3 ms·

> supposedly smart engineers Imo its clear that a lot of the critical discourse has radicalized to such a degree that it is essentially taken as a given that t

> supposedly smart engineers Imo its clear that a lot of the critical discourse has radicalized to such a degree that it is essentially taken as a given that there are no smart engineers in crypto. You then obviously don't need to ask yourself this question.

codeflo 5y ago
No, the critics’ claim is that there are no ethical smart engineers in crypto. Quite an important distinction.
- exdsq 5y ago
  Sam Bankman-Fried is the perfect argument against this. He went into crypto because of ethical reasons (to make a shit ton of money and donate it to the most effective charities and organizations, he's prominent in Effective Altruism circles). I think he's the richest 29 year old ever? Maybe Zuckerberg beat him, but $22.5Bn isn't bad in 3.5 years!
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I'm not so sure. When, as currently, that wealth is generated based on the losses of speculators, the conned, or simply poorly informed, then I'd class Bankman-Fried into the robber-baron class who sought to cement their legacies with philanthropic endeavors instead of their ruthless practices. The means by which they accumulate their wealth are the lens through which we should view their "good works".
    - exdsq 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure - he was donating 50% of his salary at Jane Street prior to starting his current crypto endeavors and has pledged to donate basically everything over the next few years, of which he's already started. Initially staff at his companies had to donate regularly, 1% of fees from his companies are donated, and he advocates others in the space to do the same. The guy basically lives in his office eating fried veg and rice playing League of Legends in his downtime. That money is being made for charities and predominantly comes by enabling trading, which I don't believe is ethically wrong (his general good, in a utilitarian sense, is definitely higher than any qualms one might have against crypto anyway).
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        >comes by enabling trading As of now, trading is mostly gambling with a side show of money laundering. Enabling it puts him on the level of a casino empire. I'm not inherently against gambling, but I also wouldn't consider a person to be a saint for plowing 1% of their casino empire's revenue-- or even most of its profits-- into philanthropy.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  I mean, there's a massive moral claim for Nick to make, without providing any evidence to back that up.
exdsq 5y ago
Which is sad because the best engineers I've ever worked with or met was due to this space. Still slightly stung by Diehl's article on 'The Haskell Elephant in the Room' that attacked a load of my colleagues prior to his edits last year.
coffeefirst 5y ago
On the contrary, I’m confident they’re brilliant, but that doesn’t mean their vision is going to work in practice.

codeflo 5y ago

No, the critics’ claim is that there are no ethical smart engineers in crypto. Quite an important distinction.

exdsq 5y ago
Sam Bankman-Fried is the perfect argument against this. He went into crypto because of ethical reasons (to make a shit ton of money and donate it to the most effective charities and organizations, he's prominent in Effective Altruism circles). I think he's the richest 29 year old ever? Maybe Zuckerberg beat him, but $22.5Bn isn't bad in 3.5 years!
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I'm not so sure. When, as currently, that wealth is generated based on the losses of speculators, the conned, or simply poorly informed, then I'd class Bankman-Fried into the robber-baron class who sought to cement their legacies with philanthropic endeavors instead of their ruthless practices. The means by which they accumulate their wealth are the lens through which we should view their "good works".
  - exdsq 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure - he was donating 50% of his salary at Jane Street prior to starting his current crypto endeavors and has pledged to donate basically everything over the next few years, of which he's already started. Initially staff at his companies had to donate regularly, 1% of fees from his companies are donated, and he advocates others in the space to do the same. The guy basically lives in his office eating fried veg and rice playing League of Legends in his downtime. That money is being made for charities and predominantly comes by enabling trading, which I don't believe is ethically wrong (his general good, in a utilitarian sense, is definitely higher than any qualms one might have against crypto anyway).
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      >comes by enabling trading As of now, trading is mostly gambling with a side show of money laundering. Enabling it puts him on the level of a casino empire. I'm not inherently against gambling, but I also wouldn't consider a person to be a saint for plowing 1% of their casino empire's revenue-- or even most of its profits-- into philanthropy.
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
I mean, there's a massive moral claim for Nick to make, without providing any evidence to back that up.

exdsq 5y ago

Which is sad because the best engineers I've ever worked with or met was due to this space. Still slightly stung by Diehl's article on 'The Haskell Elephant in the Room' that attacked a load of my colleagues prior to his edits last year.

coffeefirst 5y ago

On the contrary, I’m confident they’re brilliant, but that doesn’t mean their vision is going to work in practice.