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

Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

coindesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 383 posts

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#71

Post by mvdtnz »

EGreg wrote: post #64
habinero wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll bite. I read this and my first reactions are: 1. How? 2. Reward them with what? 3. Fans are already promoters. 4. Why is this a good thing? 5. This is just describing fandom, which already exists?

1. Well, you want to have your coin usable to pay for something in your own community. The first thing you can offer are unsold seats and other things that literally cost you nothing. People who earned your coin can buy seats at your events, or sell them to other people (e.g. who live locally) to attend the event. 2. With your own coin, obviously. If the coin has value aboard a cruise ship, or events, etc. then every…

But people can already pay for unsold seats... with money. The same way the sold seats were paid for.

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#72

Post by rprwhite »

habinero wrote: post #53
EGreg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... 1) A way to fill unsold seats at venues, and always have sold-out events 2) A way to reward his members for spreading his message and bringing more people 3) A way to turn his audience into an army of promoters 4) A way to be independent of banks, and accept global payments 5) A way to have a global online movement that becomes bigger than Ashton Kutcher himself... having subcommunities be empowered to get…

Ok, I'll bite. I read this and my first reactions are: 1. How? 2. Reward them with what? 3. Fans are already promoters. 4. Why is this a good thing? 5. This is just describing fandom, which already exists?

I had the exact same thoughts. But, also, why is it a good thing that risk is passed down to the users of the currency?

In the regular system risk is passed upward to regular bank you deal with, then upward to the government bank. The frustrating part here is that the regular bank makes all, or very nearly all, the profit, yet passes on the risk. This gives them enormous amounts of power, through wealth, which is far from ideal. But, much, much worse is the concept of removing the regular bank, and government bank, replacing them with a random person online. And passing the risk downward to the users of the currency.

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#73

Post by draxofavalon »

dysoco wrote: post #69

Just to clarify, here are some important differences compared to the Trump case: 1. Milei did not sell this as a memecoin at all, unlike Trump, he sold it as a "financial instrument to help finance small Argentinan enterprises". 2. Trump tweeted about $TRUMP BEFORE stepping into office, Milei is already the president of Argentina. This constitutes an obvious ethical violation, and possibly a legal one as well. 3. 80%…

Exactly, this was not a memecoin. Agree with your view about Javier Milei.

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#74

Post by EGreg »

mvdtnz wrote: post #71
EGreg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Well, you want to have your coin usable to pay for something in your own community. The first thing you can offer are unsold seats and other things that literally cost you nothing. People who earned your coin can buy seats at your events, or sell them to other people (e.g. who live locally) to attend the event. 2. With your own coin, obviously. If the coin has value aboard a cruise ship, or events, etc. then every…

But people can already pay for unsold seats... with money. The same way the sold seats were paid for.

And how are they going to earn this money for actions that help the community?

It's much better when you can issue your own money supply

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#75

Post by EGreg »

rprwhite wrote: post #72
habinero wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll bite. I read this and my first reactions are: 1. How? 2. Reward them with what? 3. Fans are already promoters. 4. Why is this a good thing? 5. This is just describing fandom, which already exists?

I had the exact same thoughts. But, also, why is it a good thing that risk is passed down to the users of the currency? In the regular system risk is passed upward to regular bank you deal with, then upward to the government bank. The frustrating part here is that the regular bank makes all, or very nearly all, the profit, yet passes on the risk. This gives them enormous amounts of power, through wealth, which is far…

You don't replace the bank with a random person, but with a smart contract trusted by the community. The whole point is to eliminate trust in the middleman completely from many transactions, and prevent a growing class of conflicts from even starting. That is why you don't need to post surety bonds, for instance!

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#76

Post by EGreg »

llamaimperative wrote: post #57
habinero wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll bite. I read this and my first reactions are: 1. How? 2. Reward them with what? 3. Fans are already promoters. 4. Why is this a good thing? 5. This is just describing fandom, which already exists?

Oh sorry, this way the creator of the underlying infrastructure can collect rent from all aforementioned re-implementations of existing services.

This is extremely vague and seems to be so on purpose in order to just have some nebulous "attack". Do you really think Web2 platforms aren't the epitome of rentseeking, by taking advantage of their role as middlemen?

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#77

Post by EGreg »

TeaBrain wrote: post #62
EGreg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... 1) A way to fill unsold seats at venues, and always have sold-out events 2) A way to reward his members for spreading his message and bringing more people 3) A way to turn his audience into an army of promoters 4) A way to be independent of banks, and accept global payments 5) A way to have a global online movement that becomes bigger than Ashton Kutcher himself... having subcommunities be empowered to get…

Point 2 is the basis for a pyramid scheme.

Pyramid schemes are illegal, but Multi-Level-Marketing schemes are legal.

And you don't need multiple levels. You can have one level. That's called affiliate marketing.

Loyalty points are a thing. You can earn them as an affiliate, for instance. It doesn't have to be a pyramid. But if you are going that route, almost all startups are "pyramid schemes" that end up with an IPO where the public continues to demand rents be extracted perpetually to boost stock price endlesssly, resulting in increased "enshittification". I'd rather people earn utility tokens they can spend once into the economy, than shares where they have the right to demand rent extraction and enshittification for everyone else.

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#78

Post by wmf »

dysoco wrote: post #69

Just to clarify, here are some important differences compared to the Trump case: 1. Milei did not sell this as a memecoin at all, unlike Trump, he sold it as a "financial instrument to help finance small Argentinan enterprises". 2. Trump tweeted about $TRUMP BEFORE stepping into office, Milei is already the president of Argentina. This constitutes an obvious ethical violation, and possibly a legal one as well. 3. 80%…

he sold it as a "financial instrument to help finance small Argentinan enterprises"

Is there any evidence that LIBRA can do that? If not it's even more scammy.

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#79

Post by llamaimperative »

EGreg wrote: post #76
llamaimperative wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh sorry, this way the creator of the underlying infrastructure can collect rent from all aforementioned re-implementations of existing services.

This is extremely vague and seems to be so on purpose in order to just have some nebulous "attack". Do you really think Web2 platforms aren't the epitome of rentseeking, by taking advantage of their role as middlemen?

Obviously existing middlemen are rent seekers. The question is why anyone should eat the cost of switching to a new, less proven rent seeker.

To the hopeful new rent seeker, the pitch is obvious. To everyone else, the provided rationales tend to sound like a whole lot of bullshit.

Re: Javier Milei backtracks on $4.4B memecoin after 'insiders' pocket $87M

#80

Post by dysoco »

wmf wrote: post #78
dysoco wrote: post #69

Just to clarify, here are some important differences compared to the Trump case: 1. Milei did not sell this as a memecoin at all, unlike Trump, he sold it as a "financial instrument to help finance small Argentinan enterprises". 2. Trump tweeted about $TRUMP BEFORE stepping into office, Milei is already the president of Argentina. This constitutes an obvious ethical violation, and possibly a legal one as well. 3. 80%…

he sold it as a "financial instrument to help finance small Argentinan enterprises" Is there any evidence that LIBRA can do that? If not it's even more scammy.

Obviously it's just a memecoin, but that's what Milei's tweet said, he never mentioned "meme" in his tweet unlike Trump.
Post reply on HN