91–100 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An IPO will be longer. With the locked out period it will be more than a year
Not necessarily if they do a direct listing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily if they do a direct listing.
A direct listing would be very unfair to the banks that have patiently waited years to take a multi-billion-dollar chunk of Stripe’s upside in exchange for setting the IPO price (integer between 20 and 50).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily if they do a direct listing.
A direct listing would be very unfair to the banks that have patiently waited years to take a multi-billion-dollar chunk of Stripe’s upside in exchange for setting the IPO price (integer between 20 and 50).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All lies. Doesn't bother to point out what part of it was a lie (because it isn't a lie) > Lies. Just write them down and store them securely. Welcome to the future of finance, make sure you don't lose your seed phrases written down on paper (it's the future, trust me bro) > Yes, you can't be utterly careless Contradicts saying that I was lying that you can lose your life savings due to phishing, scamming, or hacki…
> Doesn't bother to point out what part of it was a lie (because it isn't a lie) This "constantly being at risk of losing your life savings due to phishing, scamming, hacking, etc." is a lie. There is no inherent property of Bitcoin that makes you vulnerable to these. Any vulnerability in those regards is an individual issue, just like with the current system. You could mitigate those away with paid services under a…
The whole point is that it's immutable and transactions are not reversible. That means users are susceptible to losing their money with no recourse.
Seed phrases are also a pain in the ass. No one wants to deal with that, and average consumers would absolutely lose/forget/misplace them and lose access to their wallets.
The risk of ruin in crypto is ridiculously high compared to traditional finance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re options that are set to expire, not RSUs. Yes, the employees could exercise them to prevent them from expiring, but then Uncle Sam comes to collect his dues. And that’s where illiquidity burns you.
Double trigger rsu’s in private companies also expire and holders of those have no option even to eat the taxes in that case. They just lose them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. (Channels patio11) As a society we have decided to delegate a bunch of responsibilities to the companies that move money. The most notable one is fraud protection. The companies that make this much money do so by pretending that a transfer of money is a clean, simple, and absolute thing. In reality it is messy, reversible, and fraud-prone. Being able to transfer $1B dollars as easily as you are able to transfer $…
I have been paying and being paid for decades now, and I have never involved a payment processor in a dispute I had with the other side. If arbitration is the reason these companies exists, it seems like bad deal. Maybe they sell an illusion?
Have you considered that the possibility of disputes and the existence of a framework for resolving them is part of the reason for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been paying and being paid for decades now, and I have never involved a payment processor in a dispute I had with the other side. If arbitration is the reason these companies exists, it seems like bad deal. Maybe they sell an illusion?
I've used banks and cards to help resolve fraud. Rarely, but I love it. And now the bank pushed me to use Zelle - which has zero protection.
Also channeling patio11 [1]: This is actually a pretty interesting ongoing experiment as to whether banks can opt out of Regulation E.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
by being the digital rails. without visa/mc, all you have in your wallet is a piece of useless plastic. there's huge value in the convenience of not having to use cash, and then the rewards programs on top of that.
Sure but that's not why Visa/MC are worth that much. They're worth that much because they're a duopoly that can dictate prices.
Prices that are capped by the government:
The Fed’s 2011 rules capped fees at 21 cents plus five basis points of each transaction, and also allowed an additional one cent fee per transaction for fraud prevention, where applicable.[0]
[0] - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/biden-takes-on-visa-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] it would force people to be honest in order to eat. But how do I detect honesty in first interaction with an unknown party? > [...] people will avoid hiring you or buying from you if you have a bad reputation [...] As a merchant, what if I have no reputation? How do I ever get my first customer? > EBay has already proven, too, that most people are honest by default [...] ...on a centralized platform that can…
> But how do I detect honesty in first interaction with an unknown party? It should be obvious. The guy who shows up to your intro meeting well-dressed, prepared, etc with references is going to be preferable to the guy who shows up smelling like vodka in tattered clothes. > As a merchant, what if I have no reputation? How do I ever get my first customer? The same way you do under the current system. Go work for some…
Do you regularly hold in-person intro meetings for ordering sub-$100 items online?
> Go work for someone else to build up credentials/experience, or, offer to do stuff for free in exchange for referrals and testimonials.
And then passport it to my own store how, exactly? "Trust me, I'm honestseller897 on Amazon/eBay"?
>> on a centralized platform that can arbitrate trust!
> Can, but often doesn't need to.
The fact that it does, when required, is the reason for rarely needing to.