3 ms·

I have no dog in the fight, but I did find it interesting that the top comment on HN for the Alameda article written by this very exact author was very similar

by np- 4y ago

I have no dog in the fight, but I did find it interesting that the top comment on HN for the Alameda article written by this very exact author was very similar in tone completely dismissing the article and saying it's total nonsense, and that the author knows nothing. As we all found out a few days later, the article was 100% on the nose. So reasonably, it seems we HN readers would have to take the total outright dismissal of this article with a grain of salt... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33464494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33464494

vgatherps 4y ago
Your link is to the parent post, not, me, but: “ nobody knows what the liabilities are. At one extreme, if the liabilities are all cash, alameda is in a dire place. At the other, if the liabilities are just the tokens on their balance sheet, there's nothing particularly interesting. “ Is obviously not a total dismissal - I’m on mobile so can’t scroll around to find my other one but it largely says the same thing. Also, if you can’t really imply anything other than “I’m a shill because I said the balance sheet wasn’t certain evidence of insolvency”, what’s the point? Shill accusations are explicitly called out by dang and the rules for this reason
- np- 4y ago
  Never implied that you are a shill at all. Just that I have noticed a common theme on HackerNews where people tend to comment as if they "know it all" (and maybe you do, how do I know). I just want to make aware that this article writer has earned credibility, and as a layman I am much more willing to put a higher weight on the article than a rando taking it down and calling it garbage based on what doesn't seem to be any special insight into the situation.