RaketenStadt

Good to know. Can you explain the difference between a permissionless transaction and the economic theory of supply and demand?

> Every "permissionless transaction" is an action of supplying and demanding.

Of course it's not, it's simply a transaction; it doesn't need to be between two separate parties. I don't think you understand Bitcoin as well as you believe, you have it confused with an economic theory.

Reading "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" will do you good.

> Give the public open data about the effectiveness of the vaccine

and done: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

> then let people make their own decisions about what to do

As we see, they go to crowded places, unvaccinated, and spread the virus. I think that's irresponsible. Is that "ludicrous moralization and judgement?"

Your dev team needs meetings? Sounds pretty disorganized.

Our team is productive, manages their time well, and communicates without meetings. Did anyone actually need a meeting, ever?

Posted a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27934539

No, the values are the "full-flowering date" not the "first"

> I’m a climate change denier

> I don't deny it

So, you're not a climate change denier

According to paragraph 3 of TFA it's not collateralized similarly

> Other on-chain stablecoins like DAI are over-collateralised. For every $1 of DAI, there’s ~$1.75 worth of crypto assets in the DAI system.

No, this isn't a Ponzi scheme. That's the only thing I've said. I think you believe "Ponzi scheme" and "scheme" are interchangeable.

Usually the go-to lazy catchphrase is "we're just arguing semantics!" but "semantic definitions" is new.

So why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"

>I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes.

Do you know who Charles Ponzi was or why Ponzi schemes are named after him?

Do you know what he did or what Bernie Madoff did? They operated the Ponzi scheme. That's why they were a critical part.

This money really was going into the smart contract, wasn't directly given to old investors, wasn't being siphoned directly into the operator's pocket, all unlike a Ponzi.

You don't know what a Ponzi is and you're trying to save face, I get it.

> $272 million worth of USDC is still locked up in in the contract. Why hasn’t everyone recovered their 74 cents?

Why didn't the masterminds behind this scheme walk away with that cash? Because it was a mistake. Not a genius scheme being run in the shadows.

A definition so broad it's meaningless. There was no Bernie Madoff here, no fraudulent scheme, just very poor design and outright mistakes.

What you're describing is what they tried (and failed) to avoid. How can you make it to the "I’m wondering if this can last mathematically?" part of this article and still think there's a mastermind behind all of this?

Why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"

Either:

    1. I'm trying to dodge the label "Ponzi scheme" for a reason you haven't provided (maybe you think I have millions invested in this shitcoin?)
    2. This isn't a Ponzi scheme, and you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is

Which explanation is simpler?

Then you didn't look at wikipedia which mentions "the con artist" and "the operator of the scheme" several times.

If you're having to google the definition of the term maybe there's still a little more you need to learn about it.

Bernie Madoff went to prison for fraud, what would "an honest Ponzi scheme" even mean?

I think a lot of people saw The Wizard of Lies and "Ponzi scheme" is the only financial scheme they're familiar with, so it gets thrown around a LOT.

No, much different, in a Ponzi scheme you're fraudulently claiming that the high returns you're delivering your old investors are real, and result from your investing acumen, when in fact they aren't real, they're just money from new investors that was never invested in the first place.

They are comparable in one way however.

No, much different, in a Ponzi scheme you're fraudulently claiming that the high returns you're delivering your old investors are real, and result from your investing acumen, when in fact they aren't real, they're just money from new investors that was never invested in the first place.

This is more like if you bought a lot of dollar bills that were 75% backed by gold and %25 backed by Dogecoin. They are comparable in that both keep working as long as no one tries to cash out, and money keeps coming in.

There are a number of important differences, in fact the only meaningful comparison is that they are selling shares to the public.

The title is wrong, there is no IPO. Presumably "IPO" is meant as "public offering." If there's a place to be specific about these things, isn't this thread it?

No I'm not. The font-size for most text on the site is 10pt and 9pt.

Zoom doesn't fix line lengths of 1500 characters and terrible color contrast.

The link to the site guidelines is 7pt with a contrast that fails WCAG 2.0. No wonder no one reads them.

The font-size on HN is barely readable, I'm working on an accessible skin for the HN frontend that addresses this.

I'm targeting WCAG 2.0. Keep an eye out for the "Show HN" coming soon!