nrmitchi

22 ms·

241.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
> It was his opinion at the time that my supporting evidence was too flimsy to waste the time of the people who make the big bucks and that I should gather more evidence before we escalated. > Eventually I got to a point where I did n
242.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
I don’t think anyone reads about Fords (for example) manual and thinks “oh wow, I don’t even have to have to pay attention and have my hands on the wheel!”. The fact that it’s a big enough problem for Tesla that they have to monitor it, and
243.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
Because at the moment the only real alternative is “dying”?
244.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
I have literally tried exactly this before, and apparently my not having a phone to contact anyone wasn’t actually the officers problem.
245.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
That’s a bit disingenuous; of course no company can make a 100% guarantee. There is still a huge difference between “this is the only round of layoffs, we will grow past this” (when this is the true intent) and “that’s all for this week. We
246.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
If it’s known it’s a single round, it’s easier for everyone remaining to not look around. When a second round breaks that trust though, all bets are off.
247.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
If a company has raised more than $50M though, does that immediately cross “$50M in gross assets” anyways? Obviosuly that’s different than a valuation, but that would immediately disqualify Bolt.
248.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
> I've never seen the technology used on any website, and I am a frequent online shopper. I went down this rabbit hole last month. While not directly related to the current topic, it might help explain why you've "never se
249.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
> They didn't overhire compared to the initial plan... Frankly I don't care what their plan was if they "planned" to spend ~350M in 2 years while making 10-40M in annual revenue while getting sued by their largest cus
250.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
Well sure, but the QSBS exemption cutoff is literally 220x less than the valuation Bolt was trying to see this on.
251.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
It’s kind of different when that decision is saying to your boss “Naww, I don’t think I’m going to take the offer that the CEO was bragging about on Twitter. I guess I just don’t believe in the company enough.” It may not be perfectly valid
252.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
I was under the impression that that acquisition (along with their previous ones) was all stock, but apparently it was a mix. In hindsight, that seems like a poor decision.
253.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
From what I'm seeing they had ~550 employees as of the beginning of this year (~4 months ago). This was up from ~270 in Sept 2021 (~4 months prior). I would find it very hard to believe they have increased their headcount by 900% (~450
254.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
Oh I didn't, but I (shockingly) didn't think it was relevant here in comparison to the $355M dollars that they recently raised. Even an expensive lawsuit would be unlikely to put a big enough dent in that to materially affect thei
255.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
1) "Multiple rounds" is basically the worst possible way to do layoffs. 2) Based on their recent fundraise (and assuming that they had 0 dollars at that point), that's basically a burn rate of 25-30M/m. I'm not sure
256.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
The literal entire twitter thread where he was bragging about it and how great it was for "his employees". There is basically no way to read that thread where it doesn't sound like an encouragement.
257.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
First of all, there is no mention of what percentage of their workforce is being directly effected by this. I suspect it is not small. That aside, I fail to see this as anything other than this "company" taking advantage of the cu
258.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
“No honey, I did not lose the house in a poker game. I know exactly where it is, the only difference is that Bob owns it now”. The statement is kind of true if you want to be very disingenuous to what people actually care about. Also, As fa
259.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
I'd have a hard time trusting their current documentation which seems to have been heavily edited since this whole incident began, but frankly the subheader on their main landing page is "Stablegains makes it simple to earn high a
260.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
Yupp that was it. I guess that's the better result here. I updated the the parent comment with the correct urls
261.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
oh. my. god. Everyone pour one out for u/ushakov, hero of the hour: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31462674
262.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
This works sometimes , but banks don't want to be overexposed (even if something is very low risk). There's the old saying "If you own the bank $1m, that's your problem, but if you owe the bank $100M, that's the ba
263.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
Both of those were good to, but I didn't include them because both are either "expectations", or a reference to someone else's expectation/statement, and are not definitive statements.
264.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
Well 15% monthly woud be ~535% annual and at that point you're well past "highly unlikely" and into "I'm printing money in my 20k sqft basement" territory.
265.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
> careful to not make any explicit claims of safety (eg. "your principal is protected", or "you won't lose money"). These are both explicit examples of explicit claims of safety that are still up on their documen
266.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
Further little notes from their documentation that, lets just say, "downplay the risk": - "You will not lose your funds because all loans are 100% asset-backed." ( https://stablegains.zendesk.com/hc/e
267.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
The "intent" that is necessary is the intent to benefit from the known misrepresentation, which in this case Stablegains did by obtaining investment from these customers. It would be ludicrous to suggest that Stabelgains needed to
268.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
Thank you! I was looking for that image (which I'd seen before) but couldn't find it. Will be interesting to hear the argument "Well technically there were no surprises here, because customers should not be surprised when the
269.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
> While we have informed users that there are no absolute guarantees against risks I'm... uh.... fairly certain this was not the crux of their marketing which severly downplayed the underlying risk. There is also a huge spectrum bet
270.
by nrmitchi 4y ago
> Inspired by the possibilities across DeFi, our aim was to go beyond Anchor and to integrate with multiple protocols so that users could have easy access to multiple tools and allocate their assets across all of them based on their judg

More ›