3 ms·
>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
by 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.
- HWR_14 4y ago> you have no idea, but you knew to switch Dai to all caps I wasn't unable to find anything about DAI/Compound. Google turned up results. I couldn't find succinct enough information to see why it would be uniquely different. > If you don't know what something is, and are unwilling to learn I don't have to read 1,000 pages on crystal focusing power with amethyst to dismiss it. At some point the burden is on you to explain simply enough why everything else sucks but this is different for me to continue.
- SilasX 4y agoAll you needed from that reference was that it was another stablecoin and platform that was on solid grounding and didn’t collapse, which was implicit from the original context. It wasn’t a huge leap or research burden.
- HWR_14 4y agoIt was claimed that it obviously didn't have the same structural issues as Terra/Luna. That is in no way > All you needed from that reference was that it was another stablecoin and platform that was on solid grounding and didn’t collapse,
- SilasX 4y agoDon’t lose sight of the main point: arcticbull was claiming he “told you so”. He obviously didn’t. If you’re ready to accept that there’s a big difference between the two cryptocurrencies that needs research to understand, then you accept that he had no good faith basis to claim to “have told you so” in his comment history, because he didn’t do the research either.