4 ms·

I truly appreciate your experience and cynicism here. People who haven't worked in financial markets have a hard time appreciating how deep the muck can get. Wh

I truly appreciate your experience and cynicism here. People who haven't worked in financial markets have a hard time appreciating how deep the muck can get. Which makes them especially valuable suckers for the unregulated markets.

cobertos 5y ago
Still remember going to a crypto meetup and met an older guy who worked at Arthur Andersen (auditor of Enron). Told me "you know what those Oak Doors stand for right? Your financial secrets never leave the firm." Was blown away
ckastner 5y ago
> People who haven't worked in financial markets have a hard time appreciating how deep the muck can get. That's the main reason why I find the battle cry of "decentralization" so comically ironic. No government can control crypto, how awesome and empowering! When the truth is that the vast amount of control that we've seen develop in the past century (and especially in the past two decades) were just to protect people from said muck. [Edit] Or, as a practical comparison, think of the act of raising money from investors. Centralized: Please file a detailed report with the relevant authority in which you list, among other things, all possible risks and challenges that you foresee and how this could harm investors. Decentralized: LOL YOU APES, DIAMOND HANDS TO THE MOON!
- benreesman 5y ago
  You have a lot more faith in the IPO underwriting process than I do. They don’t call it a “pop” for nothing.
  - ckastner 5y ago
    Not at all. I'm just saying that the other process is much, much worse than that.
    - ravar 5y ago
      thats like, your opinion bro. In all seriousness I am ok with crypto punishing gamblers, eventually people will learn to stay away from it, or be forced to stay away from it because they have nothing left to gamble. I don't see how this is more morally repugnant than casinos which are legally accessible in most of the US.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        It's more morally repugnant because it's much less transparent. Casinos are exploitative misery factories and I'd be happy to see them vanish forever. But they're at least carefully regulated to exploit people at an agreed-upon level and with all the rules known beforehand.
        ravar 5y ago
        Personally I am ok with both crypto and Casinos existing, just because some people are stupid doesn't mean i should have my freedoms restricted. Stupid Should Hurt. As an aside crypto has the potential to change the world for the better if it ever becomes used as a real currency. I think the people that stand to lose in that situation love spreading FUD about crypto. However it is probably not bitcoin that is going to become that imho, but rather some POS coin.
        wpietri 5y ago
        Perhaps consider that this isn't about just you? It's bad for society to let scam artists operate unfettered. It doesn't just harm the scammed. For one, you've given terrible people more money to run bigger scams. Two, it misdirects resources to negative-sum activity. Third and most broadly, it reduces trust in anything that looks vaguely similar, which increases transactional friction and reduces available investment capital, making society poorer as a whole. And that's before we even get to your illusion that you are safe from being scammed because only stupid people get suckered and you're one of the smart ones. There are scams for everybody. The whole "crypto" space is proof of that.
        5y ago
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Companies are free to direct list without underwriters and even issue new shares in the process. I'm not sure what a "pop" (the idea that prices often go up on listing) has to do with anything. It generally means that the company underpriced its equity but by no means does this always happen. Are you referring to a greenshoe? There's some misinformation there too, but it serves a purpose, too. [1] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/08/greenshoe-option-ipo.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/08/gree...
    - azemetre 5y ago
      I think they may be referring to the "pop" some tech companies have gotten lately where they may have been purposely undervalued so when they IPO they get a nice 5-10% "boost" and good publicity when they open.
      - okhobb 5y ago
        IPO "pop" is a bit of pejorative usually referring to the deliberate underpricing of an IPO so that the investment bankers' big clients can get a quick profit, the difference between the IPO price and the first available exchange price. In the context of this thread, an example of Wall Street sleaze.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    perfect is the enemy of the good. it's not an infallible process, but some checking is better than zero
- eric_cc 5y ago
  > the truth is that the vast amount of control that we've seen develop in the past century (and especially in the past two decades) were just to protect people from said muck. Think of the children! Do you really believe the vast amount of centralized control is to protect the poor stupid people? I think this is an incredibly naive and gullible take. The vast amount of controls in place are to solidify power amongst the powerful.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Two things can be true at the same time. Power systems do tend to work for the powerful. But that doesn't mean they can't also be valuable to everybody. Or even valuable to the average person much more than the powerful person. Look, for example, at food regulation. Anybody who has worked in a restaurant can tell you a) how important food safety is, and b) how much health department regulations contribute to keeping them effective. That's good for almost everybody, but it's most valuable to those who buy food from low-end restaurants, where the incentive to cheat is strongest and where the clientele is low on political power.
    - freedomben 5y ago
      It seems pretty hard to me to look at charts of inflation, income inequality, and quantitative easing and compare them to stock market values and not see how the system is allowing the rich and powerful to use inflation to suck money away from everyone not heavily in the market (especially the poor as inflation is a highly regressive tax) and into their own pockets through increases in valuation. And then look at the barriers that regulation throws against the average person to keep them from the most lucrative investments (like required accreditation) and protecting the people stops feeling like a primary (or even tertiary) goal. I don't doubt that initial push for regulation was at least in part to protect people from the sharks, but it sure doesn't seem like that's the driving motivation anymore.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        > look at the barriers that regulation throws against the average person to keep them from the most lucrative investments (like required accreditation) If anything, the accredited investor standard is proof that regulation doesn't favor the powerful. Taken as a whole, those aren't the most lucrative investments. They're the riskiest. The whole theory behind it is that if somebody is rich enough we won't try to protect them as much from scams; they're presumed to be sufficiently sophisticated and well resourced that it's their own problem. I agree inflation is a problem, but you can't use that to prove much about the regulatory system, because a) inflation was low and stable for a long time, only increasing due to pandemic-driven disruptions, b) the wealthy are the ones yelling the loudest about pinching off inflation pronto, and c) the classic way to stop an inflationary surge is performative "austerity", which is much more disruptive to the poor than to the rich.
- beloch 5y ago
  When half of the people responsible for regulating markets are, instead, using insider knowledge to make a killing at day-trading, it's hard to trust the system. So, the natural response is to build a new system that can be made to dance on strings by people you don't even know the identities of. It doesn't exactly seem like progress, does it?
  - mcguire 5y ago
    You are assuming the two systems are equivalent.
    - BlueTemplar 5y ago
      Ironically a lot of people that would have before criticized Wall Street now seem to be spending more effort criticizing cryptocurrencies ? (Even though they are the same kind of people that created and popularized cryptocurrencies to deal with Wall Street's issues in the first place ?)
      - wpietri 5y ago
        I have no problem criticizing both. Indeed, one good criticism of cryptocurrencies is that the are sucking up a lot of the attention and money that could go into actual reform. For example, contrast Bitcoin usage in emerging markets with something like M-Pesa. They both started at the same time, but M-Pesa has been a huge boon to the unbanked, whereas Bitcoin is a rounding error in those markets.
        BlueTemplar 5y ago
        Any good source to learn what M-Pesa is ?
        wpietri 5y ago
        Help me understand what you need beyond what you'd get from the top 10 Google hits. Because I see 4 or 5 sources there that seem good to me.
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  It's really great that people who don't have tens of millions of dollars to burn can't access L2 market data. It does a lot to promote fair and efficient markets.

cobertos 5y ago

Still remember going to a crypto meetup and met an older guy who worked at Arthur Andersen (auditor of Enron). Told me "you know what those Oak Doors stand for right? Your financial secrets never leave the firm." Was blown away

ckastner 5y ago

> People who haven't worked in financial markets have a hard time appreciating how deep the muck can get. That's the main reason why I find the battle cry of "decentralization" so comically ironic. No government can control crypto, how awesome and empowering! When the truth is that the vast amount of control that we've seen develop in the past century (and especially in the past two decades) were just to protect people from said muck. [Edit] Or, as a practical comparison, think of the act of raising money from investors. Centralized: Please file a detailed report with the relevant authority in which you list, among other things, all possible risks and challenges that you foresee and how this could harm investors. Decentralized: LOL YOU APES, DIAMOND HANDS TO THE MOON!

benreesman 5y ago
You have a lot more faith in the IPO underwriting process than I do. They don’t call it a “pop” for nothing.
- ckastner 5y ago
  Not at all. I'm just saying that the other process is much, much worse than that.
  - ravar 5y ago
    thats like, your opinion bro. In all seriousness I am ok with crypto punishing gamblers, eventually people will learn to stay away from it, or be forced to stay away from it because they have nothing left to gamble. I don't see how this is more morally repugnant than casinos which are legally accessible in most of the US.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      It's more morally repugnant because it's much less transparent. Casinos are exploitative misery factories and I'd be happy to see them vanish forever. But they're at least carefully regulated to exploit people at an agreed-upon level and with all the rules known beforehand.
      - ravar 5y ago
        Personally I am ok with both crypto and Casinos existing, just because some people are stupid doesn't mean i should have my freedoms restricted. Stupid Should Hurt. As an aside crypto has the potential to change the world for the better if it ever becomes used as a real currency. I think the people that stand to lose in that situation love spreading FUD about crypto. However it is probably not bitcoin that is going to become that imho, but rather some POS coin.
        wpietri 5y ago
        Perhaps consider that this isn't about just you? It's bad for society to let scam artists operate unfettered. It doesn't just harm the scammed. For one, you've given terrible people more money to run bigger scams. Two, it misdirects resources to negative-sum activity. Third and most broadly, it reduces trust in anything that looks vaguely similar, which increases transactional friction and reduces available investment capital, making society poorer as a whole. And that's before we even get to your illusion that you are safe from being scammed because only stupid people get suckered and you're one of the smart ones. There are scams for everybody. The whole "crypto" space is proof of that.
      - 5y ago
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Companies are free to direct list without underwriters and even issue new shares in the process. I'm not sure what a "pop" (the idea that prices often go up on listing) has to do with anything. It generally means that the company underpriced its equity but by no means does this always happen. Are you referring to a greenshoe? There's some misinformation there too, but it serves a purpose, too. [1] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/08/greenshoe-option-ipo.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/08/gree...
  - azemetre 5y ago
    I think they may be referring to the "pop" some tech companies have gotten lately where they may have been purposely undervalued so when they IPO they get a nice 5-10% "boost" and good publicity when they open.
    - okhobb 5y ago
      IPO "pop" is a bit of pejorative usually referring to the deliberate underpricing of an IPO so that the investment bankers' big clients can get a quick profit, the difference between the IPO price and the first available exchange price. In the context of this thread, an example of Wall Street sleaze.
- fragmede 5y ago
  perfect is the enemy of the good. it's not an infallible process, but some checking is better than zero
eric_cc 5y ago
> the truth is that the vast amount of control that we've seen develop in the past century (and especially in the past two decades) were just to protect people from said muck. Think of the children! Do you really believe the vast amount of centralized control is to protect the poor stupid people? I think this is an incredibly naive and gullible take. The vast amount of controls in place are to solidify power amongst the powerful.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Two things can be true at the same time. Power systems do tend to work for the powerful. But that doesn't mean they can't also be valuable to everybody. Or even valuable to the average person much more than the powerful person. Look, for example, at food regulation. Anybody who has worked in a restaurant can tell you a) how important food safety is, and b) how much health department regulations contribute to keeping them effective. That's good for almost everybody, but it's most valuable to those who buy food from low-end restaurants, where the incentive to cheat is strongest and where the clientele is low on political power.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    It seems pretty hard to me to look at charts of inflation, income inequality, and quantitative easing and compare them to stock market values and not see how the system is allowing the rich and powerful to use inflation to suck money away from everyone not heavily in the market (especially the poor as inflation is a highly regressive tax) and into their own pockets through increases in valuation. And then look at the barriers that regulation throws against the average person to keep them from the most lucrative investments (like required accreditation) and protecting the people stops feeling like a primary (or even tertiary) goal. I don't doubt that initial push for regulation was at least in part to protect people from the sharks, but it sure doesn't seem like that's the driving motivation anymore.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      > look at the barriers that regulation throws against the average person to keep them from the most lucrative investments (like required accreditation) If anything, the accredited investor standard is proof that regulation doesn't favor the powerful. Taken as a whole, those aren't the most lucrative investments. They're the riskiest. The whole theory behind it is that if somebody is rich enough we won't try to protect them as much from scams; they're presumed to be sufficiently sophisticated and well resourced that it's their own problem. I agree inflation is a problem, but you can't use that to prove much about the regulatory system, because a) inflation was low and stable for a long time, only increasing due to pandemic-driven disruptions, b) the wealthy are the ones yelling the loudest about pinching off inflation pronto, and c) the classic way to stop an inflationary surge is performative "austerity", which is much more disruptive to the poor than to the rich.
beloch 5y ago
When half of the people responsible for regulating markets are, instead, using insider knowledge to make a killing at day-trading, it's hard to trust the system. So, the natural response is to build a new system that can be made to dance on strings by people you don't even know the identities of. It doesn't exactly seem like progress, does it?
- mcguire 5y ago
  You are assuming the two systems are equivalent.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    Ironically a lot of people that would have before criticized Wall Street now seem to be spending more effort criticizing cryptocurrencies ? (Even though they are the same kind of people that created and popularized cryptocurrencies to deal with Wall Street's issues in the first place ?)
    - wpietri 5y ago
      I have no problem criticizing both. Indeed, one good criticism of cryptocurrencies is that the are sucking up a lot of the attention and money that could go into actual reform. For example, contrast Bitcoin usage in emerging markets with something like M-Pesa. They both started at the same time, but M-Pesa has been a huge boon to the unbanked, whereas Bitcoin is a rounding error in those markets.
      - BlueTemplar 5y ago
        Any good source to learn what M-Pesa is ?
        wpietri 5y ago
        Help me understand what you need beyond what you'd get from the top 10 Google hits. Because I see 4 or 5 sources there that seem good to me.
anonymoushn 5y ago
It's really great that people who don't have tens of millions of dollars to burn can't access L2 market data. It does a lot to promote fair and efficient markets.