Sometimes -- those times when you're breaking entirely new ground with a thing, when you're starting with just a vague vision of where the thing might go -- slow is better. Slow gives you time to understand the effects of what you've already done and the possibilities that affords.
I guess it depends on whether you're looking to achieve something unique and truly new, or just "get rich fast".
if we lived in utopia the software could be open source, so that everyone who wants a feature can contribute. Best would be when it can easily be self hosted
I’m also of the opinion my paid chatgpt responses have been lower quality.
However users going on multi page rants is so bad. I read 30% through and its like “dude stop”
Its a product and you pay for it, if its not working then express the feedback and move on. Making demands of OpenAI like it is some elected government agency with transparency requirements is outrageous
They deposited 3B with this bank for the specific purpose of it being a safe place.
Their 10B in cash was spread over 6 banks to diversify the bank risk.
They have plenty of higher risk investments in their treasury, but these ones were the safe ones intentionally put into banks with insurance. If the government protection wasn't there the investment would’t have been there in the first place
> 10B in cash was spread over 6 banks to diversify the bank risk
This is nonsense Treasury management. Fidelity spreads checking account deposits across twenty-six banks to reach $3mm FDIC coverage [1]. Beyond sweep, Circle’s assets should be in short-term, on-the-run Treasuries, repos and commercial paper.
These funds appear to be specifically for short term redemptions, if they turn over 3B in redemption's every 7 days then how are they meant to keep less then that in the banks
Hence the government protection should be partial. Mostly just making sure SVB's assets are used to lessen the impact of the closure. If that results in Circle getting pennies on the dollar then so be it.
> Mostly just making sure SVB's assets are used to lessen the impact of the closure
That's standard practice.
Money from liquidation goes first to insured deposits, then what remains goes to uninsured deposits, then to pay other debts, and finally if anything is left, to shareholders.
Looks like here it will only cover insured deposits and substantial fraction of uninsured deposits.
Yeah, some think that substantial fraction will be 100%. We'll see!
I don't want to give Circle one cent of bailout money, though. And their post is saying that they are owed a full bailout because they participated in the bank run on the day of the bank run, and also begging for a full bailout. Pretty pathetic.
>And their post is saying that they are owed a full bailout because they participated in the bank run on the day of the bank run, and also begging for a full bailout.
> $3.3bn of USDC’s cash reserves remain with SVB. As of Thursday, we had initiated transfers of these funds to other banking partners. Though these transfers had not yet been settled as of close of business Friday, we remain confident in the FDIC’s management of the SVB situation and stand ready to receive these funds.
The part where they said that because they participated in the bank run that they should keep it all, presumably even if others who didn't participate in the bank run lose some of theirs:
> We have reason to believe that under applicable FDIC policy, transfers initiated prior to a bank entering receivership would have otherwise been processed normally. In other words, the FDIC should allow transactions to settle in the ordinary course through the end of a bank’s standard daily processing cycle until the FDIC takes control of the failed institution.
"transfers initiated prior to a bank entering receivership" is doing a lot of work here.
No, that doesn't work. It has to be a person whose job is specifically to watch you. A coworker or a subordinate - that's not their job. And frankly that would be inappropriate for them to do that, especially if they were a subordinate.
The counter point is everything he said is well known and discussed within the web3 circles, nothing he mentioned was ground breaking.
In general speakers who are talk about their solutions to problems are interesting, while speakers who take a defeatist attitude of course are going to get ignored.
So you are saying there are solutions to these problems? Because, if there are, this is the first I'm hearing anything about it. I've had a lot of "NFT game items are never going to be a thing" kind of arguments and not once have heard a compelling argument for them. Are you just keeping the answers a secret, or something?
Dunno. Say you bought a bored ape nft, it would be possible for different virtual worlds to let you have that look for your avatar in the game. The bored ape people would probably have to pay something to the world operators for them to implement it but it doesn't seem impossible and might be kinda fun.
rather, if there is no solution to a problem, or at least an attempt to solve the problem, then it's not worth the discussion. maybe proving that a problem is unsolvable is useful, but failing that there is nothing new being added
Based on the article, his critique and analysis of in-game NFT usage was pretty shallow and not very technical. I think there would be many ways to synchronize blockchain NFTs into game items, make them disappear from the game (with some delay) when the NFT is transferred to someone else, etc. I can imagine there would be many practical problems to solve, but real critique should be based on how someone actually tried to implement all this and failed. Otherwise it's really just an imaginary strawman argument.
Every once in a while a crypto conference invites a skeptic to speak, I guess to show they are open to criticism. It doesn’t benefit anyone. Crypto holders have already heard everyone “con” argument, and whether you agree or not just depends on your priors.
I signed up for https://infrequent.app/ when it was a Show HN just to try it out and it actually worked (probably about as well as a "non-busy" TODO in my calendar app with an alert). Enough to remind me to call 1 or 2 people that I like to talk to but often leave for too long, anyway.
This was my exact thoughts too! surely human beings from the 21st century could have improved on this.
However I'm also pretty sure that lawyers have found a loophole to prevent their jobs from being automated, if you just make using technology illegal/"not to standard" then they can keep billing $500 per hour to use a typewriter
FYI whoever down voted this, no they generally don't. They have staff they pay to do that and they look docs over before signing them. That is when they aren't using generic templates that the paralegals just fill out
As an accountant it somewhat irks me to open an “annual report” and it only to contain one page related to financials and mostly taken up by a single pie chart.
Gatekeeping is bad, but these annual PR pieces are trying to ride the good reputation that annual reports containing audited financials have.
On a side note the graphic design in this is amazing
As a non-accountant, I never assumed an "annual report" was the same as an "annual financial report," especially for a non-profit org.
If the purpose of your organization is to make money, then I can see a company's annual report needing to have detailed financials. Most readers will be interested in those details, given it is a corporation. But I don't think a non-profit's annual report needs more detailed financials that they gave in this one, because their purpose to improve the world, provide a public service, etc., and staying financially sustainable is just a means to that end.
If they had released an "annual financial report" like this, I could see your point.
Everyone says they are on board with supporting the little guys, until they hit bugs and start complaining.