SilasX

52 ms·

841.
by SilasX 4y ago
You might add a fourth circle for “what the world needs” (or, a more relaxed standard, “what is not actively harmful/promoting negative sum games”): https://themindfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09&#x2F
842.
by SilasX 4y ago
Coincidentally, in 2005, the same university blocked all emails from a dating site (LonghornSingles) on grounds of spam. The site filed a lawsuit against the block saying they couldn’t block the site entirely since it complied with CAN SPAM
843.
by SilasX 4y ago
Then I guess framing it in the most inflammatory way possible doesn’t make it more bad either, right?
844.
by SilasX 4y ago
lol this is flagged (and I can't seem to vouch) but the parent is a PR employee of Stripe and didn't disclose that until challenged.
845.
by SilasX 4y ago
Yes, but that means the the scheme as a whole is valuable, not that a loss can rightly be called a "valuable commodity". See the follow-up[1]. This is like those Saturday morning commercials that say Cocoa-puffs is part of a bal
846.
by SilasX 4y ago
I got that part. But look at the quote: The article is attempting to explain the benefit of the tax scheme by saying that it reduces into components that are valuable in themselves -- "valuable commodities". The scheme works a
847.
by SilasX 4y ago
>>You’ve found a risk-free way to generate two valuable commodities: short-term losses and long-term gains. A loss is not valuable. Edit: see my follow-up comment before you make another post re-explaining the scheme. The point is it&
848.
by SilasX 4y ago
I wasn’t claiming that ignorance of the law is a defense. I was just speaking to the issue of inconsistent behavior in warning one but not the other. See the thread up to that comment — the relevance will be more clear in context.
849.
by SilasX 4y ago
Late follow-up: Tyler Winkelvoss, co-founder of Gemini, is claiming that the SEC was in active discussion over most of the time the Earn program was around, and never warned about the possibility of selling unregistered securities: https:&
850.
by SilasX 4y ago
Yeah I thought that was interesting. But are there counter examples to the trend? SBF-hostile media that aren’t on the list, or SBF-friendly media that are?
851.
by SilasX 4y ago
>Sadly en passant (the funny move) is not implemented yet because I have no idea how it would work. That's ... straighforward enough, I think? En passant exists because it feels unfair that a pawn could use its double-move (here, &g
852.
by SilasX 4y ago
To clarify, my latest comment didn’t mean to say they weren’t warned. Just the opposite: since they’re being charged now, that contradicts my earlier comment’s assumption that the SEC hadn’t been warning Gemini somehow. Also, I don’t think
853.
by SilasX 4y ago
Related: Some people (such as me[1], shamefully) were asking why the SEC was warning Coinbase that its interest-yielding program would be an unregistered security[2], but not doing the same for Gemini's identical product. Disclosure: I
854.
by SilasX 4y ago
I honestly don't know what to think, on the FTX US issue. Another US-regulated subsidiary of FTX, LedgerX[1], remained solvent and had not let SBF gamble customer assets, and was (somewhat famously) left out of the bankruptcy[2]. And I
855.
by SilasX 4y ago
>Last week right after he pleaded not guilty, he filed an objection in the FTX bankruptcy case arguing that the Robinhood shares he purchased with money borrowed from Alameda are his personal assets. I don't know if you were referri
856.
by SilasX 4y ago
Yep, I made a comment a while back about the difference between a true 10xer and a “cowboy coder” 10xer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18462325
857.
by SilasX 4y ago
Okay, but none of that translates into the "unusually high counterparty risk" you were talking about before. That's just regular unprofitability risk.
858.
by SilasX 4y ago
> On implies that despite being an accident it was somehow intentional. Sorry, that doesn’t seem inherent to the preposition “on”. > By implies some process not within your control. “We’ll do it, by hook or by crook.” Also, it’s odd t
859.
by SilasX 4y ago
I get the problem with “I could care less” (taken literally, it’s the opposite of what they meant), but what’s wrong with “on accident”? It’s just an arbitrary convention that the common expression is “by accident”, and the other one makes
860.
by SilasX 4y ago
Coincidentally, the exchange Gemini (operating in the US along other countries under a NY state Bitlicense) just started listing it, after holding out for a while. I don’t have a public link to announcement, but it shows up on their currenc
861.
by SilasX 4y ago
>The racial and ethnic slant is also hard to miss. If the NYC underground economy is indeed the only thing keeping minorities afloat, that means the economy is dependent on exploiting minority communities (keeping them working in illegal
862.
by SilasX 4y ago
I was a first date with a woman from a dating site who unleashed her opinions on how unfair it is that the rich evade taxes, and then later dropped that she was in such an arrangement where she rented a spot at a hair salon and was paid ent
863.
by SilasX 4y ago
> Like the way the short works is you put in $20 usdc, borrow $100usdt, transform it to $120usdc. But those $120usdc can’t leave the platform as otherwise you could just never pay back the $100usdt loan. Huh? With the way Compound and Aa
864.
by SilasX 4y ago
This comment[1] addresses counterparty risk better than I can: the risk is just that, in a crash, the collateral backing the USDC loans can't be liquidated fast enough. But remember, you're already borrowing 80% of the collateral
865.
by SilasX 4y ago
Yes, I do -- you can look at how the borrow rate varies with the fraction of available tokens borrowed, e.g.: https://compound.finance/markets/USDT It saturates at a pretty low level. I have no idea what you mean by th
866.
by SilasX 4y ago
So, what's the mechanism there? You've got a smartcontract that robotically executes its code, and USDC collateral that lives on it and derives its value from US Govt Treasurys and some level of conventional-market oversight. How
867.
by SilasX 4y ago
I got that part. But the claim here would be that your USDC collateral would go to zero. Yes, USDC is "a crypto" and if you lump it in with all crypto, you will casually think it will magically go to zero too, despite being back
868.
by SilasX 4y ago
Did we ... need proof of this concept? Here's a thread just on this forum, from over a year ago, explaining exactly how to short Tether via the trade the author is "proving": https://news.ycombinator.com/ite
869.
by SilasX 4y ago
Some of the crypto platforms are scam[1], but no one seriously claims Aave Or Compound, the defi borrowing platforms you can do this with, are scams. There is, of course, always the risk of unforeseen bugs that prevent withdrawls, or cras
870.
by SilasX 4y ago
Yeah I was going to say these are ridiculously small numbers to try the bet with -- each of those transactions mentioned was around $3 worth of ETH, which adds up fast. I wouldn't try something like this for less than $5k.

More ›