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...
"CYPHERPUNK ZERO
Inspired by Zcash and Halo cryptography, the Cypherpunk Zero Creative Universe is a collaborative effort between ECC [2], illustrator Stranger Wolf [3] and select ecosystem partners. Consisting of a forthcoming series of webcomics, NFTs [1] and physical collectibles, the project explores the relationship between privacy, self-sovereignty and creative freedom."
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.
"The Reporting Person intends to review his investment in the Issuer on a continuing basis. Depending on the factors discussed herein, the Reporting Person may, from time to time, acquire additional shares of Common Stock and/or retain and/or sell all or a portion of the shares of Issuer common stock held by the Reporting Person in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions, and/or may distribute the Common Stock held by the Reporting Person to other entities." [1]
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?
"SWIFT does not facilitate funds transfer: rather, it sends payment orders, which must be settled by correspondent accounts that the institutions have with each other."[...] While SWIFT transports financial messages in a secure manner, it does not hold accounts for its members; nor does it perform any form of clearing or settlement.[1]
Both Bitcoin and Ethereum can perform the settlement of transactions. Ethereum currently has support for complex financial transactions with Smart Contracts. A SWIFT replacement could include settlement on chain, but on-chain transactions for SWIFT type co-ordination is probably too expensive with Bitcoin and Ethereum without the use of L2 and Lightning Network support for the co-ordination feature of SWIFT.
If this were done, it would only succeed if the smart contracts are open source, formally verified and audited by a third party. While Taproot adds tapscript support[2] to bitcoin, there still remains the development of sophisticated financial products.
As a net exporter of Energy products, Russia would probably lean more towards Bitcoin or other PoW protocols, as their customers could run mining operations with the energy they are buying. This would exclude Ethereum when the PoS merge occurs.
They had an opportunity in Q3-Q4 2021 to deliver what their customers were asking for, and that was the ability to buy and sell Shiba Inu (SHIB) token[1].
It is sort of funny as SHIB is evolving into a complete ecosystem, and will outlast Robinhood...
Feedback is uncompensated consultation.
Freely telling someone why they are failing does not benefit you.
Whether it benefits the overall industry in general, could be a net zero as you are then demonstrating a willingness to give away expertise for free.
Mike Shinoda is a musician (formerly with Linkin Park) and he released a generative NFT for his rap mix tape [1].
You can listen to or view any of the NFTs online without restriction. Buyers of the tokens support Mike with Royalties on each sale, and in consideration holders have received a follow on airdrop. This is a connection between the fan and the artist. To answer your question, the buyers want to record that connection to the artist. What else emerges remains to be seen...
You can request a test to confirm your level of Vitamin D. If you get the test make sure it is the right one! 25 (OH) stays in the blood longer, so this is the more accurate test. (half life of 3 weeks in your blood).
Many experts recommend a level of at least 30 ng/ml ... some actually suggest that 50 ng/ml is recommended.
The scale on the test results is: Interpretive Data: Deficiency: <10 ng/mL Insufficiency: 10 to 30 ng/mL Sufficiency: 30 to 100 ng/mL Toxicity: >100 ng/mL
"The majority of 25-OH vitamin D (25-D) in the circulation is derived from the conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin that is irradiated with ultraviolet radiation in the UVB range (wavelength 290 nm to 315 nm).1-5 The extent of vitamin D formation is not tightly controlled and depends primarily on the duration and intensity of the UV irradiation. Levels produced typically reach a plateau within 30 minutes of exposure." [1]
"Vitamin D insufficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (blacks) than other Americans and, in North America, most young, healthy blacks do not achieve optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at any time of year." [2]
Your equity is at stake. You have been warned. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Meeting with the investors is a mistake, your equity in the company is in jeopardy. If you do not make plans to protect it you will lose. I told you to look at Paul Allen. Same scenario, three founders, one almost squeezed out.
You are being setup. You are one of three founders, so you are in the minority. They may be looking for a way to revoke your shares. I would consult an attorney / estate planner and make sure your stake is untouchable. (see Balmer / Gates and Paul Allen for what could happen). The investors want less founder allocation as well so everyone is going to try to get your allocation nullified.
You are in a no-win situation, other than preserving your equity. Any short term victory vs the CEO will be short lived. "Win the battle-Lose the war..." The war here is to walk away with your sweat equity in the company. Being nice, or making someone else be "nice" is not a win.