tannerbrockwell

We know that spam plagues email due to resistance to paid delivery. The only path forward for social networks is some sort of paid tier or ability to 'slash' participants that have staked something of value. We know that the general populace refuses to pay for message delivery, so I am not too optimistic we could prevent what you descried. LLMs may have effectively nerfed any value free agents could derive from social platforms. The risk is that some sort of positive reinforcement feedback loop occurs where the bots start interacting with each other, radicalization and derailment is also a possibility.

Stories like this are why ultimately all payments will transition to crypto based and self custody. Having your livelihood at the whim of an algorithm is not only not cool. It is not sustainable. None of the legacy payment rails can be trusted to run without interruption. This includes Stripe, paypal and even the expected FedNOW service being introduced next year.

What is there to negotiate, you're leaving. Make a stand, tell your team you are resigning. Worst case, the other three members of your team resign as well, where does that leave the enterprise...

patio11 has been pretty opposed to crypto in general. I have numerous issues with the stablecoin concept. Neither UST or USDT interested me.

Maker has a pretty well tested tech in DAI, and Reflexer.finance updated this with RAI. My biggest misgiving about stables is they are able to allow whales and other large players to acquire huge amounts of cryptos during down cycles with very little explanation of how the funds were created. Tether appears to print new Tether's on a whim, and how or what backs them is completely opaque.

A crypto purist should have very little use for stables other than as an explicitly entered short against the shakier stables.

Tether and USDC both have blocklist capability. USDC has been critiqued on this as it adds additional gas requirements to every transaction.

I expect further regulatory clamp down on big names such as Tether, and certainly USDC.

The decentralized ones such as DAI and RAI may fare better, but if the Treasury really wanted to lean on exchanges they could.

patio11 has a long term bias against crypto. When investing beware of inherent biases. Betting against yourself can be an advantageous move. A position taken out in BTC or ETH is acquiring a deflationary asset, if you believe that the US Government ever intends to retire the national debt, I have a bridge to sell you. All they can do is inflate or default. Under such circumstances, an asset that is finite and deflationary will appreciate in USD terms. Also SBF is pretty obviously just a snake oil salesman. He will have positioned himself to benefit maximally from a crash, which does not mean that we will not continue a long term bull run.

An organization that depends on honesty during an exit interview is already failed. This is not your time to vent, nor is it constructive to give criticisms. Say your thanks, shake the hands and move on. Anything else is uncompensated consulting.

Betting against tether is not only betting against the long term growth of crypto currencies increasing in value, it is betting that regulatory overhang will drag the value of tether down from its supposed dollar peg.

We can and should imagine a bank holiday is possible where you cannot spend or withdraw from a bank. This is the possible scenario with Tether, the tether token contract can be locked for any address, this includes exchanges. An asset that is illiquid, may function as a line item in a ledger, and if it cannot be traded or moved the market will vanish. The chaos this would cause would be devastating.

Tether is one of the crypto stable coins that have a blacklist feature that freezes the asset in a wallet to prevent transfer and this is dangerous. What would happen if Tether froze all the centralized exchange's hot and cold wallets? What would happen if they did this to liquidity pools?