4 ms·

Who did you tell?

by dubswithus 4y ago

Who did you tell?

arcticbull 4y ago
You're welcome to review my post history.
- dubswithus 4y ago
  Do you also welcome retail investors that haven’t heard of HN?
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Welcome? Not sure what you mean. I maintain a similarly opinionated Twitter feed. It’s also to be clear not my responsibility. This whole “nobody could have known” is as asinine as it was predictable.
    - dubswithus 4y ago
      There’s a lot of grumbling on HN and on Twitter but most won’t hear it.
- SilasX 4y ago
  Okay, I’ll bite. Your comment history doesn’t have you mentioning Terra, TerraUSD, or Luna before May 9, e.g. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=author%3Aarcticbull%20Luna&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... You just made generic anti-crypto recommendations, some of which look good in hindsight. That’s not the same as identifying the specific mechanism that proved to be Luna’s downfall; it’s more like being a permabear who predicted 8 of the last 3 stock market crashes. You can likewise claim to have “told you so” about Dai’s collapse, with equally good epistemic grounding.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Why can't I rely on "avoid crypto, it's a scam"? I have to identify every new coin and it's mechanism of failure?
    - SilasX 4y ago
      For the reason I just gave: it would mean that others could say “I told you so” about Dai/Compound etc not crashing. If it’s still not clear, imagine I was always saying the stock market is a scam and would collapse. Do I get credit for predicting Netflix’s recent tumble? Even if it happened for completely unrelated reasons to the mechanisms of collapse I was warning about? It’s fine to be risk-averse and avoid crypto as a rule; that’s not the same thing as knowing Luna couldn’t work long-term.
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        > it would mean that others could say “I told you so” about Dai/Compound etc not crashing. No, they really cant. Like, I have no idea what DAI/Compound are, and trivial googling didn't answer. A random counterexample doesn't disprove every famous and/or high market cap coin crashing. To use your market example, if you kept saying tech stocks are overpriced we would judge it based on the performance of the NASDAQ. You wouldn't be able to say "well, Apple still convinces people to give them all their money and they're still doing well so you were wrong." Besides, it's not enough for the greater fools to continue to exist. There needs to be a credible mechanism for wealth to actually be created. > It’s fine to be risk-averse and avoid crypto as a rule Being risk-averse and avoiding crypto are different things. I don't touch crypto because I think it's a scam
        SilasX 4y ago
        >No, they really cant. Like, I have no idea what DAI/Compound are, and trivial googling didn't answer. Well ... yeah, that kinda highlights the problem. If you don't know what something is, and are unwilling to learn, and have a hard time with google[1], then no, you don't get to claim vindication as having wisely made an appropriate inference based on valid evidence. Hence my point. To fill you in: articbull's comments were vague enough to apply equally well to lending out the stablecoin DAI no the Compound platform, which did not crash or have to suspend withdrawals at any point. Also, you have no idea, but you knew to switch Dai to all caps? :-p I think you're switching modes. >A random counterexample doesn't disprove every famous and/or high market cap coin crashing. >To use your market example, if you kept saying tech stocks are overpriced we would judge it based on the performance of the NASDAQ. You wouldn't be able to say "well, Apple still convinces people to give them all their money and they're still doing well so you were wrong." Okay, and if you had been saying to avoid tech stocks for the past ten years, then you wouldn't be able to claim credit for the few times it does fall back, esp if it was up o average (hence my point about predicting 8 of the last three crashes). You definitely wouldn't be able to claim credit for "having warned" someone about a specific stock's fumble (like Netflix's unforced errors), if "tech bad" is all you were basing it on, which is what arcticbull was doing when claiming to have to have warned about Luna in his comments merely because of a general anti-crypto stance. >I don't touch crypto because I think it's a scam The point is that that's not the same as differential insight into which specific ones are scams and why. If some aren't scams, that makes you wrong about them, and inability to differentiate means you can't claim to have had deep insight even when some do turn out to be scams. IOW, you can be right for the wrong reasons, and if so, you can't claim that as vindication. [1] Also, really? "dai cryptocurrency" and "compound cryptocurrency" both take you directly to explanations of what they are. On google, the latter pops up a "what is compound..." question which, when expanded, explains that it's a protocol for lending and borrowing.

Who did you tell?

arcticbull 4y ago

You're welcome to review my post history.

dubswithus 4y ago
Do you also welcome retail investors that haven’t heard of HN?
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Welcome? Not sure what you mean. I maintain a similarly opinionated Twitter feed. It’s also to be clear not my responsibility. This whole “nobody could have known” is as asinine as it was predictable.
  - dubswithus 4y ago
    There’s a lot of grumbling on HN and on Twitter but most won’t hear it.
SilasX 4y ago
Okay, I’ll bite. Your comment history doesn’t have you mentioning Terra, TerraUSD, or Luna before May 9, e.g. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=author%3Aarcticbull%20Luna&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... You just made generic anti-crypto recommendations, some of which look good in hindsight. That’s not the same as identifying the specific mechanism that proved to be Luna’s downfall; it’s more like being a permabear who predicted 8 of the last 3 stock market crashes. You can likewise claim to have “told you so” about Dai’s collapse, with equally good epistemic grounding.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Why can't I rely on "avoid crypto, it's a scam"? I have to identify every new coin and it's mechanism of failure?
  - SilasX 4y ago
    For the reason I just gave: it would mean that others could say “I told you so” about Dai/Compound etc not crashing. If it’s still not clear, imagine I was always saying the stock market is a scam and would collapse. Do I get credit for predicting Netflix’s recent tumble? Even if it happened for completely unrelated reasons to the mechanisms of collapse I was warning about? It’s fine to be risk-averse and avoid crypto as a rule; that’s not the same thing as knowing Luna couldn’t work long-term.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > it would mean that others could say “I told you so” about Dai/Compound etc not crashing. No, they really cant. Like, I have no idea what DAI/Compound are, and trivial googling didn't answer. A random counterexample doesn't disprove every famous and/or high market cap coin crashing. To use your market example, if you kept saying tech stocks are overpriced we would judge it based on the performance of the NASDAQ. You wouldn't be able to say "well, Apple still convinces people to give them all their money and they're still doing well so you were wrong." Besides, it's not enough for the greater fools to continue to exist. There needs to be a credible mechanism for wealth to actually be created. > It’s fine to be risk-averse and avoid crypto as a rule Being risk-averse and avoiding crypto are different things. I don't touch crypto because I think it's a scam
      - SilasX 4y ago
        >No, they really cant. Like, I have no idea what DAI/Compound are, and trivial googling didn't answer. Well ... yeah, that kinda highlights the problem. If you don't know what something is, and are unwilling to learn, and have a hard time with google[1], then no, you don't get to claim vindication as having wisely made an appropriate inference based on valid evidence. Hence my point. To fill you in: articbull's comments were vague enough to apply equally well to lending out the stablecoin DAI no the Compound platform, which did not crash or have to suspend withdrawals at any point. Also, you have no idea, but you knew to switch Dai to all caps? :-p I think you're switching modes. >A random counterexample doesn't disprove every famous and/or high market cap coin crashing. >To use your market example, if you kept saying tech stocks are overpriced we would judge it based on the performance of the NASDAQ. You wouldn't be able to say "well, Apple still convinces people to give them all their money and they're still doing well so you were wrong." Okay, and if you had been saying to avoid tech stocks for the past ten years, then you wouldn't be able to claim credit for the few times it does fall back, esp if it was up o average (hence my point about predicting 8 of the last three crashes). You definitely wouldn't be able to claim credit for "having warned" someone about a specific stock's fumble (like Netflix's unforced errors), if "tech bad" is all you were basing it on, which is what arcticbull was doing when claiming to have to have warned about Luna in his comments merely because of a general anti-crypto stance. >I don't touch crypto because I think it's a scam The point is that that's not the same as differential insight into which specific ones are scams and why. If some aren't scams, that makes you wrong about them, and inability to differentiate means you can't claim to have had deep insight even when some do turn out to be scams. IOW, you can be right for the wrong reasons, and if so, you can't claim that as vindication. [1] Also, really? "dai cryptocurrency" and "compound cryptocurrency" both take you directly to explanations of what they are. On google, the latter pops up a "what is compound..." question which, when expanded, explains that it's a protocol for lending and borrowing.