Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

blog.stablegains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 388 posts

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#331

Post by JumpCrisscross »

arinlen wrote: post #326
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #220

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.

> If you follow the scientific method, it's science. 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.

> OP's claim was that quantitative finance was hard science*

These are colloquial terms [1]. We might as well argue about whether Pop Tarts are ravioli or tacos sandwiches.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#332

Post by c0balt »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #331
arinlen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you follow the scientific method, it's science. 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.

> OP's claim was that quantitative finance was hard science* These are colloquial terms [1]. We might as well argue about whether Pop Tarts are ravioli or tacos sandwiches. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

What is(n't) a taco is a semi-solved problem[0].

[0]: https://cuberule.com/

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#333

Post by ReflectedImage »

koheripbal wrote: post #151
jmyeet wrote: post #100

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…

The maths used in economics is widely known to be wrong.

When informed the maths in economics is wrong, the economists don't go and fix their maths either.

Economics is more like sociology with some random incorrect formulas written on the black board as set dressing.

Economics might in self loathing claim they are the "dismal science", but the cold hard truth is they simply speaking are not doing their jobs properly. It's a broken research field.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#334

Post by AlexandrB »

zamalek wrote: post #202
jmyeet wrote: post #100

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…

In the linked Terra Revival post there's this gem of a term: > Pre-attack Luna I love how we went straight from "what happened" to "it was an attack."

I'm not surprised the attack narrative is so popular and rarely challenged. Whether there was an actual attack or not, the attack narrative gives everyone a convenient out. The creator can disavow responsibility for creating a stablecoin that doesn't work and the investors get to feel like they weren't taken in by a con but we're instead attacked by an outside entity.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#336

Post by raverbashing »

downandout wrote: post #187
jmyeet wrote: post #100

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…

And the Crypto Andys were all like "you just don't understand DeFi!" to which the retort is "No, you just don't understand finance". If you believe the statement "if someone is promising you consistent above-market returns it's either a scam or there is unknown or undisclosed risk" it might be true that you don't understand DeFi to some degree. DeFi isn't a single market, it's millions of micro markets that are acces…

[[This is what DeFI people actually believe]]

Whoever thinks "millions of markets trading in every way" is a guarantee of making money is in for an awful surprise

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#337

Post by arinlen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #331
arinlen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you follow the scientific method, it's science. 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.

> OP's claim was that quantitative finance was hard science* These are colloquial terms [1]. We might as well argue about whether Pop Tarts are ravioli or tacos sandwiches. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

> These are colloquial terms [1].

Colloquial terms whose concrete meaning does not correspond to OP's claim.

There is no ambiguity in this: if your models are not testable and fail to predict behavior then it's not hard science.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#338

Post by ramchip »

arinlen wrote: post #325
koheripbal wrote: post #151

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…

It doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but I would say astrophysics is a hard science, and yet a ton of it is based on observation and modeling of events we can't control or reproduce.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#339

Post by closedloop129 »

arinlen wrote: post #325
koheripbal wrote: post #151

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…

The controlled experiments are in the trading. The market validates the model, not the peers.

The scientific mindset is there, but not the publishing because the publishing destroys the value of the model. Once your model is known, others trade against your model and it becomes invalid.

Re: We’re discontinuing the Stablegains service

#340

Post by notahacker »

downandout wrote: post #235
simonh wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's quite easy to find pockets of above-average returns if you're smart… Right, but even then how deep are those pockets (what amount of investment can they absorb without being tapped out), how big a time window will they exist for, how will you know if those limits are being reached, and are you really sure you can quantify all the risks? By definition if it’s a pocket of opportunity, it’s very constrained oppor…

Of course there are limits to every opportunity. I make money everyday from opportunities that exist on microsecond timescales. I run arb and loan liquidation bots, so I haven't had a single losing day, ever. The last two weeks were quite profitable for me, actually the best two week period I have ever had. There are other strategies that are easier to pull off, such as market making, that have moderate risks and out…

> If someone needed money for infrastructure to run an arb bot, for example, and offered you above market, risk-free returns, it's at least possible they aren't lying to you. That was my point.

If you needed money for infrastructure for more arb bot, would you look for random novices and offer them 15% (and raise $3m in VC to market to random novices)? Or would you take out an unsecured personal loan from a bank at a lower rate, or a much lower cost loan from a counterparty involved crypto, especially one who understands the nature your trades?

Post reply on HN