imagine writing a post explaining that after careful deliberation you're no longer copying and pasting your posts from one website to another and trying to pass that off as strategy
these laws are feckless and unenforceable, maximal non-compliance will expose that
the destiny you're describing only happens if you willingly accept it
do not comply
do not pay the fine
idiot geriatric lawmakers have no power over what you do with your computer
sometimes you wonder if people have become so thoroughly captured by the status quo they can no longer even conceive of a monetary system existing that is not entirely dependent on custodians acting on someone's behalf
it's not the developers of bitcoin's fault your entire reg compliance apparatus was constructed on requiring intermediaries
>but the newer generation are using it to get more creative.
Without spending half the time beat matching, they now have time to interact with the tracks more - play with stems, loops, filters, fx, scratching etc.
>It’s becoming more of a live performance
while this is true in theory, i find that sometimes the new tools end up becoming a crutch making djs extremely boring
the extra time freed up from not having to concentrate on beatmatching etc. is replaced with nothing
a lot of the time i have no idea what people are even doing they may as well just be playing a playlist from spotify
whereas i can generally discern what a vinyl dj is doing, and watching someone like jeff mills dig through piles of records & spinning 3 decks while being on the edge of trainwrecking has a kind of energy and tension that gets lost and is not replicable with newer technology
it's sorta like someone being able to sing really well naturally vs someone with autotune
that being said i've still seen amazing sets from digital djs or people with interesting live setups
Have to wait for a post-mortem, but there was some speculation from Ben earlier in his spaces.
They used a gnosis safe which is a smart contract multi-sig wallet that is pretty much the gold standard for Ethereum.
They believed that all of the signers' pcs were hacked and that the UI for signing was staged with a fake element to make it appear like a normal transfer.
They were signing with hardware wallets, but it's hard to verify what you're signing from a ledger typically.
What they ended up signing instead was an upgrade to the smart contract giving control of the gnosis safe to the hacker who then drained it.
Luna/UST was a completely degenerate & risky design; they were allowing 1:1 redemptions between the value of Luna in USD & the UST stablecoin.
As the market cap of Luna skyrocketed it allowed for the minting of massive quantities of UST, and then as the price of Luna declined the value of the tokens backing UST was less than what was in circulation and contributed to the death spiral.
No amount of demand for Luna block space was ever going to keep this thing pegged. The only thing defending it was open market moves from extremely well capitalized trading desks which is uh decidedly not "algorithmic" nor "decentralized".
There's other stable coins with similar mechanisms like Synthetix / SUSD which are also risky, but AT LEAST in their case they require 400% overcollateralization in SNX to mint SUSD.
What's shocking is how many people, who ostensibly should be in the top 1% in terms of finance IQ, (e.g., Mike Novogratz, Raoul Pal, etc.) were seemingly unaware of these risks and never examined how it worked while shilling it to retail investors.
Something that rarely gets addressed in these discussions is why Ethereum even has fee market to begin with instead of a cheap FIFO model which ideally would be more fair.
To answer that I would invite anyone to try using a blockchain under heavy load without any way for users to prioritize transactions. What you will find is the network becomes vulnerable to transaction spamming; possibly to point of breaking consensus making it so nobody can transact at all.
MEV is a consequence of a design decision to address this. And that's not to say Ethereum has everything figured out and a better FIFO model can't solve this, but afaik this is the current state of things.
The source(s) of the yield they were promising were extremely dubious and unsafe, the same can be said for Celsius.
When they tell you your crypto is being lent to "institutional investors" what they really mean to say is they're gambling with your crypto in defi protocols, and you can see this happening on-chain.
It's refreshing to see someone actually roll up their sleeves and not immediately descend into reactionary takes.
The criticism here is excellent; I think something people outside of this space never see is that despite all the boosterism there are web3/crypto proponents who have been airing these same exact grievances for some time now, particularly regarding metamask, infura, ipfs, & opensea, but there's alternatives to all of these.
Decentralization is a spectrum, and while I think Moxie's probably right in that this all trends towards consolidation, at the same time there's founders trying to to change course and move in the opposite direction, Joe Lubin being among them.
I totally get why people stay away from this stuff, but I've found the best way to understand what is going on in this space and what it potentially has to offer is to actually use it and experiment with it which is something any naturally inquisitive person would do. The quality of journalism (which as far as I can tell many are relying on to form opinions) surrounding anything crypto or "web 3" related has been astonishingly lazy and just flat out bad for a long time.