Hacker News Reader

Comment by boredumb | Hacker News Reader

While I partly agree on asserting they're suitable for a job, actually employing them is entirely different. If someone has access to proprietary information/IP/Assets/etc, I don't want a pseudonym and a bitcoin transaction receipt when any of those go missing or an employee used my infrastructure to commit crimes and the feds are now asking me questions and my only answer is 0xPersona that I met on anon.com whom I pay with crypto.

View on HN

Absolutely! I would just posit that the organizations listed on the site seem to be handling this somehow (for now). I myself would be really curious as to how.

As a general tip:

Trusting that someone doing something markedly unusual is "handling it somehow" is a great way to get some ugly surprises later. Companies do things wrong all the time and in many cases you can find yourself liable for their mistakes/abuses in some way or another. Sometimes at great cost. Obviously, you need to trust every employer/client to some degree, but you'll benefit yourself by developing a sense for what smells fishy.

Unregistered, anonymous work in a world of borders, worker protections, and taxes smells like the dumpster behind a Red Lobster. You don't have to rule out an opportunity that interests you, but do be careful!

Paying an anonymous person in crypto doesn't sound much different from slipping that same person an envelope of unmarked bills to do some work. Which is something people with fiduciary responsibility at a company are not going to generally sign off on.

The bills are much less traceable and petty cash exists for a reason, but the point stands.

No, you're definitely right! I definitely wouldn't feel confident saying they're handling it well, because I just don't know how they're handling it! But I do hope to bring some of this info to light. I think it's an area that deserves attention and discussion :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com