5 ms·

The article summarizes crypto’s cardinal sins. Chiefly: > Ethereum has made a handful of white men unfathomably rich So if it were a handful of Indian women i

The article summarizes crypto’s cardinal sins. Chiefly: > Ethereum has made a handful of white men unfathomably rich So if it were a handful of Indian women it would be better? More to the point, what was the author’s point? Are we to believe that the white men who’ve gotten rich on crypto did something untoward to get those riches? And if so, did they do the bad thing because of their genitalia skin color? It is stunning that these kinds of lazy, unexamined biases are accepted in non-fringe media outlets.

ploden 5y ago
- next_xibalba 5y ago
  Which idea(s), specifically, would you be downvoting? My GP comment has net negative votes, so it seems you're not alone. But, since you commented on downvoting it, I'm curious what I've written that warrants a downvote.
  - wepple 5y ago
    EDIT: I did not realize I was responding to the wrong comment. Leaving mine intact to avoid speculation. I did not downvote your comment. Please do not make completely unfounded assumptions like that. Downvotes are for comments that do not add to the conversation (and should not be used for things you may disagree with), and my response clearly shows that I chose to continue the conversation because I believe it’s worthy of discussion and exploration as a topic.
hobozilla 5y ago
The point is that it's made a group of people that are already generally rich, richer. If it made a group of Indian women it would be marginally better as there aren't as many rich Indian women as there are rich white men. Either way, I think the bigger point is that it's made a small number of people very wealthy.
- ricochet11 5y ago
  I'd be willing to bet crypto has made more Indian women rich than all the silicon valley startups combined. So its probably a move in the right direction?
- olalonde 5y ago
  Aside from the fact that "white men" isn't a meaningful "group of people", the majority of people who became rich from crypto were not rich to begin with. In the early days, it was mostly nerds, programmers and young people who became interested in the technology. VCs and wealthy investors were relatively late to the party.
  - newacc9 5y ago
    A lot of "sound money", goldbug types got in early like Trace Mayer and Max Kaiser and SV guys who had a lot of time on their hands because they were rich from some earlier Internet thing, like Richard Heart and the Winklevosses.
    - olalonde 5y ago
      A lot did but they were vastly outnumbered by average geeks.
wepple 5y ago
A lot of people have long believed in cryptos ability to encourage decentralization and equality. And to disassemble existing power structures which predominantly benefit a very small collection of people. It has wildly failed those goals if it’s merely achieved the same outcome as, say, wall st banking.
pdpi 5y ago
Yes, a handful of indian women would've been better. A major goal for cryptocurrencies as they were initially conceived is that they're a tool for social change. Becoming yet another investment vehicle for the people who already have access to a wealth of investment tools is a complete failure to achieve that goal.
SodiumMerchant0 5y ago
- next_xibalba 5y ago
throwawayp0rn 5y ago
> It is stunning that these kinds of lazy, unexamined biases are accepted in non-fringe media outlets. It is what it is. With crypto you have all the tools to stay under the radar, it's the main selling point. It's always white men who are not happy with just the riches but feel the enormous need to spew whatever opionion they have through traditional media and the interwebz. You can't complain that journalists who are essentially haters and believe people are inherently bad (much like cops, detectives and attorney generals) then single you out as the bad guys when they inevitably come to the space and have to write a piece on it. Just to give a quick example from non-crypto industries: nobody is calling out Sergey Brin, Larry Page or the French guy at the helm of LVMH. That's because their jewish heritage coherently suggested them to just be happy having more money than God, stay under the radar instead of pursuing attention and sociopolitical clout.

ploden 5y ago

next_xibalba 5y ago
Which idea(s), specifically, would you be downvoting? My GP comment has net negative votes, so it seems you're not alone. But, since you commented on downvoting it, I'm curious what I've written that warrants a downvote.
- wepple 5y ago
  EDIT: I did not realize I was responding to the wrong comment. Leaving mine intact to avoid speculation. I did not downvote your comment. Please do not make completely unfounded assumptions like that. Downvotes are for comments that do not add to the conversation (and should not be used for things you may disagree with), and my response clearly shows that I chose to continue the conversation because I believe it’s worthy of discussion and exploration as a topic.

hobozilla 5y ago

The point is that it's made a group of people that are already generally rich, richer. If it made a group of Indian women it would be marginally better as there aren't as many rich Indian women as there are rich white men. Either way, I think the bigger point is that it's made a small number of people very wealthy.

ricochet11 5y ago
I'd be willing to bet crypto has made more Indian women rich than all the silicon valley startups combined. So its probably a move in the right direction?
olalonde 5y ago
Aside from the fact that "white men" isn't a meaningful "group of people", the majority of people who became rich from crypto were not rich to begin with. In the early days, it was mostly nerds, programmers and young people who became interested in the technology. VCs and wealthy investors were relatively late to the party.
- newacc9 5y ago
  A lot of "sound money", goldbug types got in early like Trace Mayer and Max Kaiser and SV guys who had a lot of time on their hands because they were rich from some earlier Internet thing, like Richard Heart and the Winklevosses.
  - olalonde 5y ago
    A lot did but they were vastly outnumbered by average geeks.

wepple 5y ago

A lot of people have long believed in cryptos ability to encourage decentralization and equality. And to disassemble existing power structures which predominantly benefit a very small collection of people. It has wildly failed those goals if it’s merely achieved the same outcome as, say, wall st banking.

pdpi 5y ago

Yes, a handful of indian women would've been better. A major goal for cryptocurrencies as they were initially conceived is that they're a tool for social change. Becoming yet another investment vehicle for the people who already have access to a wealth of investment tools is a complete failure to achieve that goal.

SodiumMerchant0 5y ago

next_xibalba 5y ago

throwawayp0rn 5y ago

> It is stunning that these kinds of lazy, unexamined biases are accepted in non-fringe media outlets. It is what it is. With crypto you have all the tools to stay under the radar, it's the main selling point. It's always white men who are not happy with just the riches but feel the enormous need to spew whatever opionion they have through traditional media and the interwebz. You can't complain that journalists who are essentially haters and believe people are inherently bad (much like cops, detectives and attorney generals) then single you out as the bad guys when they inevitably come to the space and have to write a piece on it. Just to give a quick example from non-crypto industries: nobody is calling out Sergey Brin, Larry Page or the French guy at the helm of LVMH. That's because their jewish heritage coherently suggested them to just be happy having more money than God, stay under the radar instead of pursuing attention and sociopolitical clout.