aitrean

> DeFi on Ethereum is replicating the existing financial system, so by criticizing this, you're essentially also criticizing the legacy financial system.

Checkmate nOcOiNeRs. If you criticize my pyramid scheme network, you're actually criticizing the complex global financial system, because r/ethereum told me they're basically one in the same.

How many mortgages are settled at any level of the "financial stack" with DeFi? None.

How many bond payments have been paid out at any level of the "financial stack" with DeFi? None.

How many registered securities have been traded with DeFi handling any level of the "financial stack"? None.

If you want to use your "financial stack" metaphor, DeFi is like using a bluetooth smart dildo bootloader as the back end for a full stack web application. Sure, the stack you speak of exists, but there is nowhere that any programmer would ever seriously think to put that thing.

Stop arguing semantics and actually point to a legitimate use-case that someone outside the crypto space would have for DeFi (even if it is at a "lower level" of the fin stack).

This is true. I did write that hastily, and therefore mis-used ad-hominem.

> I'm genuinely surprised that the HN community thinks a toxic comment like this is upvote-worthy

Is this a̶d̶-̶h̶o̶m̶i̶n̶e̶m̶ [EDIT: attack] really necessary? I'm sharing a thought about the ridiculous nature of bay area hustle culture.

> Contrast this to what the author actually said: "Optimizing learning over money early in your career.

Contrast that to what she goes on to say in the article itself. She laments on how she missed out on Uber stock rising by not ditching Apple sooner. She then pulls a figure out of thin-air about how much net worth you're going to lose by "wasting" your career on any given year by not following her arbitrary framework for self-worth.

"Optimizing learning over money early in your career" would bear far more weight if she actually used an example like going into academia, or joining a tiny startup with low pay. Going from one 150k+ position to another 150k+ position with (gasp) lower performing stocks (!!) is hardly a sacrifice. Moreover, she speaks as if she already knew Uber stock was going to go down when she joined. Uber happened to tank Apple happened to rise. But she acts like she factored that into her decision before she left Apple.

I'm genuinely surprised some people still can't recognize how absolutely out-of-touch it sounds to lament over a "wasted" year of career at Apple, while most of the world is just trying to get by. Likewise, claiming you stopped finding opportunities to learn anything at Apple after only 6 months sounds like self-inflating bullshit.

So, I hope I have eased your surprise. It's toxic to tell people that they're wasting their career by valuing stability and work-life balance over weird learning frameworks, and net-worth. It's not toxic to call out such privileged fools for doing so.

Ugh. The mind of a narcissist on full display here.

Want to have a comfortable position with decent growth opportunities over time, and fair compensation? You must be some bottom-feeding moron who doesn't understand that [Unicorn Co]'s valuation just rose 4x YoY.

Think you can be happy at a company like Apple making six figures while unemployment is at record levels, and people are being bankrupted by hospital bills and shuttered businesses? clap emojis THINK ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL BRAND. This girl learned everything Apple had to teach her in 6 months. You can't possibly expect to just switch departments, or ask for more responsibilities to continue learning anything at a company like that!

It's incredible how insulated developers in the Bay Area can be. I would love to see how quickly all of this advice falls apart for an engineer in Portland, or Minneapolis, or just about any country besides the United States, where six-figure software jobs aren't so easy to come by.

Glad that moronic speculation is over with. On to the next one!

Well that was a pile of hot garbage.

"Blockchain groups now exist at every major university in the world and the number of people who own some kind of crypto digital asset continues to rise."

The same could be said about alt-right cliques or communist groups, both of which are growing too. Not such a great metric for progress.

“The idea of cryptoeconomics becoming embedded in the 5G video and voice-AI internet is sort of inevitable.”

Really? I've got friends doing research and development related to those fields and they seem to have a very different view.

“Cryptoeconomics must be tethered...”

lol.

"...to and converge with the key exponential technologies of the future: quantum computing, machine learning, the Voice-AI interface, 3D printing, Biotechnology and whatever other important changes to human life occur from the intersection of technologies."

The rest of your article seems to be spewing incessant buzzwords without actually outlining any coherent argument or model for how this would actually work.

Finally, as much as I don't want to use ad hominem, it seems fairly unlikely that a content writer has any kind of professional knowledge of economics or technology to actually make any accurate predictions about the future of either field. Predicting the future of either field is extremely difficult, even for experts. Hand waving and claiming things as "inevitable" does not put you on the same level as a thought leader, it puts you on the same level as a cult preacher.

I think you just have a lot of pot shots to take against Tesla (most of which seem to have no precedent??), and want to project them onto this situation. This story relates to an internal email Musk sent around, telling staff to speak up about suspicious behaviour. It's not like he brought this to a shareholders meeting.

And they shouldn't. News should not be determined by its shareholders. The idea that such privileges should be able to be purchased is so incomprehensibly stupid, I'm at a loss for words.

>That's not an argument against building something...

At which point did I argue building things is bad? I actually took a lot of time to learn Ethereum smart contract development just to get to the bottom of the whole blockchain ecosystem. Learning and building are almost never bad things.

I'm not bashing the idea of competition between blockchain and traditional centralized authorities either. I'm extremely pro-competition. I'm bashing the fact that all - yes, all - blockchain applications provide negative value compared to their traditional counterparts. The argument that blockchain enthusiasts use to justify their support for such low-quality infrastructure is this philosophy that having no centralized authority is, by itself, valuable. This is what I'm bashing.

There's a fair point to be made there. But then I would ask which solution is best: lobbying hard enough to democratize the organizational structure of ICANN, creating a competitive ecosystem, or resorting exclusively to a ledger of entries with no capacity to be modified according to legalities, attacks, or otherwise? What if someone spams the ledger with too many names? What if someone takes domains that should be illegal for them to possess? What if someone takes someone else's private key? What if an organization gets their private key stolen? The vectors for exploitation don't just disappear because you have a decentralized system. The exploitative behaviour just changes.

Even if blockchain DNS systems were production quality - which they're far from - why is a 'central authority' inherently bad? The entirety of cloud computing, and the modern internet, is based on the pretense of giving your entire infrastructure to a centralized authority. "Oh, but what if your centralized cloud provider is actually evil and incompetent", the free markets allow you to change providers until you have a provider with absolute highest quality.