makes no sense. Just because there's modeling involved that does not make it a hard science. A hard science requires stuff like the ability to perform controlled experiments a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes the attack was a loophole in the algorithm not the blockchain itself.
Yes, but the (alleged) attack on the algorithm would have happened on blockchain, and would have been recorded as transactions in the blocks. Ironically, some attacks on blockchains themselves (like 51% attacks) are actually harder to analyze, because part of the evidence lives in blocks that were deliberately orphined from the blockchain, and the p2p network doesn't have any incentive to share those blocks. I've ana…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won’t be once it shuts down. Blockchains are as permanent as the miners that power them.
These were technically coins which were processed as smart contracts in Ethereum. Even if these coins "cease operations" their history will continue to exist in the Ethereum blockchain, forever.