5 ms·

Jack Dorsey has nothing to gain by influencing bitcoin besides increasing awareness about crypto. The man is as rich as anyone would like to be, and seems to be

Jack Dorsey has nothing to gain by influencing bitcoin besides increasing awareness about crypto. The man is as rich as anyone would like to be, and seems to be one of the few billionaires interested in increasing adoption of decentralized technology. I’m not saying he’s perfect but when it comes to billionaires, he seems to be quite mindful of his impact on the world and he’s probably one of the least bad for our future.

lapcat 4y ago
> The man is as rich as anyone would like to be It's never enough for them. Money is power. At a certain level of wealth you run out of things to buy, but you never run out of people to buy.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Glad you are a mind reader. You should put that power to work for good
  - lapcat 4y ago
    Money is power, is it not? One doesn't need to be a mind reader to note that. My point is that there may be an effective limit to material wealth, but there's no limit to power, and thus there's reason to continue accumulating wealth even when your material desires are all satisfied. The OP said "Jack Dorsey has nothing to gain". I think that's false. I'm not attempting to read Dorsey's mind. I'm just saying there is in fact something to gain by accumulating more money.
    - listless 4y ago
      Winning never gets old. Even when it IS about the money, it’s first and foremost about winning.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      You are assuming that the accumulation of money and power is the primary motivation, opposed to a byproduct or simply a means to an end. >I'm not attempting to read Dorsey's mind. I'm just saying there is in fact something to gain by accumulating more money. It seems like you were doing a lot more than making a theoretical point. "It's never enough for them."
      - thatguy0900 4y ago
        I'm not convinced you can accrue a billion dollars as a byproduct. At some point you are giving yourself raises on purpose.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        The OP said "Dorsey has nothing to gain" and "he seems to be quite mindful", yet for some reason you criticize me for purportedly being a mind reader, but not the OP. Why is that? > You are assuming that the accumulation of money and power is the primary motivation, opposed to a byproduct or simply a means to an end. Power can be a means to an end. It can be a means to many ends. I never assumed it wasn't. I was disputing "Dorsey has nothing to gain". > It seems like you were doing a lot more than making a theoretical point. > "It's never enough for them." Well, it's an observation about the ultra-wealthy, as a group. They never seem to give up trying to accumulate more money, despite already having vastly more than they would rationally need.
        stevejobs69 4y ago
        >The OP said "Dorsey has nothing to gain" and "he seems to be quite mindful", yet for some reason you criticize me for purportedly being a mind reader, but not the OP. Why is that? It is extremely obvious that the other guy was merely giving his opinion, whereas you were presenting your opinion as a fact.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > It is extremely obvious that the other guy was merely giving his opinion, whereas you were presenting your opinion as a fact. What's the difference? Isn't everyone presenting their opinion as a fact? They certainly aren't presenting their opinion as falsehood. There seems to be a double standard applied to the OP and me. Also "It is extremely obvious that" is presenting your opinion as a fact, is it not?
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    There's a pretty robust tradition of trying to decipher the motivations of the wealthy and powerful going back to, idk, ecclesiastes at least. I don't think they're claiming to have a novel or unique insight into anyone's mind, just an exposure to the patterns of behavior of similarly motivated people over time. It remains a useful point despite your attempt at dismissing it as inherently preposterous. Dorsey pursues certain things likely to make him richer, yet most people do not see how he could derive more value from being richer. Resolving this tension will probably give insight into what he's likely to do and how it may affect us, a power he truly does have. It's neither foolish, nor useless, nor hubris for them to offer that guess, unlike your comment which was all three.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think that reducing every action the rich take to a quest for more money and power is the foolish and simple minded heuristic. It isn't even an analysis as much as a mantra.
cplusplusfellow 4y ago
With respect to DeFi - I hope. With respect to censorship, I can’t agree.

lapcat 4y ago

> The man is as rich as anyone would like to be It's never enough for them. Money is power. At a certain level of wealth you run out of things to buy, but you never run out of people to buy.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Glad you are a mind reader. You should put that power to work for good
- lapcat 4y ago
  Money is power, is it not? One doesn't need to be a mind reader to note that. My point is that there may be an effective limit to material wealth, but there's no limit to power, and thus there's reason to continue accumulating wealth even when your material desires are all satisfied. The OP said "Jack Dorsey has nothing to gain". I think that's false. I'm not attempting to read Dorsey's mind. I'm just saying there is in fact something to gain by accumulating more money.
  - listless 4y ago
    Winning never gets old. Even when it IS about the money, it’s first and foremost about winning.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    You are assuming that the accumulation of money and power is the primary motivation, opposed to a byproduct or simply a means to an end. >I'm not attempting to read Dorsey's mind. I'm just saying there is in fact something to gain by accumulating more money. It seems like you were doing a lot more than making a theoretical point. "It's never enough for them."
    - thatguy0900 4y ago
      I'm not convinced you can accrue a billion dollars as a byproduct. At some point you are giving yourself raises on purpose.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      The OP said "Dorsey has nothing to gain" and "he seems to be quite mindful", yet for some reason you criticize me for purportedly being a mind reader, but not the OP. Why is that? > You are assuming that the accumulation of money and power is the primary motivation, opposed to a byproduct or simply a means to an end. Power can be a means to an end. It can be a means to many ends. I never assumed it wasn't. I was disputing "Dorsey has nothing to gain". > It seems like you were doing a lot more than making a theoretical point. > "It's never enough for them." Well, it's an observation about the ultra-wealthy, as a group. They never seem to give up trying to accumulate more money, despite already having vastly more than they would rationally need.
      - stevejobs69 4y ago
        >The OP said "Dorsey has nothing to gain" and "he seems to be quite mindful", yet for some reason you criticize me for purportedly being a mind reader, but not the OP. Why is that? It is extremely obvious that the other guy was merely giving his opinion, whereas you were presenting your opinion as a fact.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > It is extremely obvious that the other guy was merely giving his opinion, whereas you were presenting your opinion as a fact. What's the difference? Isn't everyone presenting their opinion as a fact? They certainly aren't presenting their opinion as falsehood. There seems to be a double standard applied to the OP and me. Also "It is extremely obvious that" is presenting your opinion as a fact, is it not?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  There's a pretty robust tradition of trying to decipher the motivations of the wealthy and powerful going back to, idk, ecclesiastes at least. I don't think they're claiming to have a novel or unique insight into anyone's mind, just an exposure to the patterns of behavior of similarly motivated people over time. It remains a useful point despite your attempt at dismissing it as inherently preposterous. Dorsey pursues certain things likely to make him richer, yet most people do not see how he could derive more value from being richer. Resolving this tension will probably give insight into what he's likely to do and how it may affect us, a power he truly does have. It's neither foolish, nor useless, nor hubris for them to offer that guess, unlike your comment which was all three.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think that reducing every action the rich take to a quest for more money and power is the foolish and simple minded heuristic. It isn't even an analysis as much as a mantra.

cplusplusfellow 4y ago

With respect to DeFi - I hope. With respect to censorship, I can’t agree.