6 ms·
Permission to fail, granted Which is what I like most about that ecosystem, just do it, accept the consequences, rapidly iterate to something more resilient
by vmception 4y ago
Permission to fail, granted
Which is what I like most about that ecosystem, just do it, accept the consequences, rapidly iterate to something more resilient
- aaronbrethorst 4y agoLike the US dollar, perhaps?
- VWWHFSfQ 4y ago> Like the US dollar We're going on 10+ years of failed cryptoscams now and people on the internet are still saying goofy stuff like this as if it has any meaning whatsoever in the real world or are in any way similar.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoI think you may have misread the GP. I think the point may have been that the US dollar was the "something more resilient".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vmception 4y agoif GP is referring to me, I wasn't making that point, I was mostly thinking about how ideation in the crypto space rapidly evolves because people are willing to try, all levels of the stack improve, consumers and investors rapidly become more discerning. lifecycles that are decades long in other markets play out in months or weeks in the crypto space.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoNo, "GP" referred to the grandparent of my post, which was aaronbrethorst.
- aaronbrethorst 4y agoYou read my comment accurately.
- skinnymuch 4y agoWhat has evolved? Smart contracts? Algorithm over people? Decentralized? NFTs? These things don’t hold water when situations like Ethereum reverse their major hack by forking and having everyone follow along goes against the ethos of crypto. One could argue it’s closer to centralized than decentralized because of the fork, the founder having so much control and influence, going to PoS. It’s hard for me to see how any levels of the stack have improved, and 100% am sure consumers and investors have become less discerning, not more over crypto’s near 15 year history.
- wolverine876 4y agoWhat about the people losing money? Also, that statement implies that these are all honest efforts, not scams.
- vmception 4y ago> What about the people losing money? try not to, as with everything else. > Also, that statement implies that these are all honest efforts, not scams. it doesn't imply that at all. it implies that its an individual discernment issue. anybody can still go blow it all on a casino or Reg CF securities offerings, unless they are richer, then they have a few additional choices to blow it all.
- wolverine876 4y ago> anybody can still go blow it all on a casino or Reg CF securities offerings, unless they are richer, then they have a few additional choices to blow it all. That implies all risk is the same, which is a way to normalize scams, negligence, and irresponsibility. Casinos and regular security offerings are generally honest about what they offer and are regulated.
- vmception 4y agowhich changes nothing about the user experience where some massive fraud decades ago resulted in an extra paragraph in the 30 pages of disclaimers and some regulator smugly sitting at their corner desk thinking "ah, in this moment, I am euphoric, consumers are protected"
- wolverine876 4y agoYes, fewer scams and less negligence dramatically changes user experience.
- ShamelessC 4y agoThey think that they flaws of the incumbent system justify any flaws in the new one, without realizing the burden is on them to prove the new system doesn't posses _all_ of the problems (and more) of the original. I think "whataboutism" describes the situation well. See it a lot with the crypto crowd. Clearly a lot of cognitive dissonance going on there.
- sweezyjeezy 4y ago> accept the consequences "I accept that I have lost all of our users a lot of money, soz". There's a lot of vulnerable people losing a lot of money on crypto, I've yet to see how any of this is good for society.
- tlb 4y agoThe immediate effect is that money is transferred from people who are bad at predicting the future to people who are good at predicting the future. Not in every case, of course, but in aggregate. This is probably good for society, as it puts more capital in the hands of people who will invest in things that succeed rather than things that fail.
- 1270018080 4y agoEconomic natural selection?
- acchow 4y ago> The immediate effect is that money is transferred from people who are bad at predicting the future to people who are good at predicting the future After the crypto bubble collapses, I think what we'll discover is that it was a great mechanism to transfer wealth out of people who badly want to predict the future to people who have so much money that they don't really care how it plays out - it's just some small percentage hedge of their gigantic portfolio. This is one reason bubbles are so harmful to regular people - if they join in, they could lose their shirts. But the truly wealthy are just picking between years of underperforming returns vs risk.
- TheDong 4y ago"This is probably good for society, as it puts more capital in the hands of people who will invest in things that succeed" This argument doesn't clearly stand on its own in my opinion. It starts with the implicit assumption that profit is in fact a determiner of societal good, that a soup kitchen which gives away food is not doing any good since they have no profit, while an HFT firm who notices some minor inefficiency in the stock market and makes billions is doing lots of societal good, that the government maintaining roads is less good than a contractor who is able to profit 5x as much by over-charging the taxpayer. I think the increasing wealth divide is clearly good for the rich, but I question if it's good for society as a whole.